In the primary campaign, does it only make sense to support exclusively the one candidate you think is best/best of the "viable"/most electable etc.? Or is there a case to be made that the primary process is somewhat "parliamentary"?
I don't mean only in the unlikely event that there's a brokered convention. Could it be that supporting a fringe or single-issue candidate in the primary process is a way of moving the "serious" candidates in a progressive direction?
Follow me below the fold for my anecdotal experience with Brown '92 and a poll...
The first campaign I was really active in was Jerry Brown’s presidential run in 1991-2. (Incidentally, we ran it largely as a voter registration effort, offering people info on Brown along with their registration forms. We registered more voters than in any equivalent period in county history, and our county was the only one Jerry carried in NY state.)
Not only was Brown a dark horse in NY—especially after he announced that Jesse Jackson would be his ideal running mate, without first discussing the matter with Jackson, thus alienating in one brilliant move both the Jackson camp and many Jews (this was not long after the infamous “Hymietown” quote). Brown also had no real chance of winning the nomination.
We were well aware of this at the time, but nonetheless donated enormous amounts of our own time and money to the cause (the national campaign was so disorganized, they never even returned our calls or acknowledged our existence until the week before the primary, at which time they hilariously urged us to “save our receipts,” none of which were ever reimbursed).
So why did we campaign, besides youthful idealism? I believed that Jerry’s strong showing would help move the debate in the right (left) direction. And I think it did. For instance, I don’t remember Clinton talking much about health care reform, which was one of Brown’s major emphases, early in the campaign, and I’ve always suspected it had something to do with the Clinton people seeing how the issue was resonating for Jerry (if anyone knows otherwise I’m happy to be corrected).
Ever since then I think of the presidential primary process as one of our few opportunities for really parliamentary participation. I’m not talking about a brokered convention, necessarily, but just the idea that supporting a “fringe” candidate is a way of registering your support of more clearly progressive positions, in the hopes that this may catch the attention of a more viable candidate. In that spirit I’ve contributed to Kucinich this cycle, for example, not because I think he might be nominated, or because I think he would be electable, or even a good president.
My point is that the primary process is not the general election. I will never support a no-chance candidate in the general election, because it’s too important that we keep the bad guys from winning. But if, like me, you think that there is more than one acceptable Dem contender now, or if you think that the pros and cons of some of the leading candidates basically cancel each other out, or if you think that your preferred “serious” candidate probably won’t win the nomination, why not throw some support to a candidate who stands for positions you really believe in? I say this not as a way of throwing in the towel or throwing away my vote/$$, but as a way of influencing the debate.