Although the polls disagreed, Evan Falchuk was spot on when he spoke with Left Ahead in September. He stated firmly that he and running mate Angus Jennings would get 3% or more as Gov./lG candidates this month. They got 3.3%
He came on again to talk about what that 3% threshold means — recognition of his United Independent Party by MA, a big increase in how much they can raise from each donor, and what the next steps are to build on the party status.
UIP Platofrm: The detailed and comprehensive party platform is on its site here.
The instant pundit cliché for Falchuk’s recent run is that he won by losing. That is, as he told us two months ago, it would be a real long shot for him to win the top office, but he was positive of the 3%. That cliché seems to assume the UIP iis one and done, much like the pale and frail Green-Rainbow Party.
He and I got down into some gears today, aspects I haven’t heard in other interviews with him. Well, neither of us is shy or tricksy, as Gollum might say. Click the player below to listen in to hear about the likes of:
- Where did this elaborate platform come from? (A big part of the answer is that a group of 56 “concerned citizens” agreed on the content and specifics.)
- If front-man Falchuk disappears what happens? (He alleges they are set up for that and have a deep bench of involved members.)
- Can and will Falchuk keep pouring in personal money to keep the UIP afloat? (No. They’ll refuse superPAC money, but with the new fund-raising rules as an official party, they expect to get plenty to survive.)
- Can they enroll over 40,000 voters in the UIP to keep the party alive? (That’s a big push already underway now and they fully expect to do that so they don’t have to worry about percentages in future elections.)
- Can they get candidates to run? (They already have offers from over 20 and are just beginning to recruit. So, yes.)
- What offices will the UIP be able to and seek to win going forward? (Until the next gubernatorial race, they look to run for legislative offices.)
- Do Falchuk and Jennings feel like spoilers, Nadar-ish? (No data don’t support that.)
Listen in as Falchuk describes the UIP plans. He also dishes on the cynicism of Dem Martha Coakley and GOP Charlie Baker. Neither would be specific in their planks, in contrast to the UIP platform. He attributes that to their desire to avoid getting called when they alter or reverse positions (maybe in response to donations). He says that’s the real advantage of being specific and sticking to it.
~Mike
1) The post-partisanship/centrist framing
A big problem I have with Falchuk is any sentence that starts like this:
Pretty sure that is straight out of the Obama playbook, and he played us, and then the GOP played him by being partisan obstructionists. Post-partisanship is a myth, as much as the cake is a lie. This would be particularly true of a third party movement, which would be under fire by the binary parties in a are display of unity.
2) A hodgepodge platform
Clearly the small business, health care, and broader business sections of the platform are written from a small ‘l’ Silicon Valley libertarian techie perspective. If only we brought in outside experts and consultants from the private sector they could make government work. We’ve seen that playbook many times and it doesn’t work.
Particularly on health care, Falchuk points out that we have hospital groups control 72% of our health care delivery in Massachusetts. He looks at that and sees a cartel that needs to be broken up to provide free market competition. I look at that and see the exact same kind of fertile ground for a true government takeover and a Vermont style single payer push.
But on other big ticket issues like marijuana policy, the death penalty, ending patronage and corruption, electoral reform, smart growth, expanding public transit, and most importantly progressive income taxation-the UIP platform is decades ahead of the Democratic one. And it’s very vague on education, but I would rather it start where it does with asking for teachers, parents, and students to tell government what they need than the top down/charter happy approach of both parties.
I welcome him to the conversation and am interested if this mix will hold up, according to most polls he is right in the millenial wheelhouse for where we stand on most issues. Very socially and economically progressive but also wary of government being the engine for change instead of outside initiators. Could be the mix of the future, or a flash in the pan. Time will tell. His legislative strategy should be interesting too in terms of what districts they will target.
…of something Bill Maher said at his internet stand-up show in 2012. It was something like, “People say we need a centrist party. No we don’t. We have that already – they’re called Democrats! What we need is an actual leftist party.”
On 70% of the issues, but then lurks rightward on some big ones like health care reform, business regulations, and privatizing government services.
Supposedly millenials are libertarian socialists, so I guess this mix makes some sense. It seems like the UIP would try and compete in socially moderate white collar suburbs like Reading or Wakefield while also competing for economically progressive votes against seemingly entrenched out of touch urban pols like Toomey in East Cambridge (his white ethnic base is long gone and the Kendall crowd might want one of their own).
…”isn’t libertarian socialist the ultimate oxymoron?” but the linked article does a pretty good job explaining it.
It’s a good summary of things that feel obvious but the intro and Christopher’s response are good reminders of how non-obvious they may be to many, especially to people that have been involved in party politics for many years. It’s a quick read and if “libertarian socialist” doesn’t make sense to you please go read it.
Also linked there: “73 percent [of Americans, not just the young] believe the government operates without the consent of the people and two-thirds believe they have no say.” This is good fuel for running on fundamental reform first, on issues like “the economy” second.
Then change the platform to whatever they want?
I remember a college professor and a couple friends “taking over” the vehicle Joe Lieberman founded as a political party, and endorsing his Democratic opponent at one point. Twenty people at the UIP could probably change the whole thing.
Not UIP.
http://red.ma.altercate.net/2014/11/11/scott-lively-today-i-changed-my-affiliation-from-unenrolled-to-republican/
Who…would…have…guessed?
Falchuck should crow.
He got the result he wanted – a Republican governor.
A viable third party to take on the other two, he got his 3%. I have to say, he ran a smart campaign and his group could now be an important player in moving politics forward. The Moderate Party in Rhode Island started out as a vehicle for a millionaire, but has now become a grassroots, anti-money party. And when our party nominated a Wall Street Journal endorsed pension robber for Governor down there, it was time to consider a third party. The Progressive Party in Vermont is the reason the Democratic legislature and Governor pushed for single payer-and it gave us Senator Bernie Sanders.
The Socialist on the Seattle City Council was a big reason the living wage was passed.
Third parties help tinker at the margins and help both parties get better. in 1890-our party was the party of New York bankers and ex-slaveholders. The rise of the Populist Party led to William Jennings Bryan’s nomination and our party being progressive again. TR’s Progressive Party led to Wilson’s progressive wing of our party, which elected him. Norman Thomas in 1932 basically ran on the New Deal, which FDR co-opted. They help out. I would withhold judgment until we see what kind of candidates he runs for the legislature and the ideology they espouse.
That’s barely margin of error.
That’s what’s meant by “viable” in this case.
I just don’t see that absent Falchuck, Coakley wins those votes at a rate that overcomes Baker’s 40,000 vote plurality, even assuming that all of them vote in the election. Using Falchuck’s 70,000 vote tally, Coakley would have to pull well over 80% of it to achieve her goal, a number difficult in the most Democratic of areas, let alone spread across the state into strong Baker supporting areas.
And, depending on to what degree on believes what Falchuck says in the interview to be accurate, the votes he got broke done 50/50 of voters who otherwise would have gone for Coakley or Warren.
“Ray-Formers is only Morning Glories”
😀
George Washington Plunkett, 1903
Do the Greens have official recognition too? I can’t remember.
It’s sort of weird that we designate parties with official recognition. I imagine that has fundraising implications? Open meetings and such?
From what I can tell is for the next election they have to adhere to deadlines for party candidates rather than deadlines for non-party candidates. You can also officially register as a member of that party and the state recognizes your state and local committees as official entities.
No?
They do have to publicly announce their caucuses for electing state convention delegates and open those to observers, but are under no obligation to do so for any other meeting.
Democratic ward, town and city committees are required to have open meetings by virtue of the Mass Dems State Charter.
We certainly don’t have to jump through the hoops that OML requires.
Isn’t that right? You lose it if you fail to get the 3%, which is what I think has happened to the Greens.
…if they in fact field a candidate.
Stein got her access challenging O’Brien and challenging Galvin-but they never really did anything with it, like run in legislative races. If the UIP is smart about recruitment and targeting it can elect people like the Progressives in VT. Shumlin will owe his governorship to them, and that is better power than being a spoiler or trying in vain to win a major office.
The ones I’m aware of are:
1) Different due dates for statewide and federal candidates. Party candidates actually have to file earlier.
2) Different fundraising limits
3) The party may hold a primary. A primary for an “Independent” party could get interesting…
4) Ballot access and signatures. I’m a bit confused about this bit. The party has ballot access but to get on the ballot for the primary, each candidate still needs the same number of signatures as an independent for the general election, from a smaller pool. If the party nomination is not contested, does the candidate still need the nomination papers with signatures for the primary?
5) The party is an option on voter registration forms.
The Greens have official recognition after 2014 because their statewide candidates each got over 4% of the vote.
…but there is a different deadline.
Right now, he’s just communicating what many political scientists might say or how many Americans feel about the electoral process.
His party, as of now, AFAIK, has not a single elected office holder, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that he or anyone else in his party knows how to govern, collaborate, get legislation passed, laws executed, etc…