There aren’t many, but Vermont does have a handful of PACS representing traditional liberal constituency groups that make endorsements in elections. Most notably there are PACs associated with labor unions, such as the NEA and VSEA, but there’s also the Vermont League of Conservation Voters and Democracy for America (which does involve itself in Vermont races).
In past years, these endorsements have amounted to little. They’re rarely a surprise, and their impact has only been on the fringe issue of how well Anthony Pollina does against the Democrat on whichever ballot his ballot-line-du-jour is for that cycle.
This year, with a hotly contested Democratic primary, it’s potentially a very different political dynamic for these groups – if, and only if, they choose to endorse in the primary. Whereas such endorsements in the general election amount to little more than electoral background noise, endorsing in the Democratic primary would have an enormous impact. Democratic primary voters listen to these groups; and primary endorsements would certainly impact the outcome.
It would, however, be controversial within the groups themselves, with the potential to create real rifts within them. Still, you don’t make omelets without breaking eggs, and if these groups want to discover that elusive electoral relevance that has escaped them in the past, this is the opportunity.
And staying out of it would not simply reinforce the status quo. Refusing to demonstrate the courage and leadership needed to jump into the primary fray would add to the perception of electoral ineffectuality. On the other hand, successfully flexing institutional muscle in the primary would make them that much more influential in the next election, which would be the general in November.
Will liberal interest groups be moved by the Challenges for Change train-wreck to make a bold move and endorse before the August election, or will they continue to settle for simply being part of the electoral scenery?
No one wants the primary conversation to remain stuck in the mud of Douglas’CFC proposals.
None of the people running, D or R, has done much of anything for people who work in Vermont. Especially for the union people. Maybe health care reform will help down the road, but there is not a whole lot more for working people to point to as a reason to endorse any of the people running. The environmentalists at least got the Yankee vote, but working people got nothing but cuts, cuts and more cuts.
Three of the five Democratic candidates, plus Dubie have done little if anything for working people or socially responsible causes. Thus, liberal interest groups find themselves choosing between Racine and Dunne. Perhaps their best choice at this point is to simply promote both Racine and Dunne to ensure that one is the nominee.
It’s much more likely to have an impact if you endorse in a 5-person primary…a few percentage points could be the final push one of the candidates needs.
It might also be useful for the unions to point out specific cases where candidates have voted against the interests of their members. For example, if I’m a teacher (which I’m not), and I’ve heard of Peter Shumlin, I might vote for him. If I know that he architected and pushed through the 2-vote school meeting mandate, I would certainly have reason to pause. As long as they stick to facts, it is a service to union members.
Another rarely used, but often influential, strategy is to send members a “Ranking” card where 1 or more candidates will receive a “Favored” ranking and the others a “Not-Favored” or “Neutral” ranking. This feels less like “The union is telling me to vote for Candidate X” and more like “Ok, these people have supported my interests…let me see which one I like better.”