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.
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.