Florida held its primaries on August 24. Brian Moore, who was the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate in 2008, was on the Democratic ballot as a candidate for Governor. In a two-person race, he received 23.1% of the vote. Not all votes have been counted yet, but already he is credited with 200,000 votes. See this story.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
There is no real surprise in Mr. Moores’ vote. Without a major opponent to Ms Sink in the Democratic Primary, any one could have pulled 20% or more of the vote.
We must advise caution here. 3rd partisans and Independents should not “misread” this vote for Mr. Moore, as evidence candidates of 3rd party or independent philosophies can do better or even have a chance of victory by running in a major party primary. Don’t bet on it! Other than some local – uncontested offices – most 3rd party and independent candidates will always be defeated, though their vote strength may vary.
However, running in these primaries for “exposure and a forum for issues” can have a positive benefit. Mr. Moore ought now to consider running for U S Senate form Florida in 2012 (if such a seat is up in 2012) as a Socialist. Perhaps some of his “name recognition” might carry over.
Who knows, it’s worth a try.
Not a bad idea because of “name recognition”, but this is not enough to go with. What helped Mr. Moore’s opponent was being a large donor within the DEM and starting her race early to lock up party endorsements. Mr. Moore did very well and in some cases basically split the votes 50/50. The urban areas need exposure time to get to know Moore and his plan & stands on issues. I really have to wonder how many people even knew there was a DEM primary because it was in fact almost unheard of (low key)?
Richard, this suggests what can be done. Politics is the art of the possible.
Don’t let the defeatists obstruct your vision of the possible! If a Socialist can borrow the label “Democratic” and get 23% of the vote in FLA, what could be done in CA?
Check out my new article on the optimistic interpretation of Prop 14
http://www.opednews.com/articles/CA-Prop-14-Explained-by-William-J-Kellehe-100827-354.html
Bill Kelleher
Internetvoting@gmail.com
It is not likely that Brian Moore would run for any office on the SPUSA ticket because (as mentioned previously on this website), Mr. Moore no longer belongs to that Party. Of course, he could rejoin. However, that Party seems to be going downhill quickly, so I would not bet on that happening.
Considering the manner in which Brian Moore left the Socialist Party, I highly doubt he’ll be back any time soon.
Still, why do you say the Socialist Party is “going downhill quickly?” Speaking as a member, our growth hasn’t been stellar (but which socialist group has, really?), but we’ve been doing well.
Hi “Peter M.”:
It would be interesting to know about “the manner in which Brian Moore left” SPUSA. I have not heard about that yet.
One of the main reasons that I believe that SPUSA is going downhill quickly is because of the attitude of its leaders toward merging with other parties of a similar nature. Over the past few years, I have urged the Party to merge with the Peace and Freedom Party of California. One of the answers that I have received from the leaders of both Parties is that they are not enough alike. Yet, both Parties claim to be “multi-tendency parties.” Go figure! PFP-CA, however, has a new State Chairperson, C.T. Weber. He is a friend of mine and I have some hope for positive changes in that Party. (Not enough to rejoin at this time, though. Plus, I consider myself to be more of a political moderate than most of the members of that Party; so right now, it would not be a good fit.) Another reason for my non-confidence in SPUSA is that the Party (due to its structure and bylaws) seems to be more interested in expelling members than in getting new ones. The Party does not like dual memberships (i.e., memberships in both DSA and SPUSA). Not that all people with dual memberships are expelled, I admit. It is just that, as a policy, it is not good to be against dual memberships, especially when the left parties are so tiny. Furthermore, there are too many problems with non-recognition of State Party affiliates in certain States. That is my general impression of what has been going on for the last decade or two. Please correct me if I am mistaken on any of this.
23.1 percent of the vote in a two candidate primary isn’t very good.
I don’t know Florida electoral law, but since this is described as a Democratic Part primary, I assume Mr. Moore will not be on the ballot in the general election for governor.
California’s recently adopted “open” primary will likely have the same effect. Left candidates for state office will likely be eliminated in the primary and not appear on the General Election ballot.
Third party advocates in California overwhelmingly disagree with the author that the open primary will help them. Many are concerned that the California Green Party and Peace & Freedom Party will lose their ballot status behind this new law and fade away.
The GP and PFP may very well not be able to maintain their ballot status by achieving a certain percentage of the vote in a California General Election, since they will have a hard time, and they may find it impossible, to getting any of their candidates qualified for a General Election.
This is a huge problem for PFP, which would have to approximately double it’s voter registration in California to maintain it’s ballot status, which is the other way to qualify for permanent ballot status in CA.
The California GP is not in as bad a situation, since that party has a voter registration that is close to enough to maintain their permanent ballot status.
It should be noted that the California GP won it’s permanent ballot status through achieving enough party registrants before the GP ever ran it’s first candidate for statewide office.
Jonathan Nack wrote: “It should be noted that the California GP won it’s permanent ballot status through achieving enough party registrants before the GP ever ran it’s first candidate for statewide office.”
Phil Sawyer responds: So did the Peace and Freedom Party of California – way back in 1967! The most significant mistake that the Party did after that was to nominate Eldridge Cleaver for President (1968). The Party should have nominated Senator Eugene J. McCarthy.
@ Phil Sawyer #5:
Well, there is a bit of history behind PFP and SP-USA merger relations. Back at the 2007 national convention, a resolution to open discussions with the PFP with aims of a merger in mind was brought (I believe by the SPMI.) I personally supported it, but because of having to deal with more immediate issues, it didn’t get to the floor. In principle, I still support closer cooperation between the SP-USA and the PFP, but there are some issues that I think would make a full merger difficult. Primary among them is the PSL comrades who are also PFP members. As the SP’s bylaws currently stands, it bars dual membership with groups that claim to practise “democratic centralism,” which would mean that if the PFP merged with the SP, PSL members could not be part of the new organisation unless that bylaw was overridden. Personally, I think the rule barring dual membership in “democratic centralist” organisations is a fairly silly blanket ban to have (though I can understand a need for prohibiting dual membership in specific organisations,) but as of yet the votes haven’t been there to change the rule, and just going around ignoring rules that we don’t like is not a recipe for a healthy organisation.
The issue with dual membership in DSA has been simmering for a long time, and the issue here seems primarily political. From the perspective of the people who argue for prohibiting dual membership between the SP and DSA, DSA’s political strategy routinely involves support for Democratic Party candidates in elections, whereas the SP-USA takes a strong stand for political action independent of the Democratic Party. The question follows to dual DSA/SP-USA members: if you support working within the Democratic Party, you cannot be a member of the SP; if you support independent political action, why are you a member of DSA? Personally, I think it is a little more complicated than this- and considering DSA doesn’t “officially” rule out independent political action gives some people an argument for wiggle room, despite that DSA’s practise is almost always to support Democrats- but it is a fairly legitimate question to raise, in my opinion. As to dual membership in general, it’s intertwined a bit with merging with the PFP (as I mentioned earlier).
I do admit I don’t know what you mean about not recognising locals or state parties in some areas. I suppose it might be the case that there are areas where people do meet as a “local of the Socialist Party USA,” engage in organised activity, and have all the structure of a local. Nevertheless, to be a recongised SP-USA local, it needs to fill out some minimal paperwork and send it into the national office (as per Article IV of the SP’s constitution: http://socialistparty-usa.org/constitution.html ). If that doesn’t happen, then there’s very little way of knowing that the local actually exists. If there are cases where the requirements have been completed and sent in, but the local still isn’t recognised, I do grant that is a problem, but I can’t think of any time that’s happened during my tenure as a member (since April 2005.)
Hopefully this clears up some things, or at least is base for further discussion.
That’s interesting Phil.
Phil,
You may be right, despite McCarthy’s endorsement of Reagan’s candidacy just 12 years after the Cleaver campaign. A McCarthy nomination in 1968 would at least have assisted PFP in party-building. Cleaver’s values
in his last years were certainly antithetical to those of PFP.
Dave,
You hit a sore spot on that one. Like most (my guess) of Eugene McCarthy’s long-time supporters, I was mystified about that 1980 endorsement of Ronald Reagan (even after hearing all the explanations). I have often said and written since then that I wish that McCarthy would have endorsed and campaigned for John B. Anderson, the independent presidential candidate in 1980. However, Gene’s complex, enigmatic, and poetic personality was so very much of what we loved about the man. So, that is just the way that it was.
At the risk of sounding flippant, which is not what I want to do here, I have to say that the list of things that are “antithetical to those of PFP” is a very long list indeed. As a Native Californian who has been in and out of PFP-CA several times, I think that I have solid ground to stand on in making that statement. Personally, I think that Mr. Cleaver became a better many after he converted to the Christian faith, bless his soul.
Yes, Eugene McCarthy would really have helped to build PFP-CA. The Party did finally redeem itself somewhat by nominating the Nader-Gonzalez ticket in 2008. I think that the Party should considerable maturity by doing that.
Woops! I meant to write ” … the Party showed considerable maturity by doing that.” One other thing, PFP-CA (and its national affiliate at the time, the Peoples Party) made a very good nomination for president in 1972: Dr. Benjamin Spock. So far, Dr. Spock and Mr. Nader have won the most votes for the Party in its presidential campaigns.
To be fair to the Peace and Freedom Party, I should add that it is not clear that Eugene McCarthy would have accepted the Party’s presidential nomination; however, I do think that it should have been offered to him. If the Senator did not want it, the nomination should then have gone to Dick Gregory.
To “Peter M.” (#8):
Thank you for the information. I will have to read them again this evening and think about them some more.
Please pardon my incorrect grammar above. It is early in the morning and I should be getting ready for work.
Phil,
I was a young McCarthy fan in 1968 and I thought Robert
Kennedy was an interloper for riding on the peace issue
after McCarthy demonstrated its electoral appeal (of course I was heartbroken anyway when RFK was assassinated). Like for you, for me McCarthy remained a larger than life figure for the remainder of his life.
I am interested in your interpretation of Cleaver in his
post-self-exile days. I had always assumed that his being reborn Christian patriot carried with it a materialistic component; you know, selling his codpants, himself, and such. But you may be right.
And I agree that PFP should have offered its 1968 nomination to McCarthy with Dick Gregory (who clearly
wanted it) as second choice if McCarthy said no.
To “Peter M.” (#8): I am going to copy and paste your response to the article about S.P., Michigan on the leading page of this website – and then post some of my thoughts about it.
To Dr. Dave Gillespie:
My interpretation of Eldrige Cleaver “in his post-self-exile days” must have to be based mostly upon guesswork. I just do not have enough facts to make it more than that. It seems to me that as Mr. Cleaver got older and more mature, he wanted to make amends for his troubled youth. I know that, even after his Christian rebirth, it was not always easy for hime to stay out of trouble. However, I do think that he was sincere and tried to do his best. That is all any of can do, really.
Regarding, the assasination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, like you and other McCarthy supporters, I too was heartbroken. It seems obvious to me that the Senator was on his way to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and then the presidency. I believe that some very powerful people wanted him taken out. I think that everyone should read the book “American Conspiracies” by Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell). It will “knock the socks off” anyone who reads it. All the facts (suporting the theories) are there and laid out in black and white.