Expect the President's reelection campaign to be far tougher than 2008
Thousands of Rhode Islanders went to work today (or looked for work) instead of to the polls. Maybe they were going to vote, but then decided they just wanted to go home. Or maybe they didn’t like the candidates. Or maybe they just didn’t know where their local polling place was. They’ll all be counted as people who didn’t vote.
I didn’t go to my local polling place either, even though it’s a short walk (or even shorter bike ride) from where I live. It wasn’t that I don’t think that the delegate candidates don’t deserve to go Charlotte (or Tampa, if that’s your preference). It’s that I don’t want who they’re voting for. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich; not matter who a delegate is pledged to, what’s the point?
France held its first round of presidential elections on the weekended. U.S. media was keen to tell us how the process works. And buried in this Slate article about Socialist candidate Francois Hollande’s use of an Obama-style get-out-the-vote operation was the idea that the 30% of people who didn’t vote are termed “les abstentionnistes” which I think translates into “the abstainers.” The article makes the point that in France, not voting is constructed as a conscious choice, versus the American idea that not voting is a sign of laziness or inability or apathy.
So I abstained. I made a conscious choice. And, believe it or not, plenty of people made this choice too. When we think about why people don’t turn out, there are certainly plenty of reforms we can make to lower the bar to participation (a week long celebratory holiday for voting was suggested by a teacher once and is my favorite idea). But we also need to focus on why should I turn out for Candidate X. And that’s on Candidate X.
In this case, it’s on President Obama. I voted for President Obama twice, once against Hillary Clinton and once again against John McCain. In 2008, there were a lot of reasons to go to the polls and vote. Sarah Palin as vice president, the traditional idea of Democrats as the solution to economic depressions, the worst stock market crash since 1929, etc. September 2008 had unleashed the idea that Democrats would attempt a second New Deal in many people my age. We had hope, and we voted for change. And we really thought things were going to change.
This woman could've become Vice President.
The President betrayed that hope, and he didn’t bring change. He expanded the scope of the War on Terror to include American citizens, doubled down on the War on Drugs, continues to issue signing statements, failed to push for a strong enough stimulus, fails to forcefully push for LGBT rights; and surrounds himself with Wall Street hacks largely responsible for the crisis (Larry Summers isn’t “change you can believe in”); Mr. Obama has proved over and over that he is a Third Way Democrat; Bill Clinton without the panache or economic rebound. Is it any wonder large portions of Mr. Obama’s voters stayed home in 2010? He hadn’t given them anything to believe in since inauguration day. And his party got shellacked for it.
Occupy Wall Street contains plenty of youth who are angry with the President. The ability of a largely disenchanted and unemployed youth to turn the nation conversation on economics away from the national debt and towards economic inequality proves just how important they are to politics. Even Republicans picked up on this.
OWS’ major flaw is their antipathy towards electoral politics, but understandable, given that their faith in Barack Obama was rewarded with the half-measures and inept political maneuvering that define his presidency. The healthcare plan enacted, while having some great upsides, is emblematic of this. One of its defenses has been “but the Heritage Foundation originated it!” This neither eases conservative anger nor does it rally progressives and liberals.
President Obama should be a lesson for all Democrats and anyone who uses progressives as part of their electoral coalition. David Cicilline is facing the toughest election of his political career. Turning to a populist, energized campaign based on strong, deliverable ideological issues would move the campaign beyond Providence’s finances. It would also pick up dedicated support from inventing young people. Allowing his campaign to become a referendum on the Democratic Party makes his general election prospects dim, as well as his primary ones. Both Mr. Cicilline and challenger Anthony Gemma are going to use the following phrases: “grassroots support” “protect Social Security” “failed Republican policies”. The only thing that will distinguish them are their stances on abortion, unless Mr. Gemma flips.
Governor Lincoln Chafee was largely elected on a progressive coalition that saw Frank Caprio and John Robataille as symptomatic of the Republicrat-Democan system (for more of that, see our editor Bob Plain’s reporting on ALEC). Unfortunately, he’s largely fallen into that dynamic, and has essentially abandoned his progressive followers. If he runs in a three-way race again in 2014 (assuming he doesn’t change parties once again), energizing those progressives will be important.
So, given that candidates are well-versed in not delivering anything, is it any wonder so many people abstained rather than vote for a delegate to go “aye” for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
What an extremely disappointing story. The blog shouldn’t be using tired, and quite frankly, silly excuses for not voting.
First, the blog is made up of plenty of writers, all with their own unique opinions.
But second, describing my abstaining as “tired” and “silly” isn’t engaging in an argument designed to convince people that I’m wrong, it’s dismissing them out-of-hand.
I gave my reasons. 97% of voters didn’t vote. That’s on politicians and the political system.
I understand Chafee was supported by progressives, but to say he abandoned those supporters assumes he espoused those virtues to begin with. Was that the case? Did he run on a progressive platform (I’m honestly not even sure any more what separates a liberal ideology from a progressive one)?
I’d say given his support for LGBT rights, infrastructure spending, immigrants, and willingness to raise taxes (though not everyone agreed with the right taxes) were far more progressive policies than either Robataille or Caprio, and were powerful reasons to propel him into office (combined with a respected anti-war past in the Senate and probably some guilt over having voted him out of office because of the “R” next to his name in ’06).
As for what separates a progressive from a liberal, I’d say that liberals tend to be far more willing to use neoliberalism in the economy, whereas progressives are marked by a wholesale rejection of neoliberal economics. Of course, plenty of folks are going to argue against that. In some ways they are interchangeable, in some ways they aren’t. All political terms are fluid and open to reinterpretation.
I have gnerally “progressive” views and have plenty of diappointments with Obama, I nevertheless am appalled by the tone of this post which I think illustrates why progressive views are losing ground. Right-wingers were disappointed at times by G W Bush but they go behind him strongly for re-election rather than sniping costantly. A President has a lot of interests and viewpoints to balance, and partisans will always be disappointed.
Just as its easy to list disappointments with Obama it is also easy to list positives: promoting a stimulus program large enough to avert a depression, defending reproductive freedom, ending don’t-ask-don’t-tell, expanding health insurance coverage and curbing the worst abuses of the insurers, extending unemployment insurance, saving auto industry jobs, improving auto effiency standards, emphasizing alternative energy, rebuilding infrastructure including much needed investment in our railroads, good appointments to the supreme court, NLRB, EPA, DOT, civil discourse in face of ferocious opposition, and more.
Those who value social justice, the environment and freedom can’t depend on the Obama administration, there is a need for grass-roots organizing to really defend this kind of thing in face of corporate power, but neither should we play into the hands of the most ruthless corporations by abandoning the race for President.
I’m not saying don’t go vote on November 1st. I know I personally don’t want to vote for the President as I don’t believe the “good” outweighs the “bad”. I also think there’s some serious complications in those positives. He’s against Keystone XL from Canada to America, but for Keystone XL from America to Mexico. An NLRB appointment has leaked information to a Romney advisor. Plenty of department positions have gone unappointed, when they should’ve been appointed in the first two years of his presidency, leading to serious foul ups as no one is capable of running the government. His EPA has overseen the radical expansion of fracking, leading to earthquakes that have damaged buildings in Washington itself. His infrastructure program has been a joke. And absolutely no Wall Street people have been held accountable for destroying the economy and committing fraud, instead, getting a tax-free bailout that they distributed in the form of giant bonuses.
Healthcare will continue to be the most contested issue here. For folks like myself, it not only was a poor plan (for a former Senator, Obama is poor at getting legislation passed), but it had nothing to rally around. He didn’t even put single payer on the table. Obama fundamentally doesn’t understand how to haggle. The same thing played out in the debt ceiling debacle; Obama actually ended up offering more cuts than the Republicans were demanding, but the Gang of Six scuttled that (that’s right, we were saved by centrists).
I may end up voting for him, mainly because I don’t want Mitt Romney to be president either. But frankly, “the other guy is worse than me” is not an inspiring rallying cry, and I’m sad that essentially both candidates will be using it in the coming election.
At the end of the day, the primary yesterday was pointless.
“His EPA has overseen the radical expansion of fracking, leading to earthquakes that have damaged buildings in Washington itself”
Lol, wut?
Looking into that statement, it’s completely wrong. I’m sorry, a tad bit overzealous.
However, fracking has been linked to earthquakes in Ohio. Besides the whole contamination of water issue.
Well put, Barry.
In addition to what Barry stated, one should not ignore the importance of administrations and staff members as a whole. I can assure you that a Republican administration is much more obstructionist to deal with. We have some strong allies in high-level cabinet positions that would be wiped out (potentially along with the cabinet itself) under a Republican administration.
You don’t build any power by not voting. You build power by increasing your voter base. This is a fundamental lesson that you need to learn quickly.
Finally, I stand by my earlier comment. I’m sick and tired of hearing lame excuses for not voting – especially on this blog.
It’s bullshit excuses and poor messaging such as this post that makes the left lose.
I guess I should make clear that I’m not anti-voting (I’m exceedingly pro-voting), I’m anti stupid primaries. Post forthcoming.
In the case of the delegate races – what exactly is stupid about giving some people an opportunity to expand their network and potentially learn some new skills?
What if Frank Ferri or Teresa Tanzi make some connections there which will help them raise more money to run for a Congressional seat in the future?
What if a progressive-minded delegate lands a job as a high-level staffer who will be a champion for progressive issues?
I’m glad you think these people are stupid and that they wasted so much of their time for a once in a lifetime opportunity.
And people didn’t turn out to vote because there wasn’t an organized effort to turn people out (you know, because candidates for delegate aren’t exactly hardcore fundraisers/campaigners), not because of a conscious choice being made.
Sorry, but your post is just way off base and you really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d stop digging a hole if I were you.
That’s not right at all. I’m not denigrating Teresa Tanzi or Frank Ferri, or Myrth York or whoever. I thought I made that point clear. It’s perfectly fine for them to run, and if it brings them good fortune, then good, they deserve it.
You appear to be grafting your interpretations of what I wrote onto what I wrote. But if your overall argument is that primary voting = good networking opportunity for folks, I’m not sure I think that it’s valuable for me to go to a polling station to give someone else the mere potential to potentially advance a cause I might agree with. Especially when the election is presented as the “presidential primary” and I’m voting for who will represent my party as the candidate for president. The ballot essentially said this:
X The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
X Shooting yourself in the foot
X Throwing away your vote
X A bunch of delegates for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
No matter how I voted there, Barack Obama was going to be selected as the Democratic candidate for President. Now if you’re argument is that I should’ve voted to select progressive delegates on the chance they could further advance their careers and that could be good for me, I really don’t see that as a strong argument. I vote for perceived deliverables, not potentials.
Take the CD1 Congressional primary. David Cicilline has a slight ability to deliver a progressive vote on issues I care about, based on having already spent a term in Congress and being a relatively strong politician for over a decade. Anthony Gemma has a slight potential to be a reliable Democratic vote in the House, but he has no actual ability to deliver as a freshman congressman, and an unfocused, oddball candidate at that.
If the ballot had been arranged so that you could only vote for delegates, and if that was the way it was presented, I’d say your argument would be more correct. But it’s not. I can vote for the presidential candidate of my choice and ignore the delegates, if I want.
As to your second point, that there wasn’t an organized GOTV operation, because delegates simply can’t do that, maybe that’s partially right. But it’s not right to say that people didn’t consciously look at the race (Barack Obama, unopposed) and decide that it wasn’t worth their time. 3% of RI voters (totaling 20,000 between both parties), in a state which reliably turns out 50,000 Democrats every two years in November to vote in the primary, no matter whether it’s a mid-term election or not. Do you believe that every two years, a constantly changing number of political campaigns manages to turn out maybe 30,000 more people (low-balling the estimate) than in this presidential primary? Or could it perhaps be that people have far more incentive, reason, and downright enthusiasm to vote in September than they do in a presidential primary which tends to be decided long before it every reaches this state?
My hole looks pretty damn good from down here.
There are more arguments for voting, like the fact that areas with frequent voters are areas that receive better services or that groups of people have fought for decades for the right to vote.
On the other hand, you haven’t highlighted one good reason for not voting. The only thing you can do is keep reaching and keep digging a bigger hole, which is almost as lame as not voting.
And when you refer to a process as stupid and pointless, you are denigrating everyone involved in the process.
I’m not so sure you don’t deserve a bit of criticism. You could have voted “Uncommitted” sending more of a message than “I can’t be bothered to care this year.”
+1000
If 3% picked uncommitted, Obama loses.
97% don’t care because Obama and Romney will govern the same–not much to distinguish the two.
At least if Romney wins, we won’t have conservative concern trolls telling us to like it.