Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Analyzing the Teachout vote

DCblogger's picture

Teachout carried the whole of the Hudson river valley. This was the anti-facking vote. Clearly that issue resonated. Howie Hawkins needs to take note.

Teachout's vote in NY City was in the wealthy districts. She lost the poor and working class. This does not surprise me. I have done GOTV work all my life and know that bascially working class and poor do not vote. When they do vote it is by brand recognition, personal associations, and tribal loyalties. With most of the union endorsement going Cuomo's way, there was very little chance of winning that vote.

So what does Teachout do now? If she endorses Hawkins she is finished in the Democratic party, she can never come back. While I think that Hawkins can win, I thought that Teachout had a chance of winning, so we can all see what my opinion is worth.

On the other hand, if she wants to build a movement, she could do worse than endorse Hawkins and place her obviously formidable organizing capabilities behind him. Hawkins is the only left of center candidate opposing Cuomo. If you want to stop fracking, protect public education, and so on, Hawkins is the only name of the ballot behind those issues.

And how will Greens welcome Teachout supporters? There are important cultural differences between liberal Democrats and Greens. Will the Greens be willing to learn from the Democrats grassroots techniques? And will the Democrats be willing to learn from the Greens? Mixing the two is not as easy as it sounds. So Hawkins has his work cut out for him.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

I haven't been following this, so take in account my near-total ignorance.

I realize Teachout would be switching parties if she goes Green. Is she a better vote-getter than Hawkins?

I gather Hawkins has zero chance against Cuomo. (Doesn't even show up in the polls. I understand that polls expunge Greens, but if he was up at, say, 15%, I think they'd note that?) Would the Greens have a better chance if he made way for her, rather than her helping him?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

You can't switch names like that. There is a process and Hawkins is the Green Party nominee. Even if the Green Party were willing, and I doubt they would be, they can't swtich names like that. The last poll, which is weeks old, had him polling at 7%. So much has to happen between now and November for him to win, but yeah, it could happen. Every one who opposes fracking needs to put their shoulder to the wheel.

Submitted by lambert on

... even as a tactical alliance. I would bet she and her supporters see this as a win for the Deaniac faction of the Dems. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But I think Hawkins has to mark Cuomo up real good on his own. And I think that is not a bad thing to require of a party that aspires to be a party. The way lies open to them, and this will be a testing time for the Greens.

McDee's picture
Submitted by McDee on

Many Greens were deeply affected by Nader 2000 and the whining of the Democrats. "You guys put Bush in the White House" Since Bush was a complete nightmare the charge stung a lot of people.

In 2004 they came up with the "safe states" campaign. Basically, it said "yes, we oppose the Republicans and the Democrats, but only if it doesn't hurt the Democrats." Some political party!

What would have happened in 2000 if the Greens had said "yes, we cost Gore the election and we'll keep on costing you elections until you shape up or disappear!"? Again, the nightmare of Bush made such a statement difficult, if not impossible.

I for one am mightily sick of the prog blog assertions that "we must put pressure on (insert name of Democrat sellouts here) and move them to the left" The place to move Democrats is out of office and replace them with something better. They are hopelessly corrupt and compromised.

I agree, the greens have a chance in New York to really do some damage. I hope Hawkins comes out fighting and doesn't let up.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

Hear hear!

The Dems ran a crap pair of pols crappily in 2000 and had no one to blame but themselves for their losses. I would have loved to see the Greens make that point and stick to it. It WOULD have been hard, but hard has never been impossible. Their retreat in the next election only had the effect of empowering corporatist Democrats, and that was what I found most disturbing about it.

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

I'm all for that. The demodog party is doa

The place to move Democrats is out of office and replace them with something better. They are hopelessly corrupt and compromised.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

DC, thanks for the explanation re not switching names. I realize now that you mention it that it's a bit of a "D'Oh!"

Also good to hear he's in "visible" polling numbers.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

I would be really interested in hearing what the cultural differences you see between the Greens and "liberal" Democrats are. The word liberal seems coopted to me these days; I am always seeing references to people as liberals who I would personally consider anything but.

I'm sorry that your prediction did not come true, but a third of the vote in such circumstances seems pretty outstanding to me.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

The word liberal seems coopted to me these days;

I am always seeing references to people as liberals who I would personally consider anything but.