I have started to grow tired of Claudia Wright supporters calling me a liar for saying that she is not electable. On this very blog, individuals, some of whom I know personally and respect, have said that a grassroots upswell will carry her over the top, others have said that Democrats are tired of centrists and don’t show up at the polls (hence the Massachusetts result), while others claim that Matheson’s corporate donations will inevitably turn people off. To those, I present some cold, hard facts.
All the the following information is public information and I am happy to provide it or point you in the direction to find it.
Let us begin with the most basic of analysis. In Congressional District 2, the most recent voter information file shows that there are 477,877 registered voters. Of those 237,763, or 49.7% of voters are registered Unaffiliated, 182,588, or 38.2% are Republicans, and 48,375, or 10.1% are Democrats. The remaining 9,151, or 1.9% comprise various third parties. But just because there are a little less than 475,000 registered voters, it does not mean that they all turn out to vote.
We must, therefore, look at voter turnout in 2006 and 2002 to determine average turn out. Those two years are picked because they are what are known as “off years” or years when we are not voting for the president. Because of less overall excitement for the election, off years always have lower turn out. As a point of fact, in the last two off year elections nearly the same number of people voted in CD 2. In 2002 224,098 people voted, in 2006 224,198 people voted – in short about 47% of the people who can vote, do.
So this means that you need about 112,301 people to vote for you to win. It is naive to think that every single Democrat that can vote will, but I will give it to Wright. Let us suppose that every single Democrat comes out – she still needs 63,926 voters to win. However, if even half of the Republicans in the district show up (and history says they will), the Republican will already have 91,294 votes in the bag. Here is the breakdown so far:
Wright Republican
48,375 91,294 : Votes in the bag
63,926 21,007 : Still needed
In other words, under the best possible scenario (up to this point) Wright would need to gain supporters at more than a 3:1 ratio to be victorious. How is she to do this?
Well, the mantra being chanted over and over is that true grassroots support will win this for her. They point to President Obama as their champion in this, and indeed he has run one of the most impressive and successful grassroots campaigns I have ever seen. In Obama’s Presidential campaign he spent $133.2 million on “miscellaneous media,” $32 million on campaign events, $7.7 million on materials, and $900,000 on get out the vote efforts. All of these point to grassroots support and total $173.8 million – meaning that this impressive grassroots effort cost Obama $2.50 per vote he received (69,500,000).
In many ways Wright would need to invest even more in grassroots support, per voter, because this is a more local race and she will not have the benefits of a mass media reporting her every step. Therefore, I don’t think it is unreasonable to up her grassroots support to $3.00 per vote gained. This would meant that, in order to get those 63,926 votes, she would need about $192,000.
As of the last reporting period, Wright had an account balance of -$642. To put things into perspective, the loosing candidates in CD 1 and 3 raised $67,164 combined in 2006.
Again, all of this is assuming that each and every Democrat will vote for her and that Wright will not need to spend a dime on getting registered Democrats to the polls.
There is another fact I think Wright supporters are forgetting, Congressional District 2 is more than just Salt Lake County and the sections of Moab we like – it is the entire southern part of the state. Allow me to refresh your memory with this map of CD 2:
See all of those areas south of Salt Lake? Kind of big, I know. I have taken the liberty of showing you the difference, by percentage, of Republicans versus Democrats in each county to give you an idea of how great the task of winning CD 2 really is.
Not a single county favors Democrats, though Carbon has the closest fight with just a .5% difference between R’s and D’s. The Average difference, by county, is 34%. Even the region in Salt Lake favors has nearly 20% more registered Republicans than Democrats.
And yet, the Wright campaign feels that it can win be being more liberal and more Democratic? This is where I lose respect for the campaign. I understand and respect those wishing to support Wright because they feel that she better represents their interests. Indeed, that is what our representative form of government should be about. But in the same breath they seem to forget that CD 2 is a large area with many varied interests that any representative will have to balance if they want to succeed.
I am telling you now, there is simply no way that Wright can win on a left platform. I am not a party elite, I do not have any particular vested interest in this race as I do not live in the district, lord knows I don’t have money to contribute. I am simply a guy who knows how to look at the numbers. When the Wright campaign claims that some sort of secret memo is going around or that Matheson supporters are spreading rumors about how Wright can’t win, I have to laugh. The secret memo is election data, the spreading rumors have to do with common sense.
Finally, I would like to close with this thought. For as long as I could remember, I have had a Republican representing me at nearly every level of government. I will tell you this – it sucks. Those who claim that they would prefer a full Republican over a half (or quarter, or whatever) Democrat in office so that we can beat them in two years are either too naive or too comfortable about their own situation. There is simply no other explanation for these thoughts.
Yes, we as Democrats are all pissed at Matheson over this issue or that, but you have not had a representative that continually and willfully ignores your issues time and time again…trust me, you haven’t. Bishop is smart and partisan, Chaffetz is stupid and partisan, but they are both partisan. Matheson breaks away from our party, sure, but he sure as hell votes for it more often than the other two combined.
It is a miracle Matheson was ever able to win that seat in the first place; the district was so gerrymandered that it should have all but guaranteed a Republican seat since 2002 – but its not. Even now, there is talk of carving up Utah even further to make four potential Republican seats, again, with no chance of the Democrat winning.
In the end this whole debate comes down to a discussion of philosophies. On the one side we have idealistic Wright supporters, on the other we have realistic Matheson supporters. As you can clearly tell, I am a realist when it comes to this race and I think it behooves us all to keep in mind that though Matheson may not win this November, Wright will not.
There are many excellent points in this post Curtis, but the one I like the most is that you mention the district (and the state) extends beyond Salt Lake County’s borders.
As the former Chair of Salt Lake County party, it pisses me off when people ignore the rest of the state. Why do you think Democrats keep losing statewide campaigns? Because they feel the rest of the state doesn’t matter. I can tell you for a fact that Democrats, Republicans, and moderates outside of Salt Lake County LOVE Jim Matheson. Those of us who are delegates to the state convention will be showing up and casting our votes for him. And if we all show up, Wright will lose.
What is the Wright campaign doing? Not talking to anyone outside of Salt Lake County. But it’s cool cause I’m making sure the delegates outside Salt Lake County do.
You make a compelling case. However, for me personally, there are more important things than just electing a democrat. Matheson is an incumbent who has become thoroughly corrupted by corporate money. Honestly, I think a freshman republican would still be better than an incumbent pseudo-democrat who is deeply beholden to special interests.
Corporate money in Washington is the biggest problem with this country. Until people collectively stand up and say “NO MORE,” laws will continue to be written in the interest of corporate money, and at the expense of The People.
Maybe if Matheson came out in support of setting congressional term limits, establishing public funding for campaigns, and ending corporate personhood–like Claudia does–I would support him. But there’s a snowball’s chance in Hell of that happening when he receives literally millions of dollars from large corporations.
My vote is most definitely with Claudia.
This is freakin amazing! Great post!
You’re totally right. The district is so much bigger than just SLC, Carbon and Moab. Didn’t the first Craigslist candidate back out because he said he didn’t have time to campaign across the entire district? If he loses the nomination, we will have a Republican come November, and these numbers back that up.
Personally, I believe we can elect another moderate Dem for the 4th seat in 2010. Jim Matheson votes for Democratic bills other members of the delegation would never dream of voting for (stimulus, hate crimes, nuke waste bill) and for me, that is better than trying to convince Merrill Cook or Enid Greene to vote for those bills if we get another mini me Repub in the 2nd district.
PS: Your Bishop/Chaffetz remark made me lol, love the blog, keep it up.
@Megan, the campaign is calling delegates and going on the road all over the district. Claudia has been down to Washington county (and many others) and received a warm reception and most of the delegates are behind her. Grand County loves her, and she has campaign volunteers that are state delegates from Carbon county. I have personally called delegates from all over the district. Your accusation is baseless. What are you trying to do with that kind of make-believe slander?
RE: Jake
You know- those issues are great but they aren’t issues that get candidates elected in places like the second district. Curtis is right, “On the one side we have idealistic Wright supporters, on the other we have realistic Matheson supporters.” Politics in Utah is all about extremes, but ending corporate personhood is never going to be an issue “most” Utahns care about, especially the national party. There are campaign contribution limits and even PACs can’t donate more than 5,000 per election cycle, and individuals 2,400.
State races on the other hand, are a free for all and candidates can raise a million dollars in one night.
Getting more Democrats in office in Utah is going to take a lot more than reactionary liberal policies. Utah is a very unique state and our politics even more peculiar.
RE: Elizabeth
I disagree that “ending corporate personhood is never going to be an issue ‘most’ Utahns care about.” A recent ABC poll found that 70-something percent of Republicans disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision supporting Corporate Personhood in January’s Citizens United case.
Corporate rule is not a Left vs. Right issue–it’s something that affects us all in a very profound way, and is definitely something we should all be working together on.
Sure- nationally perhaps that poll has sway. However- check out this recent DesNews article about the priorities of both parties in Utah. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700027726/Poll-shows-real-differences-in-Utah-partiesapos-priorities.html
I don’t see corporate personhood as becoming a rallying cry that will lead Wright to victory in district 2. I just don’t. But we can agree to disagree, and thank the baby Jesus for this awesome blog to host as a forum for our discussion.
Great post Curtis. I would like to see Wrights campaign try to refute these facts. As a delegate in CD2 I have yet to recieve one phone call from Claudia’s campaign, I recieved at least 4 phone calls and 3 letters from Matheson’s campaign. I know a few other delegates in cd2 that haven’t heard anything from Claudia either… so Megans accusation is not completely baseless…
Great post Curtis, and you are right. If Democrats lose Jim you better get used to the phrase, “Hello Congressman Philpot.”
The notion that Wright is electable in this election cycle in Utah is baffling. In this same cycle, Bennett is likely to be ousted for even THINKING about working with democrats. I’d love a rep supporting medicare for all, ending corporate personhood etc but I can’t see 50% of the district voting that way.
As a Claudia Wright supporter, I am tired of being talked to as if I don’t understand how to read a map. I understand that District 2 is heavily gerrymandered. I understand that Claudia will have a difficult time winning Republican votes. I regret that Claudia supporters are referred to as idealists instead of as optimists or visionaries.
I would almost rather be called a fatalist. At least then the Matheson camp would understand that we are not supporting Claudia as a day-trip from reality. We are supporting Claudia because we have no choice in the matter. Being complicit is intolerably excruciating for us. We feel just as helpless as you.
I’m not going to ask you to become a Claudia Wright supporter. What I am going to ask you is how much longer you will accept the status quo in your life; how much longer you’re going to tolerate being represented by someone who caters so heavily to his corporate influences at your expense.
I’m tired of choosing between the better of two evils, and I am doing something about it.
And along with Congressman Philpot, you better get used to saying “Hello Speaker Boehner” (regardless of the hilarity in the irony.) A vote for Matheson is a vote for a Democratic Speaker and a Democratic Speaker ensures President Obama’s agenda will be heard. I don’t know about you, but I am very happy with what he has done so far with the help of Congressman Matheson.
President Obama’s major accomplishments to date:
1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6 Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21 The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with theGeneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57 Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Reformed the nation’s healthcare system
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Finally, he built Sasha and Malia a swingset outside of the Oval Office.
Its time to wake up Utah and realize that we can effect national politics and policies, and our Democratic State Delegates have a tremendous power in their decisions on May 8.
I agree with your numbers but I disagree wth the underlying sentiment that Matheson is the best we can do or that the alternative is worse. If the Dems in Utah become a collection of right leaning centerists I will be done with the party. For many Dems he has betrayed the core principles of the party and practical considerations can not overcome that. There is a reason why traitors are hated more than the enemy. But, it isn’t my district either, so I am not getting too invested in it.
Also, when you said, “Those who claim that they would prefer a full Republican over a half (or quarter, or whatever) Democrat in office so that we can beat them in two years are either too naive or too comfortable about their own situation. There is simply no other explanation for these thoughts.”
There can be no other explanation for another person’s POV other than the one you have formulated for them? Arrogant much, Curtis? :)
How about, there are some who think that with a Republican in the seat it will not have a huge spotlight on it and the district will be less of the focus when a 4th seat gets thrown ino the mix. There is a real chance that the legislature will try to gerrymander all four seats rather than just secure three of them. This could leave two of the four competitive. If Matheson stays, it is more likely they will aim for the 3 to 1 division. I am not saying it is a good case to make but it is an alternative to your one and only possible explanation.
Great analysis, Curtis.
My problem with the Wright primary challenge isn’t that I don’t like primary challenges (love them, think they’re great), but that those who put the campaign together seem to have not taken it seriously themselves. I’ve met Claudia three times. I love her. I love her politics. But the simplest way to give example here is that anyone who thinks a Single Payer supporter (which I am myself, I want to note) could get elected in UT-2 is either so lost in the clouds of idealism, or so unaware of the political realities (which HAVE to be considered when you primary, like it or not) that they shouldn’t be taken seriously themselves.
And if they didn’t take it seriously, why should we?
Running Claudia as a candidate this year will do more to push Matheson further right than it will send a message. There was a way this could have been done effectively. Running someone just a little further left of Jim would have been a great plan. But running this far left turns the entire primary into a joke.
In fact, I think those of us who have criticized Jim for years for his bad votes should be angry about this primary. In effect, the Wright campaign has reinforced the “look, the liberals are after me!” message Jim fall back on so often, and which we have all worked hard for years to undo.
This is a token primary, and it’s unfortunate it couldn’t have developed into more.
Has anyone every considered that perhaps the congressman votes the way he does because of the district he represents? I appreciate the passion from the Wright supporters, but representation is not about representing 10% of the voters in a district.
Anyway… as someone reminded me yesterday, this is just politics and this banter back and forth is JUST what is done to gather up delegate votes. No one needs to take these differing opinions personally. Those of us who support the congressman do so because we understand the reality of the situation, and are merely trying to explain to other delegates why this vote IS about politics and not about ideology. It’s a buggar of a situation, but it is what it is.
In 2002, in Matheson’s first election in the newly gerrymandered 2nd CD, I was asked to go and be a vote watcher in our county clerk’s office here in Southern Utah. The republican staff had no problem telling me again and again how much they hated that they had a Democrat representing them, and hoped he would go down in flames. (bear in mind, this is Iron county – Scott Matheson senior was raised here, and is buried in the Parowan cemetary – Jim should be one of their own, he has a billion cousins in the county, and he should have been welcomed with open arms. But he was not). And they were visibly upset when it appeared that he would probably win the district, even though he did so by a very tiny margin. When I explained to them that their anger shouldn’t be directed at the congressman, but instead at their own republican legislators for drawing the district the way they did (trying to oust the Democrat by creating a Republican safe district), they were shocked and couldn’t understand how that possibly could have happened. I told them to focus their anger on the legislature and work to get decent district boundaries that might actually represent them better at congress.
Now, in 2010, I think the vast majority of folks in these here parts aren’t so angry with him anymore, and everyone I talk to say he is the *only* member of the Utah delegation who pays attention to what the voters want. Pay attention – what the VOTERS of CD2 want, not what the Utah Democratic party or Progressive Democrats want. Corporate money and all that doesn’t phase people, but when their congressman works to bring projects, money, and valuable things to the communities he represents, they have respect for him. He has worked hard for those things. I have watched him do it year after year and I find it extremely commendable.
Again, I have no ill will to Claudia Wright or her supporters. This is politics. But at the end of the day we’re all in this together and need to remember that our party is a great big tent which welcomes different perspectives and opinions. We’re not all the same, we don’t have the same points of view – but there are things that make us all solid democrats, through and through. Lets try to remember that as this debate goes forward.
I have yet to hear a logical argument about how Claudia Wright can win the Southern part of the state. Salt Lake county? Maybe. Grand County? Possibly. Carbon County? There is a chance (although I think Carbon County Democrats are a little more realistic than that).
Even if many of the delegates in Washington County are behind her, that doesn’t mean that the rest of the county will be when it comes down to the general election. The idea that a candidate as liberal as Wright could ever win a general election in Southern Utah is absurd.
And if she possibly did win, how could she boast an extremely liberal voting record and also say that she was representing her constituents? The two cannot go hand-in-hand.
I get it, you’re pissed. You want a liberal in office. I sympathize, I really do. This is the wrong year to do it.
If Claudia loses at convention, 20 bucks says that camp is going to do nothing but cry foul based on the bullshit that has been getting circulated lately ( particularly with the whole YDU thing… this week). They will blame the system and how they got fucked over, whether it’s true or not. It will turn people off.
If Claudia wins convention or a primary, and loses the election, it is going to be squarely blamed on the fact that she is gay. Her being a liberal will not even matter. You may not like that but it’s true. It will serve no purpose but to drive a wedge between the LBGT community and the Democratic Party since it will look like bitter resentment all around.
Those are HUGE fucking issues. Especially since there is no reason to even be running right now. Matheson is leaving the damn seat in 2 year to run against Hatch. We pick up a 4th seat and possibly that seat is a Salt Lake and thus liberal seat in 2012. Why not bank on a Senate seat, an open slam dunk House seat, and be fighting for a second House seat in 2 years. If Matheson’s thunder gets pulled out from under him now it doesn’t do us any good. If you don’t understand why this is important it’s because you aren’t paying close enough attention.
Please don’t make “a point” about Matheson at the expense of the rest of us, just wait 2 f-ing years.
Matheson’s election was a “miracle?” As in, it should have been impossible and yet it happened? It can’t be explained by conventional wisdom but occurred through factors beyond our understanding?
But Claudia winning is definitely impossible, since politics is a black and white issue where we have a complete understanding of how all the people in District 2 think. Isn’t that right, Curtis?
Doesn’t it get frustrating to put so much effort into politics when you believe that the world cannot possibly change?
Wrong. Not the wrong year to do, but the Right year to do it. Unlike Matheson, Claudia Wright shares some important issues that even Tea Partiers agree with – public financing of campaigns, removing corporate interest from our government – she just has a different approach. Matheson is corporate-funded and votes corporate interest, and he just might be trashed worse than Bennett in a general election in the district. If 36% of Democrats turned out for the last election, guess how many are going to turn out to vote for Matheson? Guess how many more will be inspired to turn out for Claudia Wright – who is a people-powered candidate who will represent the people? That’s right. Many more – not to count the moderate Republicans who are being inspired by her campaign as well. Claudia Wright represents the core principles of the Democratic Party – and those principles are based on commonsense ideas. The time is now. Claudia Wright can take the nomination, and win the general election in November. There are enough people who want a good alternative, who want someone to represent them, someone who presents good, solid ideas and makes sense. Matheson is unfortunately an (un)representative. He’s finished. He’s exactly the kind of politician voters across the board with to get rid of.
Dimitrios: I can’t imagine a more nightmare scenario than having Matheson as my senator. I suppose you didn’t hear about some of the caucuses Matheson showed up at and alienated with his arrogance? Unlike Matheson, Claudia Wright can inspire people, especially disillusioned voters.
Still curious, from the CW supporters, how exactly she is going to win in crucial counties of UT02 like Washington County”? Rhetoric on facebook gets you partly there, but with no money and minimal visibility, how exactly is she going to pull this off?
What Emily said at 12:40 PM. I agree with everything she said.
I joined a conference call with the Congressman tonight and asked several questions that he answered to my satisfaction. He does support the repeal of DADT, and he is very concerned about the immigration issue.
I don’t know of any politician in my long life who does what I want all the time. I think the most relevant position in all of this is that Jim DOES represent his district. Some of us are just not part of the majority in his district.
The very bottom line for me is I want a Democrat representing me so my concerns get a chance to be heard and voted on. I worked way too hard for Obama to lose Democrats now, no matter where they are on the political spectrum.
Realism out-trumps idealism for me in this round.
If Iowa’s Democratic caucusers had believed this kind kind of analysis in 2008, Obama would not be president.
The comparison of the Obama campaign to the Wright campaign is ridiculous.
[...] difficult chances in Congressional District 2; that article, for the two of you who missed it, ran yesterday with much [...]
I need to say one more thing (that may not be accurate) about this election. There has been way too much crticism of those of us who are voting for Matheson. Our motivations have been questioned, our ethics have been questioned, and our credentials as “true” Democrats have been questioned.
To my knowledge, this is not what Matheson supporters are doing to Wright supporters. We simply question her ability to win this district as it is constituted now. Wanting to keep this seat in Democratic hands is not a betrayal of the Democratic party.
As delegates, we are entitled to make our own decisions based on our own reasoning, as well as what is good for the Democratic party as a whole. I, for one, am tired of the insinuations and outright falsities coming from some on the Wright side. I believe she is a good person and deserves support from those who believe in her candidacy. IAnd I would certainly support her if she becomes our candidate.
Now, could we all just be left to make our decisions based on what we think is best for our state and our party at this moment in time.
Something I have not seen mentioned in this analysis is the cold, hard fact that there were literally hundreds of delegates that turned out this year to the Democratic caucuses in March and signed up with an R after their name. The political landscape is changing dramatically, even here in Utah. I have personally met delegates who have gotten so fed up with the Tea Partiers taking over the GOP that they are turning to the Democratic party for representation. They are tired of seeing their gay friends and family members treated like second-class citizens. They are upset that people they know and love who may be immigrants to this country are being slandered and told to go home. They are done with the hateful rhetoric and with the knee-jerk posturing. They are even in favor of thing such as clean energy, health care reform and other ideals which will move the country to a better place in the future. I believe that Claudia will win the hearts and minds of the delegates on May 8th, and will be a great Congresswoman come November.
Thank you Deb Henry. I think you speak to what is missing in the ‘Wright is Wrong’ blog: the fact that an election can still be based not on money and numbers’ calculations (which are always subject to what is indeterminable and unrepresentable in politics as in life) but on democratic values and ideals. I am voting for Claudia Wright because, from grassroots’ beginnings, she represents what I care about and want to hear addressed (finally) in Utah political discourse: a belief in publically-funded elections (an end to special interests and corporate personhood); a belief that all US citizens deserve the same health care benefits that Congressional representatives have; a belief that all citizens deserve equal rights under US law; a belief that we must begin to bridge the gap between fossil fuel dependence and renewable energy; a belief that people matter more than re-election concerns and data game-playing.
Every visionary we celebrate today spoke/speaks from a deep compassion for people, not from an intellectual assessment of what strategies might work in a campaign based almost solely on monetary considerations. I do not find compassion to be a central tenet in Matheson’s or Curtis’ campaign statements, and that is, in my experience, a fatal omission.
I do not have a vote in the convention, being in Summit C and CD1 but I’d liek to make a few brief points:
1. No I did not like Matheson’s vote on Healthcare and I probably won’t like his vote on Climate, but the most important vote he casts is for speaker. Aside from those votes, he regularly votes with the majority. Boehner as speaker will bring the President’s agenda to a complete halt. We will be in defensive mode until 2012.
2. If you ever want a liberal in CD 2 the best way is to get a better draw on the congressional districts next year. There are 2 ways that happens: Matheson wins big this year and the “R’s” give up on trying to gerrymander him out of office or if Corroon and at least least 4 more Democratic reps or 2 more Democratic senators get elected this fall. And a strong Matheson run this year will contribute to that outcome. Either way we need Matheson to win big this year.
What really bothers me about Jim Matheson is he didn’t go to the Democratic National Convention, when they nominated Barack Obama. Then he didn’t bother going to Obama’s inauguration!