08/21/2002 Archived Entry: "Top Progressive Democratic Candidates in 2002"
I recieved an e-mail from a reader in LA, asking this question, with my response that follows:
> ...I would like to donate some cash to three progressive House democratic
> candidates who have a real chance and who could benefit most from the money.
> My feeling is that the House will go to the Democrats, but being that many
> of them are in fact Republicans masquerading as Democrats, I feel the party
> needs to have a comfortable margin before it will grow a backbone.
>
> Do you feel comfortable making three suggestions?
>
...recognizing their potential of actually getting elected, with their progressive values:
1. Julie Thomas in Iowa
2. Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota
3. Richard Romero in New Mexico
See if you like them. Also, consider supporting Matsunaka in CO against
Musgrave. He is not all that progressive compared to others, but Musgrave
will be the most extreme radical right woman in the House if she is elected,
and Matsunaka can win.
I would not consider myself an authority on determining who the progressive Democrats are in 2002. However, after some thought, those are the three I decided upon. Thomas comes from a medical background, Romero from an educational background, and Herseth could become a strong populist voice. The possibility of Musgrave in the House ought to be enough for progressives to endorse Matsunaka. In These Times author John Nichols came up with 10 of the progressive contenders worth watching as the 2002 campaign gears up. Martha Fuller Clark, John Norris, and Dario Herrera are three other House contenders included in the list. I'm sure there are others worth mentioning.
Replies: 13 comments
My gut feeling is that Musgrave has a better chance than Heather Wilson. The district clearly fits her profile...white flighters, gun-totters and other folks not in the American mainstream. Even if they are in a depression with 35% unemployment they would vote GOP. The folks there think that she is a modern day Boudica who is there to liberate them from the modern day Ceasers. Thomas may have a chance. Herseth's chances depend on the extent of the drought and the ability of Bush to help SD out. As of now, he wants to use that money he would use to help farmers to provide capital gains tax cuts for his business cronies.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/22/2002 08:05 AM PST
You're being too pessimistic about CO-4, Raj, if I may say so. A poll back in June had Musgrave up 40-35 over Matsunaka, easily within distance of a Matsunaka upset. If 60% of the district is not lined up for your "Boudicca" (And I completely agree with you on her, by the way), then I wouldn't call the district that conservative. And if there was 35% unemployment, the country would disintigrate into anarchy (We almost had it during the Great Depression), and I'm sure that the party in control would be entirely kicked out, like the Republicans in 1932. So, the district really isn't THAT conservative. Matsunaka can win this race, and progressives definatly need to get behind him to stop Musgrave.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/22/2002 11:35 AM PST
Not my Boudicca...theirs.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/22/2002 11:58 AM PST
Sorry for the meaning-I was indeed refering to their Boudicca. Still, do you agree with me on the analysis part-that was the point of it.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/22/2002 12:10 PM PST
Yes. I agree. However, maybe Colorado Pundit or other folks in Colorado who contribute to this board can shed some light into this.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/22/2002 03:04 PM PST
Julie Thomas in Iowa is a progressive? I guess if one still believes MN Sen. Wellstone is a "progressive" that isn't too great of a logical leap.
I'm greatly curious about the criteria for picking Dr Thomas!
Posted by IowaObserver @ 08/23/2002 11:53 AM PST
http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2002-05-15.176.phtml
Using the term progressive within a full-specturm political perspective, Thomas, as well as Wellstone, is a progressive.... given todays meaning-- a center-left Democrat on social issues. Progressive, as reference to global issues, has pretty much fallen out of use.
Posted by myDD @ 08/23/2002 12:16 PM PST
In regards to the Colorado 4th CD, Musgrave is a dyed in the wood religious right wacko. It's one thing to hold deep religious values; it's another to be as nasty and divisive as Musgrave. She makes Jesse Helms and Tom DeLay look like members of the ACLU.
The GOP leadership would have prefered (quietly) Jeff Bedingfield to get the nod but "moderates" (those left in the party) have a habit of talking a lot but not producing....they seem to go out golfing on primary day. The religious right foot soldiers, on the other hand, may constitute a minority but they control GOP primaries.
Matsunaka is a good candidate, as far as the 4th CD goes. It's a conservative, rural, farm and ranch area with a little (and I mean LITTLE) bit of liberalism thrown in around Greeley and Fort Collins. Matsunaka comes from an old South Platte River valley farming family; Musgrave's from a small town far out on the plains where cattle outnumber people. There are a lot more people in Matsunaka's valley part of the district than in Musgrave's plains.
Matsunaka's a DLC-type Democrat. His record on the environment and gun control wouldn't win him any elections in Denver but he's not running in an urban or suburban district. In addition, the Greens aren't running anyone in the 4th CD so Matsunaka doesn't have to protect his left, unless they simply don't vote. Musgrave, however, is a great motivator for moderates and liberals to get out and vote Democratic.
My inclination it to call this a Musgrave win by about 55% to 45% but I won't be surprised to see Matsunaka knock her out of the box, but not by much. The big games in Colorado right now are the Senate seat and the new 7th CD (north Denver suburbs), both of which are winnable by either major party.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/23/2002 02:04 PM PST
Colorado Senate race could go down to the wire. It depends on whether Allard is still under 50 in four weeks time. Seventh could go either way, and there is an outside chance that fourth could go either way, as far as I can see. I would be in Colorado week after next. I would try and gauge. But, if I am a betting man, NM-1 (or for that matter Utah-2) has a better chance of swinging to the Dems than Colorado 4th.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/23/2002 03:41 PM PST
Allard/Strickland
Strickland has some fairly good name recognition in Colorado and has recently started responding to some really poorly done and nasty ads by the Allard group. Strickland is a much better campaigner than Allard, younger and more energetic. Allard has a fairly strong foothold in Pueblo and Colorado Springs but he plays extremely weak in Denver County. Jefferson County is traditionally strong conservatives, however, there are a lot of upwardly mobile, got rich fast and are losing it fast, young (30 - 40) voters and they are not happy with the present state of affairs. They don't see Strickland's lobby experience as a minus, but they do see Allard's lack of involvement in the affairs of metro Denver a minus and Jefferson County is part of metro Denver. I look for Strickland to come on strong the end of Sept. and Oct. Jefferson County isn't the stronghold of the "good ole boys" it once was and Allard was part of that group. I think Strickland has a really good chance.
Posted by SAMM @ 08/23/2002 11:14 PM PST
Jeffco still supports Tom Tancredo, and very few people in the US Congress are more bigoted than Tancredo.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/24/2002 02:16 PM PST
Jefferson County, Colorado, is indicative of some of the demographic and political changes occuring in the suburban West. The county, with around 450,000 people, contains old and new suburbs just west of the City and County of Denver plus small communities in the Rocky Mountain foothills, such as Evergeeen and Conifer.
Traditionally Jefferson has been a conservative, Republican county. In recent years, however, changes have started to occur. The central part of the county, including the cities of Lakewood and Golden, is getting more liberal due to the influx of Hispanics, young people and gays and lesbians. In 2000 several senate victories in Jefferson helped tip control of the Colorado state senate to the Democrats.
Southern Jefferson (home to Columbine High School of mass murder infamy) is typical suburban sprawl, heavily oriented to the GOP. The northern part of the county, including the cities of Arvada and Westminster, is a bit more moderate, probably because of the number of high tech workers (and recently, unemployed high tech workers). Conservative Republicans there don't do as well.
The foothills have a more environmental tint to their politics. Republicans have been faring less well there lately because many of the new voters are attracted to environmental issues and not religious right dogmas.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party organization in Jefferson is weak. The party regularly fails to field candidates for county offices and legislative seats. Redistricting put much of central and northern Jefferson in the new 7th CD, leaving the heavily GOP south in Tancredo's 6th CD.
So, while the GOP may be slipping in parts of Jefferson, the Dems have yet to step forward to take advantage of the opportunity. To complicate matters for the Dems the Green Party is growing in Jefferson. That party is running a strong candidate for the 7th CD and expects to field some legislative and county candidates in 2004.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/24/2002 03:59 PM PST
"The county, with around 450,000 people, contains old and new suburbs just west of the City and County of Denver plus small communities in the Rocky Mountain foothills, such as Evergeeen and Conifer."
"Southern Jefferson (home to Columbine High School of mass murder infamy) is typical suburban sprawl, heavily oriented to the GOP."
They both have one thing in common. They hate Asians and I do not think they like Hispanics either. The best chance for the Dems is in the seventh from what I can see...fourth is going to be difficult. Then again...the best chance for the Dem is in the Senate race. Perhaps the unemployed Techies in Arvada can vote Allard out. In Texas, I think the Senate race could well be decided by less than 1,000 votes and the soon to be unemployed American Airline workers would perhaps make the difference, that is if they can ignore Kirk's Skin color and decide to vote their misery.
Posted by G. C. Raj @ 08/25/2002 12:15 PM PST
