By Michael Bryan
Let's face facts: given a 3 to 2 registration disadvantage, Democrats are not likely to win any races in CD 5. Barring the proverbial dead hooker, the winner of the CD 5 GOP primary will likely be taking a seat in Congress.
But in the process, a whole lot of GOP shibboleths will be whispered by candidates Kirk Adams and Matt Salmon. Wouldn't it be great if there were a Democrat there with a mic to challenge their assumptions, debunk their misinformation, and condemn their ideological orthodoxy?
There is. His name is Spencer Morgan.
He's not an ideal candidate. He's barely old enough to qualify for the office. He tends to include his time in student government among his leadership credentials. And he seems to think that a cardigan is sometimes acceptable campaign attire.
But Spencer understands why government is neccessary and beneficial, and how to persuasively and unappologetically stand up for Democratic principles – which is a damn sight more than can be said for some candidates twice his age.
During a recent Chandler Chamber of Commerce debate, he consistently challenged the two Republicans' talking points and presented an alternative view on the issues. This is something that Democrats should always do, even in hopeless districts – just in case a dead hooker turns up, and to ensure that the GOP doesn't have the opportunity to turn a Congressional race into a conservative echo chamber.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Spencer for providing that service in a deeply red district. He deserves our support and encouragement. I suspect that this is merely the first office Spencer will be running for, and he will certainly be paying his dues in his current endeavor.
See the debate video after the flip, in which Mr. Morgan throws the monkeywrench of truth into the gears of the GOP agitprop machine, again and again…
Good luck to you Matt. Thanks for stepping up and representing Democratic ideas.
That’s what the Chamber used, I didn’t have any choice.
I appreciate the fact you are mentioning Spencer in your blog – whether anyone likes it he and I are the future of the party and we need to start setting the stage for how we want the political discourse to unfold. I myself am running for a state house seat in District 16 as a Democrat. Crazy I know, but thankfully with the Tea Party presence I may actually have a dead-hooker moment depending on who survives the primary fight in the GOP. If we don’t fight in every district – who will help change them purple or blue?
Please continue to bring up the issue of the Democratic party letting echo-chambers exist and why we need to combat them. I will stay on the front lines and fight as much as I can.
Also, thank you for being the only other person than me to tell Spencer to get rid of that damn cardigan. Maybe he will listen to you.
Signed:
Matthew Cerra
Fire & Brimstone Democrat
D16 State House Candidate
Silverlight is fine, have been using it without issue on my MacBook for a couple years now.
If we’re going to get the 18 and overs involved, then having a candidate with student leadership experience could be key. I believe that’s a positive to promote. Anyone who has worked with this demographic knows it can be like herding cats, and if Mr. Morgan was able to be a uniter and consensus builder at that level it bodes well for the future. And seriously, I would rather see a candidate in a cardigan than the jacket and now sadly de rigeur flag pin . . . how did we ever get along in elections in the past without that little beacon of I’m-more-patriotic-than-you?
Oh, BTW, are you sure that using Silverlight for your videos is the right choice? I’d never even heard of it, and am not sure I want to download it until I know more, and it is so new I doubt if many have.
I am already writing a mention of Morgan to the blog I comment most on, COGITAMUS, and will be mentioning him in Benen’s Campaign RoundUp once it is up this afternoon. (And I’m doing a much longer piece on Richard Carmona that I will be putting up in both places and maybe a couple of others. Unlike the Disaster of 2010, where we put up mostly earnestly dull candidates and expected the idiots would beat themselves, this year we have a remarkably strong list of candidates in races we might have — last time — ignored or considered not worth supporting, and in races in general. Carmona, Heidi Heitkamp in ND (not a sure loss by any means), Tammy Baldwin, Shelley Berkeley, Elizabeth Warren all are people to vote FOR, not just to vote to keep the Republicans away. So is Morgan, despite his probable loss.
But there are a few ‘dead hookers’ out there that makes me think the races everywhere will be a few percentage points more favorable to Democrats than we think.
First is Romney. The results that Steve Benen trumpets this morning are another piece of evidence that Romney has peaked, and that, from here on he can only lose votes. He’s put himself in a position where he can’t even move to the center without losing more from the base, and that if he tries the ‘center pivot’ he can’t move far enough back to be credible after his earlier comments. (This is true most strongly on immigration, but right down the line as well.)
And, by now, even if he could attract the ‘uncommitted’ there aren’t enough of them to replace the voters that he, Bain Capital, Joe Arpaio, the Republican War on Women, the Ryan budget, etc. will cost him from the sane end of the Republicans. And he has no new issues to bring up, and the old ones have made all the converts they could already. And he sure as h**l won’t win people over on personal likability grounds.
Then there’s the convention, and buy your popcorn in laaaarge tins. Usually the candidate and the party leaders are in charge of keeping the delegates in line. But Boehner keeps getting ignored even by the people who have to work with him every day, his own caucus in the House. (Any other fans of THE GREAT RACE out there who get the reference “Mayor of Borracho”?) And Romney keeps getting undercut by his own surrogates — see numerous Benen posts. And they are going to try and control several thousand political newcomers, ideologues — and some who have decided, in their first trip away from home, to ‘investigate the reality of sins’ so they can speak against them — of course.
Then there are at least a half dozen states where Paulistas have grabbed the party away from the organization. (They were smart. In caucus states, they knew they wouldn;t get delegates pledged to Paul. But they knew the actual delegates would be named after most of the caucus goers went home, and they stayed put. They may be pledged to Romney, but not to the party line, his ideas, or to anything but stirring things up.
Okay, now imagine what sort of a platform the Paulistas and TPers will come up with, and how Romney will respond when challenged about it.
Remember, in the two classic electoral disasters of the last fifty years, Goldwater and McGovern, both landslides started out with out-of-control conventions. There was a time when they even looked winnable, too. (I was 18 when Goldwater ran, but the voting age wasn’t, so I was unable to vote for LBJ, but I watched politics then as much as I do now.) In fact, the people who are arguing “Romney’s weak, but there are so many Republicans who hate Obama that he’s bound to be close” should replace “Romney” with “McGovern” and “Obama” with “Nixon” and change “Republicans” to “Democrats” and you’ll read the pundit’s take on 1972 about in June of that year.
So maybe, if we stay awake and start remembering the 50-state strategy, we might find a lot of sure losses turning out closer than we think. Including the young Mr. Morgan.