The Lesson of Primaries
Jeff Alworth
I wanted to do a quickie follow-up on Kari's post about Jeff Merkley's support of a public option. It reminded me of where we were a couple years ago, as the Senate primary was at full boil. The blogosphere was alight with pretty heated discussion about whether Steve Novick or Jeff Merkley would be the best opponent for Gordon Smith, and both camps were starting to throw bare-knuckle punches.
Elections follow a fairly predictable course: candidates draw the most extreme portrait of their opponents and run against that distorted image. To Merkleyites, Steve was the unelectable firebrand who talked a great game but didn't have the legislative chops to horse-trade in the Senate. To Novickians, Merkley was an appeasing moderate who would fail to stand up for progressives.
In contrast to the caricatures, both men have had quite a year. Steve, showing he knows quite a bit about how politics work, was the public point man for Measures 66 and 67 and helped get the first voter-elected tax hike since the Hoover administration. Not bad.
For his part, Merkley has toiled in the dark shadows of Senate freshmanhood. In an institution run by seniority, this is a lonely, powerless place to be. Yet Merkley has spent the year making headlines for leading from the left when his timid colleagues tended to dither. Yesterday's news about his support of a reconciled public option is a key example, but not the only one. For example, he also:
- Was the sole Democratic vote against Ben Bernanke on the banking committee.
- Championed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the 111th Congress.
- Introduced or supported a number of consumer protection acts.
By any reasonable measure, Jeff Merkley managed to distinguish himself as one of the most progressive members of the Senate--and took a high profile to defend his positions.
I mention this because we're starting to head into another primary where we have two Democratic candidates that all progressives can and should be proud of. In a year's time, we hope one of them will be the Governor. My sense is that this primary may be a bit more gentle than the '08 Senate race--both candidates are known quantities, and both have spent careers building goodwill. It would be hard to create too distorted a caricature of either one. Yet in the heat of primaries, we tend to do that, and worse, we start to believe these distortions. If Merkley and Novick have shown us anything in the past year, it's that distortions can be far off base.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:32 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
In a not entirely unrelated matter, Orrin Hatch is PISSED at the teabaggers saying that they got Merkley elected:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/18/838156/-Sen.-Hatch-Gets-Teabagger-Treatment-At-Town-Hall-Meeting
In context of course, the teabaggers didn't coalesce until well after Merkley won election. However, Hatch refers to Merkley as "the most liberal man in the Senate".
Love it.
1:30 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Jeff's post reminds me that Senator Merkley has been working on something else related to health care that deserves mention. While other Senators were seeking to amend the bills to get special treatment for their States, Jeff has recognized that in order for the bill to be truly helpful to construction workers, the bill needed to have a different 'small business exemption' for that industry than for others:
*The Merkley Amendment to the Patient Protection And Affordable Coverage Act (H.R. 3590) simply requires that employers in the construction industry with over $250,000 in payroll or more than five workers provide health insurance for their employees or pay a penalty.
*The Merkley Amendment is necessary because the Senate bill exempts businesses with less than 50 workers. Under H.R. 3590 almost no construction companies would be required to provide health insurance for their employees, as the industry is dominated by small contractors; 90% employ less than 20 workers. In electrical construction, 70% of contractors that belong to the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) employ 10 or fewer workers. Even at its threshold of five workers, the Merkley Amendment still exempts 65% of construction employers from having to provide health care.
*The Merkley Amendment is also necessary because construction is an extremely competitive, low-bid industry. As such, very few small non-union construction employers provide health insurance. Its one way they gain an advantage over union contractors.
*Health care costs for union contractors, who have provided health insurance through Taft-Hartley, multi-employer funds for years, are between 12.5 and 20% of payroll.
*H.R. 3590 adds to these costs by placing additional burdens on employers who provide health insurance for their workers. Both the House and Senate bills ban yearly and lifetime caps. Additional stop-loss insurance made necessary by these bans will cost Taft-Hartley plans between $40 and $120 per member monthly. The proposed legislation will also require plans to carry dependents to age 27. Together, these requirements will drive-up costs an additional $1,000 per member every year further tilting the playing field against construction employers who provide health insurance for their workers.
*Creating a stand-alone provision for construction is not unusual. Congress has recognized the construction industry as unique and many laws, including the National Labor Relations Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act acknowledge this. Both have special provisions for construction only.
*NECA and five other building trades' business organizations support the Merkley Amendment. Collectively, they represent almost 30,000 small businesses in the United States.
*President Obama and supporters of health insurance reform have repeatedly said if you like your health insurance you can keep it. But without the Merkley Amendment the additional requirements placed on health insurance plans will force Taft-Hartley trustees to drop benefits it order to make union construction contractors competitive.
1:37 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Btw, Alworth is right about Novick. As someone who worked for Merkley during the primary I'm in awe of Steve Novick and the work that he's done. He's an amazing activist.
2:37 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
One of the main differences between the Senate primary and the Gubernatorial race, at least as it has shaped up so far, is that the Senate candidates were in the same basic neighborhood in terms of fund-raising. Senator Merkley took out a big loan late in the primary and received a huge push from national donors late to put him over the top. By contrast, as of today, Governor Kitzhaber, who has a huge lead in the polls, currently has $360,000 cash on hand compared to $40,000 for Bradbury.
That being the case, I doubt we'll see as negative a primary campaign as the Democrats had in 2008 unless something happens that dramatically changes the dynamic.
Feb 18, '10
Jeff Alworth:
Elections follow a fairly predictable course: candidates draw the most extreme portrait of their opponents and run against that distorted image.
Bob T:
Hmmmm.....so you admit that Republican candidates are portrayed in an extremely distorted manner?
This is a keeper.
Bob Tiernan Portland
5:07 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Hmmmm...so you admit that Democratic candidates are portrayed in an extremely distorted manner?
Feb 18, '10
"Yet in the heat of primaries, we tend to do that, and worse, we start to believe these distortions. If Merkley and Novick have shown us anything in the past year, it's that distortions can be far off base."
There is an old saying, "Yesterday's enemies may be tomorrow'd allies".
It is possible to like what Bradbury said about something and what Kitzhaber said about something else.
My message regarding what we should have learned from the 2008 Senate primary is that people who voice that statement should not be labeled as strong supporters of a particular candidate if what they are saying is that they like both, they are having a hard time making up their minds.
If there is an attitude adopted by anyone that "there are no more undecides, so how dare anyone say they like things about both candidates" (as happened in 2008) they risk tipping a truly undecided primary voter into supporting the candidate those words were intended to oppose.
It was true in 2008 and I suspect it is true this year---neighbors and friends may voice their views on such things to family, friends and neighbors, may never read blogs, and such votes may come as a shock come May.
Feb 18, '10
Carla, you are so predictible. I bet you would be one of the first in line to decry racial or gender related slang used to dehumanize the opopsite viewpoint.
7:07 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Kurt..now you know I'm simply honoring the decision of those who labeled themselves as such:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/rachel-maddow-ana-marie-c_n_185445.html
http://wonkette.com/406661/historic-washington-teabagging-party-there-were-poop-hats/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/to-teabag-or-not-thats-still-the-question-for-conservatives.php
http://teabagcongress.com/
Feb 18, '10
Kurt:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/15/tea-bag-toss-ends-white-house-protest/
is about a teabag toss.
You know, the paper things which contain tea so one can brew either hot or iced tea without having to use a strainer?
Now, if you would prefer "those people who threw teabags", that's fine.
But their signs say Taxed Enough Already.
I knew people in college who made sport of finding a dirty meaning in the most common of innocent sentences.
If someone who says they are Taxed Enough Already throws away perfectly good thin paper bags holding the product produced by Lipton, Stash, etc, you may find a devious, insulting meaning in calling them teabaggers.
So call them "the people who throw tea bags as if they are part of the Boston Tea Party".
But don't accuse people who shorten that of being insulting.
Feb 18, '10
Carla...well, there WAS a "Constitution Party" (forerunner of the teabaggers, or the psychiatric wing of the GOP) candidate who got something like 5% of the vote in 2008, leaving Merkely able to win a squeaker. So Hatch has at least a partial point.
Bob T: OF COURSE Republicans are protrayed in a distorted manner. Sarah Palin, for example, is portrayed as qualified to be President, and Dick Cheney as if he had a soul.
Other lessons from primaries:
We do a lot better when our primaries resemble Novick-Merkley (and hopefully Bradbury-Kitzhaber) than, say, the nasty Wyden-Defazio primary that almost inflicted Gordon on us a year earlier.
Good primaries help both candidates grow in political stature, especially when they unite after the civil war in order to get the winner elected. Novick did REAL good by Merkley and I hope he gets a shot at a major office of his own soon. He's earned it.
(disclaimer: I sat on the fence and didn't support anyone during that primary, because I admired them both. I eventually voted Merkley, but in part because my wife voted Novick so i knew he'd get a vote from my household too)
Feb 18, '10
Jeff Alworth:
Elections follow a fairly predictable course: candidates draw the most extreme portrait of their opponents and run against that distorted image.
Bob T:
Hmmmm.....so you admit that Republican candidates are portrayed in an extremely distorted manner?
lestatdelc:
Hmmmm...so you admit that Democratic candidates are portrayed in an extremely distorted manner?
Bob T:
In most cases, they are.
See? I could provide an answer that's not in the form of a question, like you guys do.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Feb 19, '10
Admiral Naismith:
Bob T: OF COURSE Republicans are protrayed in a distorted manner. Sarah Palin, for example, is portrayed as qualified to be President, and Dick Cheney as if he had a soul.
Bob T:
Gee, I wasn't aware that their opponents portrayed then in that manner. [Re: "candidates draw the most extreme portrait of their opponents and run against that distorted image."]
Bob Tiernan Portland
8:59 a.m.
Feb 19, '10
Bob T, is it any great revelation that during elections politicians tend to run against the opponent they want rather than the one they have? By all means keep that. It is one of the bedrock truths of politics.
Feb 19, '10
Jeff Alworth:
Bob T, is it any great revelation that during elections politicians tend to run against the opponent they want rather than the one they have? By all means keep that. It is one of the bedrock truths of politics.
Bob T:
Sure it is -- but it is interesting to get it on record that you admit that you (and others, incl Repubs) are not above making up stuff about your opponent. Of course, no one admits this until after the election. Is there anything honest about this? Nope.
Bob Tiernan Portland
12:16 p.m.
Feb 19, '10
Bob, really? It's really a revelation to you that in elections, opponents tend to exaggerate the views of each other? Are your really telling me you believed that? (And are you also really telling me that this post was so powerfully argued that you're convinced?)
However, I have to clarify something. You overstate your case here:
I never said I made up stuff about my opponent. (For one thing, I'm a blogger; I don't have opponents.) And I never actually said it was kosher to "make up stuff." I would condemn that on either side of the aisle. What I said was that candidates distort their opponents views. That's an entirely different thing.
Feb 19, '10
So the "make the opposition look like Satan" approach just doesn't hold water? What a surprise.
Many thanks for having the perspicacity to recognize that these questions are worth considering, long after the votes are counted. Of course my hobby horse is that this is exactly what you get without proportional representation. Life isn't black and white, but the outcome is. When your model doesn't directly map onto what it's supposed to represent, a transform is needed. Most of our political abuses happen in that transformation.
Feb 20, '10
"Of course my hobby horse is that this is exactly what you get without proportional representation."
Z, I was with you until this.
My view on proportional representation is that I'd love to see an advocate explain this to a nonpolitical group and answer questions about logistics, possible flaws, etc.
As I understand the concept, there are slates for different parties (much like delegate selection was in 1984 when I was involved in the process and "party leader elected official" could include all the way down to pct. person if all the establishment was for one candidate, but the insurgent won a surprising number of delegates).
Have you looked at the NAV numbers in your county/district?
Why should NAV choose a slate rather than an individual candidate?
Or, do you mean that if there are 3 candidates (say, Merkley, Novick, and that very bright woman whose name escapes me at the moment) does proportional representation say everyone has a certain number of votes and they can cast them all for one person or rank, say, Merkley first, the bright woman second, and Novick 3rd?
I'm a specifics person, not a slogan person.
I reject labels, don't like "are you for or against...." as if questions are not in order, want to see the logistical details of "we should..." .
Once I heard a way to consider making decisions, "if you do that, what problems does it solve and what problems does it create?".
I believe in the law of unintended consequences.
I've seen multi-candidate organizational elections evolve into game playing ("if you won't give me your first choice vote, will you give me your 2nd choice vote?", and a 3rd candidate entering into an alliance with a major candidate).
I really admire professional sales people. They can say "from what you have told me, it looks like this model of washer will fill your needs better than that one" sort of thing.
If proportional representation has any future, it might be wise for the proponents to find a way to do that sort of salesmanship.
Feb 20, '10
Jeff Alworth:
Bob, really? It's really a revelation to you that in elections, opponents tend to exaggerate the views of each other? Are your really telling me you believed that?
Bob T:
No. But it is new to hear progressives admit that Republican candidates aren't as bad as they say they are.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Feb 20, '10
My view on proportional representation is that I'd love to see an advocate explain this to a nonpolitical group and answer questions about logistics, possible flaws, etc.
Me too, LT. For a very good working out of the specifics, I would recommend Lani Guinier's "Tyranny of the Majority" . Her simple one liner to the nonpols is that it's what we already teach children. When they are battling about which game they're going to play, the reasonable suggestion is "why don't we play your game for a while, then mine". In fact you can say that she merely extends the fairness dictum from taxes to all politics.
Feb 20, '10
Except that I'd love to see someone stand up in front of a parent group, a church basement group, Rotary, a senior center group, etc. and use language like
" In fact you can say that she merely extends the fairness dictum from taxes to all politics"
The idea that "someone thinks this is a good idea, you should too" does not necessarily win over the parent of 2 children under the age of 4, the person working multiple jobs (or a very challenging professional job which involves more than 40 hours per week), or any other busy person.
There are blogs, there is the outside world. I'm guessing in the outside world there would not be a large audience for "come hear a presentation on proportional representation".
<hr/>