.
.
.
.
.
...I know what I have to do next time, my loyal subjects...
Calitics’ Robert Cruickshank first ponders how different it may have been, or may not have been, for Queen Meg, if she had run as an independent and spared herself the trouble of courting the extreme right wing just to get through the GOP primary:
Would Meg Whitman have won if she ran as an independent candidate?
That’s the question that comes to mind after reflecting on the collapse of the California Republican Party. With a base that refuses to accept 21st century reality and demands fealty to an agenda of white supremacy and feudal economics, Republican candidates are going to struggle to win statewide elections in a state where a clear majority of the population has rejected that base’s extremism.
In turn, that means Republican statewide candidates will always face the dilemma that helped bring down Whitman – they cannot please the right-wing base and have any chance at winning a statewide election. Whitman had to appease her base’s hatred of Latinos, and as a result lost the election by 13 points.
But what if Whitman didn’t have to run as a Republican? What if she spent her money to get herself on the ballot as an independent candidate? Whitman would have been free of the need to appease the right-wing base, and could have made a credible bid to win Latinos and other Californians who refuse to support the Republican agenda.
This thought experiment can only go so far, of course. Whitman didn’t just attack Latinos and threaten to destroy the state’s public services because it was necessary to win a GOP primary – it’s what she actually believed. Even as an independent candidate, Whitman’s same personal and political flaws would have enabled Jerry Brown to win – especially if Whitman bled votes to an actual Republican candidate. So an independent candidacy would, on its own, not have meaningfully changed things…
It’s easy to forget though, that California’s elections are going to be a lot different starting in 2012. Remember Prop 14 from last June, the “open primary” aka “top two” or “jungle primary?” Conservative Republicans were against it, progressive Democrats were against it, Libertarians, Greens, and other third parties were against it, but still most of you-all voted yes on it – at least those of you who bothered to vote.
It was sold to you as a way to get more “moderate” candidates in, and encourage more “bipartisan” co-operation, but what does that really mean in practice? It means more socially-liberal, corporate-friendly DINOs and RINOs just like the folks who dreamed it up – Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abel Maldonado. The most “moderate” and best funded Republican in a red district will end up winning, as will the most “moderate” and best funded Democrat in blue districts. That’s not what conservatives want, and it’s not what progressives want, and it locks out third parties even more than before. But it does seem to be a system tailor-made for a candidate like Queen Meg, socially moderate, corporate-friendly, and hell of well funded. Robert continues:
…What about the top-two primary?
That’s where things get interesting – and worrisome. It would not be difficult for corporate elites to back statewide candidates who run as independents in a top-two primary. These would be candidates in the mold of Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Britain’s David Cameron – accepting the social liberalism of the electorate (rejecting the religious right, the anti-Latino right, and the anti-gay right) while espousing right-wing, neoliberal, corporate-friendly economic policies.
With enough money behind them, it is possible that such a candidate could place in the top two in the primary, alongside a Democrat, and pose a formidable challenge in a general election. Arnold Schwarzenegger showed how such a candidate could win in an election without party primaries (the 2003 recall). It’s a new party – the Corporate Party – that you don’t want to see.
At the same time, this effort would encounter some significant obstacles. Voters showed that they really don’t like wealthy self-funders, and are tiring of right-wing economic policies that undermine the public sector basis of prosperity.
Additionally, there really isn’t any electoral base for this kind of candidate – California’s electorate is divided into a large progressive bloc, a sizable right-wing bloc, and a very small number of people who aren’t solidly in either one, but who nevertheless gravitate toward one or the other. Wealth alone can’t cobble together a coalition that can give an independent corporate candidate a second-place showing in the primary.
Still, this represents the best, and perhaps only, hope for the corporate elite here in California. With an unelectable Republican Party, gaming the top-two primary gives them a shot at blocking Democrats from governing California.
Of course, Democrats themselves have work to do – namely, laying out a progressive agenda and vision for California that can consolidate Democratic victories. But that’s the topic for tomorrow’s post…
So what do you-all think?
Good grief. Is Art already back as “Admin”?
For a long time, both Art and I have used “admin” when posting things that are mostly taken from other writers, and both Art and I have used “Zorro” when writing about immigration. You really can’t tell our styles apart? Tsk, tsk.
Her party did not matter.
She was a poor canidate.
I wonder why the GOP can not put forth a solid canidate statewide.
I see Hanlon is shilling for DeVore again, Whats up with that, these guys could never get the votes with people like DeVore, Whitman, Fiorina and even Cooley.
It’s their nasty views that make them lose. BILLIONARES get the same ammount of votes as BUS DRIVERS = 1.
Take that to your financial planner Chip!
She would have helped herself if she had not kept changing positions on issues, had a track record of at least voting all the time and not looking like she was trying to buy the office so she could give herself a tax break.
Could she have won in a different enviroment? Perhaps, but her lack of any record of even caring about what happened in the state or country would likely have still sunk her.
How will the new system work out, it will be interesting to see. Nothing seems to work the way it was sold to so time willl tell.
There is a fair chance the top-two system will have been declared unconstitutional before the 2012 election. There is a trial about to start in Washington state in which the evidence against the system is quite strong.
I worked at eBay.com long before Meg Whitman came on board, after 4 years from 1997-2001, Meg eliminated several jobs within the eBay campus, mine was one of them. Had she won the job as Governor of California, you can bet her ego would have done the same, I have no respect for her after what she did to me ! She needs to do something better with all that $$$$$$ she has, help the police, teachers and those jobs that are disappearing in my state.