Most normal human beings in April 2013 probably couldn’t care less about 2014’s pre-campaign campaign, but Politico exposed why we (unfortunately) should pay attention to a primary that’s 17 months away — Democratic insiders don’t want Democratic voters selecting their U.S. Senate nominee.
“This is an ongoing discussion with the various . . . constituencies that make up the Democratic Party. The goal is to reach consensus on a candidate,” said David Hecker, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers and president of its Michigan branch. “I think this will come to a conclusion somewhat soon and we’ll move on with whoever the candidate is, Debbie [Dingell] or Gary [Peters].”Hecker added: “I think both candidates are clearly in play and I wouldn’t say one is in the lead and one is not.”Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who passed on the Senate race earlier this year, also wants her party to avoid a primary, according to an aide.“Governor Granholm is very excited about the names she’s heard so far and believes it would be wisest if Democrats could coalesce around the person that research shows is the best candidate,” spokeswoman Carole Polan Love said.
In 1978, constituencies that make up the Kentucky Derby establishment came to a research-based consensus that they should coalesce support around Alydar but it was Affirmed that won the Derby and the rest of the Triple Crown.
Contested primaries really shouldn't be this controversial. Like horse races, elections should be decided on the track, instead of inside a (smoke-filled) stable.
The stupidity from Democrats, it burns.
Granholm's Selective Memory
Granholm's aversion to rank-and-file Michigan Democrats selecting the party’s Senate nominee is particularly baffling. Maybe it's too much California sun, but Granholm shouldn't forget she won one of the most competitive primaries in Michigan history in 2002 to become governor.
Her primary battle with David Bonior and James Blanchard didn’t weaken her chances that November. If anything, it made her a stronger candidate. She wiped the floor with Dick Posthumous in what was otherwise a Republican year locally and nationally.
A contested primary serves two purposes:
- By forcing candidates to compete for the nomination, party members get to test their ability to run a campaign.
- It lets a candidate with regional appeal expand his/her base statewide.
Looking at the list of possible Democratic Senate candidate, they could all benefit from an electoral dry run and statewide exposure.
Rep. Gary Peters has shown he can win tough elections. He beat longtime incumbent Joe Knollenberg in 2008, won a tough re-election race amid the 2010 GOP sweep, and then dispatched fellow Congressman Hansen Clarke in the 2012 primary. But he isn’t a statewide name.
Peters lost to Mike Cox in the 2002 attorney general race — the first Democrat to lose that in two generations. Peters, well-suited for the 14th District, still needs to prove he can win statewide.
Debbie Dingell may be a consummate smoke-filled room power broker with a name that rings out beyond her husband’s congressional district, but her forays into non-John Dingell electoral politics have been unmitigated disasters.
Dingell chaired the 2006 “One Michigan” campaign to defeat an anti-affirmative action initiative. That campaign was backed, not only by Democratic core constituencies in a year dominated by Democrats, but by Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos and local celebrities like Tom Izzo. Despite the bipartisan and nonpartisan backing, Dingell’s One Michigan effort didn’t win heart and minds. Voters beat on affirmative action like it was Gene Krupa’s snare drum.
Other possible Senate candidate like former one-term Congressman Mark Shauer, ex-Rep. Bart Stupak, and Rep. Dan Kildee could also benefit from a vigorous primary to test their statewide electoral mettle.
Those Who Forget The Past...
Let's make this really simple for Democratic leaders: When the rank-and-file select their own nominees in a contested primary, the party ends up with strong general election candidates. When they play this backroom game, disasters happen.
Fifteen years ago, party leaders tried to groove a primary for a nobody named Larry Owen. Democrats revolted and nominated Geoffrey Fieger instead. That election ended in tears for the state party.
In 2010, so afraid of Andy Dillon as the gubernatorial candidate, the power brokers pushed Lt. Gov. John Cherry out of the race so Virg Bernero could be their great white hope. Rick Snyder should send them flowers.
In 2008, the aforementioned Dingell and Granholm, backed a rump presidential primary that violated party rules but was supposed to guarantee Hillary Clinton the nomination. So outraged were primary voters that, despite not being on the ballot or campaigning in Michigan, Barack Obama effectively received 40% of the primary vote via the “uncommitted” line. The scheme blew up in their all their faces, nearly cost Michigan delegates at the convention and embarrassed the state party.
And let’s not forget that, before the 2008 presidential election began, Hillary Clinton was considered a prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic nominee. Obama challenged both Clinton and the conventional wisdom. His campaign — an electoral masterpiece — exposed Clinton’s team as a hot mess of old white men stupid. Clinton’s “braintrust” couldn’t even figure out delegate allocation in the Colorado caucus, but they were going to win the White House and run the country?
Whatever inherent advantages Democrats may have had in 2008, it’s hard to see, had Clinton been handed the nomination, how a Mark Penn-Terry McAuliffe led campaign could have beaten John McCain, even with Sarah Palin on the ticket.
The 2008 election should have proven once and for all that tough primaries yield tough nominees who can win tough elections. The process ensured Democrats had the best general election candidate in 2008 — and probably made Obama a better president — but it made Hillary a stronger candidate for 2016.
So why are Michigan’s Democratic leaders afraid of, you know, regular Democratic voters?
Maybe they just like losing.
