Washblog

Gaining the senate seat in your district has great importance state wide. At the convention I had the chance to talk with some on your endorsement committee and though you have two good candidates and making a sole endorsement in such a situation can be a major setback for a district, my hope was that your voting members would take the action they did, while respecting those not on the prevailing side.
As it relates to the campaign, the winning candidate must work hard every day, make no errors and raise a huge amount of money. On the financial side, this means he or she must get major contributors to give the max both prior to the primary and after. Such is the game with our states model for campaign reform. Thus a dual endorsement would have assured both candidates would have raised less money. This is something neither could afford.
As it relates to your districts future in this very important year, well done. The voters of the 47th have come to respect your district organization as it began to change from an R dist to a D district and from the sound of things, you deserve that respect. Oh and by the way, I think as stewards of your district, the endorsement committee's recommending of a dual endorsement was a good thing to do.

by Particle Man on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:10:01 AM PST

---

Thanks,

It was a remarkable meeting.  It is not often, I think, that people listen so carefully to each other in a public forum - and really think things through in light of the knowledge and opinion of others.

We had a person speak last night who was a candidates in a similar situation in the 47th -- who received a dual endorsement in 2000, and lost in the general by 189 votes.  People who had taken part in that endorsement process spoke up.  We had people from the boards of endorsement committees of community organizations -- a labor union, a conservation group, and a professional group -- speaking pro and con about what the ramifications of this process are.  There were passionate advocates for each candidate who spoke on their individual merits.  There were testimonials about what the presence of a person of color in this race means for people in the district.  Shy people got up to speak, firebrand orators got up to speak.  Collective intelligence was at work.  Good faith reigned.  

by noemie maxwell on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:53:12 AM PST

---

Noemie, thank you for describing the 47th LD's endorsement meeting.  Special thanks for writing up your thoughts and feelings on the endorsement, and the state of unity the 47th District Dems.  

Extra-special thanks for talking about the exquisite, delicate phenomenon that is local party unity.  The important insight I take away from your description is that when built carefully and constructively, local party unity can be quite strong, affirming and empowering.

Keep up the great work!

by microveldt on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 05:47:18 PM PST

---

Noemie, you have captured in writing many of the same feelings I had sitting in the room with you on Weds. night.  I came to the same conclusion that a vote to endorse Ed was our wisest move and the most effective thing we could have done to further the cause of winning our 47th senate seat.

This was, in my mind, the most important series of votes we've ever taken as an organization.  Usually our endorsement carries little or no weight.  But our endorsement in this race has the potential to move mountains - of support and money.  Now it is up to us to publicize our vote and maximize its effectiveness.

I woke up Thursday feeling positive and optimistic.  Sorry, yes, for Claudia, because I personally like her.  I hope we haven't seen the last of her.  And as everyone said, should she prevail in the primary, I will work for her enthusiastically.  But I am excited as well, because we actually DID something that is likely to make an impact.

Bittersweet still doesn't seem like the right word, but closer to how I feel than "disappointed".

by Dennis Higgins on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:50:30 AM PST

---

I think contested primaries can be beneficial to Democrats provided that

1.  Both agree to lay off of media buys and compete strictly with their respective ground games.
   
2.  Both agree to lay off of mudslinging and general negativity.

Competing ground games boost interest in the contest among Democrats, who get invested in doorbelling and other outreach activities and become more likely to continue these things in the general election.  This is party building at the most basic level.  The "save the money for the general election" argument goes by the wayside if both campaigns agree not to do heavy media expenditures.

I think that 2004's contested primary in the  11th boosted interest in state legislative politics in the district.  Not minimizing some of the Seattle vs Renton bad feelings in the district organization at the time, but I was both heartened and absolutely astonished that the two candidates with the most effective ground games both canvassed my neighborhood in person.  In the 22 years I had lived at the address, I had never been visited even once by anyone running for a state-level office,let alone two.  I'm sure that boosted turnout in the general election.

by eridani on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:36:54 PM PST

---

There is a fine technical distinction here, but what was voted was a SINGLE endorsement for Ed Crawford, not a SOLE endorsement. The initial motion was for a sole endorsement but it was amended to be a single endorsement.

As a member of the Endorsements Committee, I was disappointed to see our recommendation not be accepted by the membership. But as a newbie to the political arena I have to accept that there are no doubt practical considerations far beyond my ken. It is my interpretation of events and what was said that this decision by the LD was based on those considerations, and not as any kind of an evaluative statement on Claudia.

Up until last night, I thought we were very fortunate to have two eminently qualified candidates, but as the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

by Gordon Glasgow on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:43:26 PM PST

---