| If I knew that the progressive community had a $1.5 million war chest to redistribute, I would start by sending $100,000-$250,000 to Loretta Weinberg to help her defend her State Senate seat against the primary challenge of Ken Zisa.
And if Sandra Cunningham publicly committed to support marriage equality if elected, I would send another $100,000-$250,000 her way to help her defeat Joe Doria. I don't know if Jay Lassiter lives in Wayne Bryant's district, but if he did, I would give him $250,000-$500,000 to take Bryant on.
Next, I would put another $100,000-$250,000 into the 36th LD to support progressive primary challenges against Paul Sarlo, Gary Schaer, and Fred Scalera. I don't know that Fred Scalera is as bad on the issue of marriage equality as Sarlo or Schaer, but unless he comes forward and announces that he is going to take on Sarlo to advance the cause of marriage equality or is unwilling to run on the same ticket as Gary Schaer, guilt by association works for me.
Whomever takes on Sharpe James and Ron Rice Sr. is not going to need our money since he/she will most likely have the backing of Cory Booker. I hope that Mayor Booker makes it a point to back candidates who are willing to publicly commit to supporting marriage equality.
The only legislative districts where I see Democrats having a realistic chance to make some gains is in the 11th, 12th, and 14th, but I still wouldn't put a dime into any of them until I knew more about the candidates in question and how willing they would be to make a public commitment to support marriage equality.
As far as I am concerned, if progressives had the wherewithal to raise $1.5 million for candidates in 2007, the only longshot districts where I would consider sending $250,000-$500,000 to are the 21st, where hopefully Gina Genovese will be the State Senate candidate and the 25th, where hopefully Dana Wefer will be the State Senate candidate.
That said, $100,000 a district to 14 bright red districts or 8 bright red counties without any ideological or qualitative analysis of the Democratic opposition seems like an incredible waste of money to me that would not necessarily do anything to make the current Democratic majority in Trenton any more progressive than it is (or isn't depending on your point of view) at the moment.
Progressives need to understand that with the way that our state's legislative districts are gerrymandered, it is far less difficult to defeat incumbent Democrats in primary elections than it is to defeat incumbent Republicans in general elections.
Also, there is a much better chance of convincing establishment Democratics to vote the right way by threatening them with primary challenges from credible candidates who are well-funded and well-organized than there is of beating conservative Republicans at the ballot box.
Changing legislative districts and counties from red to purple to blue is an evolutionary process that will come as old conservatives die, are replaced by younger moderates, who die and are replaced by even younger liberals and as Democrats at the local level are able to connect with and engage their Republican neighbors and help them to understand how the long-term investments in people and their communities that are inherent in Democratic policies will achieve massive returns, while the desire to concentrate wealth and ignore the needs of the neediest amongst us that are that are inherent within Republican policies are unsustainable.
Another problem with blindly infusing the redder parts of the state with campaign cash is the fact that Democrats in these areas are very often not much more progressive than their Republican counterparts and progressive dollars aren't necessarily going to make them change their perspectives on issues of concern to progressives.
While the upside of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy was reclaiming control of the House and Senate, because so many of the victorious Democrats were centrists, the downside is the reality that the Democratic caucus as a whole is actually less progressive.
And while the national Democratic leadership is more progressive than the incoming freshman class, there probably aren't the votes to support an immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq, single-payer universal health care, or a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act as part of the legislative agenda of the Democratic majority's first 100 hours.
This is fine and understandable, but it should give progressives in New Jersey reason for pause before they make financial investments in the political futures of parts of the state that might only yield larger Democratic majorities that are not necessarily more progressive.
It is also possible to make the argument that if someone as progressive as Rob Martin was able to win a Republican nomination and get elected to the State Senate in a district as apparantly conservative as his, there must be others out there who could do the same thing.
Is it conceivable that progressives would have a better chance of success if they helped a moderate Republicans win Republican primaries in Republican districts? Is that any longer of a longshot than backing a Democrat in the general election? I don't know. |
