Founder of MA’s United Independent Party, Evan Falchuk remains optimistic but not blind. He knows polls have him in low single digits for the governor’s race, but has two clear goals. Sure he wants to win the top spot on Nov. 4, but he also craves 3% of the vote to make his UIP an official party for the next election.
This was is his second go on Left Ahead. Both times, he was plain about the unfair party/independent fund-raising and ballot-access rules. Without whining, he noted that the two recognized parties’ candidates have a 10:1 advantage. For example, Charlie Baker, the GOP nominee, can charge $30,0000 a couple at a fundraising dinner. Falchuk or the other two independents would be limited to $3,000 per year. We can debate whether a Falchuk or Jeff McCormick or Scott Lively would attract $15,000 per plate donors, but the limits are set up front.
Click below to listen in to Falchuk on his positions and campaign, in a 36-minute show.
The previous Falchuk show where he details his platform is here.
We spent a fair amount of time discussing the future of the UIP. Yes, he definitely expects to get his 3% this time and next. Yes, he envisions a full slate of statewide candidates, unlike the MA GOP.Yes, he has connected commonwealth-wide with numerous candidates eager to get in the game. Yes, he believes MA voters are disgruntled enough and savvy enough to support emerging alternative parties.
He has had his predictable elite-club struggles, and remains undaunted. Beyond funding rules, for example, MA’s biggest paper just ran a pathetic editorial trying to justify not inviting any of the three independent gubernatorial candidates to participate in its key televised debate; see that here. That referred to Falchuk, Jeff McCormick and Scott Lively (all qualified for the Nov. ballot) as “lesser” candidates, and wrote that voters deserved to hear only from the two most likely winners. Excuse me, Father God.
Likewise, Falchuk noted that the pollsters, including those commissioned by the paper were way off base on the recent primary. Don Berwick, Steve Grossman and Mark Fisher each did much better, at least 10% above the polls. There were no apologies from anyone.
To that issue, Falchuk is more sanguine than I about MA voters. he believes they may take awhile to pay attention but they get around to the big issues and can handle informed decisions. He also bemoaned the recent statewide 16% primary turnout. He believes candidates and voters alike are not inspired to participate anymore. That’s the entry he sees for his UIP.
Click above to hear him speak of Berwick’s b big ideas then quick switch to Martha Coakley supporter, Berwick supporters switch allegiance to him, Baker’s elitism, and other parties’ disdain for voters.
I ended praising him for being one of the few candidates who don’t pull out their index cards of talking points.
Funny, I was going to write about Falchuck today, but … work.
Is he seeking official recognition for the United Independent Party?
Do listen. He speaks candidly (his only mode apparently) about wanting the 3% to become an official MA party, as well as fielding a wider, broader field than the GOP.
His site suggested that he is basically a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist candidate which is the exact mix already occupied by the major party candidates as well as McCormick.
What we could really use is a Massachusetts version of the Vermont Progressive Party. In just ten years it has captured a Senate seat, the Auditor’s Office, and 5 seats in the Vermont legislature, and the mayoralty of the state’s largest city in Burlington, the majority of the city council in that city, and several local officials throughout the state. It held the balance of power in the legislature and was instrumental in getting Gov. Shumlin to pursue single payer.
This is exactly what a third party should be doing-winning elections at the local level, working their way up, and gradually becoming more and more competitive statewide. Bump has had a bumpy tenure at Auditor, and Galvin is no progressive stalwart-both could’ve been challenged from the left with little consequence resulting in at least the 3% threshold getting attained. A host of conservative Democrats from Miceli at the Rep level, Timilty at the Senate level, and Lynch at the Congressional level could also have been challenged.
And has been more than once, from the left.
But all of those challenges were in a Democratic primary. A Progressive challenge would give you an extra two months to campaign, an assurance of a spot on the ballot, and a way to attract the unenrolled who are fed up with both parties. Not saying it would be any more successful at toppling Lynch, but it would definitely help galvanize and party build.
Until we get IRV I hope challenges from the left come in the context of a Dem primary.
to organize with a population of 500,000.
Far harder to door knock when neighbors are so spread out and its one of the few states where the rural population outnumbers the urban. Obviously, its likely our most left leaning state, and had a history of electing independent lefties prior to the Progressive Party’s formation-but, definitely a model to consider. Its definitely two different challenges, but I wouldn’t say one is easier than the other.
I would be very interested in joining a Progressive Party in MA, but only if there was instant runoff voting first.
fusion voting, like in New York, might also also federal candidates like McGovern to be listed as candidates of both the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party.
Eventually, though if you have a single IRV election you could eliminate the primaries and many of the functions of political parties in one fell swoop.
Though a Progressive Party that ran a safe seat strategy would be something I would consider voting for from time to time. As it is I voted for Jill Stein when she ran against Galvin, voted for Luc Shuster as a Green to my school committee and have voted for Republican Fred Fantini on that same ballot. I have also voted for some minor party candidates in the past.
You can do this while still being a registered Democrat. I definitely intend to do that this year in IL for downballot races, and I applaud the Greens for running in every statewide race so I have a choice instead of machine pol vs. walker clone which seems to be the case up and down the ballot this year. Greens have a good shot in IL if they keep party building rather than throwing it in for Governor.
Do give a listen. He speaks clearly, does not repeat himself and does not rely on cliches or generalities. Falchuk is not one for gradualism or incrementalism.
His first Left Ahead show was mostly about his platform. However, this one touches on some of his big issues, like throttling hospital monopolies to control costs.
I don’t think he’d object to winning local offices, but he has a larger UIP agenda top to bottom.
I just got a lot of unity 08/No Labels/Bloomberg vibes from reading over its platform. No reason not to hope they can get ballot access, the more competitive our state wide democracy the better in my book. There should be an even split between a third party inclusive debate and a two party debate, I feel that way at the presidential level as well.
Bump and Galvin are being challenged from the left by Greens M K Merelice and Danny Factor, respectively. On a related note, and relevant to Falchuk’s mentioned complaints, Galvin’s office is blocking the challenger in MA-7 who collected the required signatures to get on the ballot.
I didn’t realize that, but this is exactly what the Greens should be doing. If I was still registered in MA, I would give them both a look. As it is I plan on voting Green for all the statewide races in IL save for Governor and Secretary of State. Rauner is Walker clone and needs to be defeated in a close race, and Jesse White actually does a pretty good job as Secretary of State (and his website and the efficiency of its offices makes Galvin’s seem 19th century in comparison). But no way I’m voting for a Madigan, even little Lisa.
Neither candidate seems to be addressing what the actual office can do, but rather seem to just repeat the broader points of the Green Party platform. Not sure how we can ‘audit the human condition to ensure peaceful coexistence with our ecology’ or how State Auditor does that. And while an economic and environmental bill of rights is all well and good, not sure that the Secretary of the Commonwealth has much say on that, and the Green candidate misses a golden opportunity to talk about elections and ballot access.
The anti-Galvin vote should probably go to David D’Arcangelo who has a lot of innovative ideas on how to transform and update that office, which has calcified under Galvin. Centrist Republicans like him would also do well to target the downballot offices.
Which, in a capitalist nation means, “I am for social justice, I just won’t fund any efforts in that direction”….but I am all for it!
“If social justice happens in this country, I won’t actively oppose it!”
…Bill Clinton mocked GWB’s “compassionate conservatism” by saying, “I like you – really. I want to do something about hunger and poverty and jobs, but I just can’t bring myself to do it and it just hurts me terribly.”
He ain’t no Vendell Vilkie!
As much as I complain that most Republicans either don’t have the guts or are too cynical about what they’d get from a pinko show to come one, I can’t bring myself to ask the Lively folk.
Fisher and I disagree on many subjects, but I found him bright and articulate…and not at all a hate monger. I can’t see myself even feigning civility with Lively.
by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. I’d have no problem omitting him as an extremist who doesn’t deserve a public platform. The other guys I probably disagree with, but they aren’t gay haters with influence in African countries.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=MA
If he’s that bad he will expose himself for all to see, but it should not be the media’s job to keep candidates from the public.
We don’t need to provide a platform for hate. Period.
Not for Nazis. Not for other racists. Not for people who hate gays and encourage their incarceration or worse in African countries.
If David Duke had not been thoroughly covered when he ran for Senate in Louisiana, he might have won. As it was he got 44%.
The only exposure he deserves is the kind that exposes his hate. No need for his participation in a debate for that.
He was the Republican nominee. I can’t remember if he debated or not.
Apparently at least 10,000 MA voters believe he should be heard. Something like this should never take into account the relative merits or viability of the candidate, but something strictly objective like, yes or no, are you on the ballot.
papers. Highly unlikely that they all knew who and what they were signing on for.
…the GOP DID field a full slate of candidates for statewide office this year. Also, is the law really written to say that certain candidates can charge 30K and others just 3K, or is there a soft money factor in play where the difference goes to the parties?
Check the OCPF site on limits. For individual candidates (independents), it’s $5K for state party committee or another $5K or local (town) committee, but only $500 to a candidate or the candidate’s committee per calendar year, for example.
If the UIP becomes a recognized MA political party, they can get the 10:1 advantage the two parties’ candidates have.
Falchuk is not too whiny about it, but repeatedly points it out. It seems clearly unreasonable and unfair to me too.