{news} Initial Reflections on Running for Governor: The Challengesand Opportunities

[demac]

Good piece, Cliff.  

 

Here's what I learned this season:  The "returning to their party"
phenomenon is common in the last month of almost every election with third
party candidates unless they are showing a chance of winning.
Traditionally, half the vote for third party candidates is lost in the last
month.  Polling showing a close race is one of the factors, but my sense is
that the more powerful factor is the sense that "we can't win" is the
overwhelming factor. People want to be represented in government.  They feel
like they are better represented when they vote for someone who
wins even if they don't agree with what s/he stands for than to vote for
someone they agree with. That leads me to (2) educating voters on the power
of voting for what you want.  They need to see that they can change the
course of the government better by voting for what they want, rather than
voting for a winner who they disagree with.  U.S. history is replete with
examples of such impact but Americans don't know this history.

My own sister (who lives in Mass) articulated "wasted vote" thoughts, and
the line about wanting to vote for someone who will win.  The illogic of it
has always made me ignore those sentiments:  elections aren't a "bet" to
vote on who is going to win (or are they?).  But this is a much more serious
hurdle than I realized, and we will have to deal with it, somehow.  Not with
logic, obviously :-). 

 

There is a definite psychology to voting and momentum gathering.  I saw it
even with Lamont.  As soon as he began to slip, it became a freefall that he
didn't know how to stop.  It may have just taken one photo op, or a great
phrase-whatever it was, he didn't provide it.  And voters actually began to
make up their minds based on the fact that he wasn't going to win-strange,
but true.  Is it because people want to be able to say, "I voted for him
(the winner)"?  

 

In Willi, I often sensed a certain reluctance from people to talk about the
campaign afterwards, even avoidance (like someone died).  But this time,
after an overwhelming loss, people have been totally friendly--shaking my
hand, good run, etc.  Is that because of no guilty consciences that their
vote against me cost me the election?  Or no feeling of "I voted for you,
and you lost."?   How much does the disappointment hurt them?

 

Anyway, those who encourage me to continue running frequently say it doesn't
matter if I ever win, they just want someone to vote for.  So the "protest
vote" has a definite appeal to a certain minority.  But how do we get those
others?  Issues (and all of the things that we think are most important)
don't work.  Winning elections is all smoke, mirrors, psychology.  Yech.

 

We need to talk with other states to see what got votes.  

 

Jean

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org
[mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of clifford thornton
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:46 AM
To: ctgp-news
Subject: {news} Initial Reflections on Running for Governor: The
Challengesand Opportunities

 

Comments are welcome as this continues to be a work in progress that I 
hope will help future candidates be more effective and help those 
involved with independent politics figure out next steps. 

You are welcome to share this with those who you think will be interested.

Thanks everyone for their work on the campaign.


*Initial Reflections on Running for Governor
The Challenges and Opportunities*

"I saw youth and young adults in the room standing, cheering, and 
excited about Cliff Thornton.  Why does he excite us?  Because we feel like 
someone is finally listening and courageous enough to build his campaign 
around the will of the people with no influence from the corporations." 

Derek Maxwell--Professor, Capitol Community Colloge 

"If elections were decided on personality, Cliff Thornton -- the Green Party
candidate for governor in Connecticut -- would win by a landslide. Why?
Because he's got one. A personality, that is. He has a backbone to match."

 

"Perhaps because Thornton has nothing to lose and everything to gain, he can
"afford" to tell the truth. But perhaps, in these deeply troubled times,
telling the truth is no longer a political liability. Who knows? Maybe
Americans really have had enough. Maybe they want to be adults again, maybe
they're sick of the sheer wimpiness of the candidates (Republican and
Democrat)."

 

This was from the Hartford Advocate entitled "Memo to all candidates of
America: Grow a spine!

By Alan Bisbort."


These were the kind of comments made during my run for Governor in 
Connecticut which made for a great experience. To be honest, I had fun. 

There were many moments I will never forget -- the first ever commercial,

Students meeting us in Greenwich with a bag of money--then escorting

us to the gym where there were over three hundred people waiting, winning
the

Griswold poll, continuous coverage on CTN every week for four months, etc,
etc.

I met a lot of committed people who I am sure will be allies for many years.


My hope is that we can find a way to build an effective 
independent political movement that will give real hope in the future -- 
by winning elections!

There were a lot of key lessons that I want to share so that future 
candidates will have them before they run for office. 

*Debates:* The lesson learned is that getting into the debates is only a
first step, 
making sure they are televised is equally important./  And, they must be 
televised from gavel to gavel.

If the debate is not on TV the third party candidate's role is likely to 
be ignored by the media.  At least, that was my experience.(Storrs debate)
It was 
amazing to watch how blatant most of the corporate media was  
excluding me from their coverage.  The Hartford Courant may have been the 
most aggressive -- headlines only mentioned my opponents, 
photographs only showed my opponents and no substance of my positions 
was given in most of their coverage.  There were two major articles, one in

January and the most recent with Ralph N. It was a bold rewriting of
reality.

A major challenge was the New London Day.  They refused to include me in the

debates and as a result redefined the race as a two candidate race late 
in the campaign.  The New London Day applied the criteria of the Commission 
on Presidential Debates to their determination.  This criteria was 
developed by the two status quo parties that created the Commission to 
keep out alternative voices. The criteria is almost unreachable except 
for celebrity or billionaire candidates -- 15% in five polls, and, 
because the New London Day debate was televised and widely covered it 
totally ruined any chance of turning this into a three-way race.

So our challenge is to keep the door open -- indeed open it wider -- and 
get the debates of qualified candidates who have ballot access covered 

fully on television.

*Media Coverage:*  The role of the corporate media in the outcome of 
elections is of utmost importance.  We need to realize that when we 
challenge the corporate parties they will have the corporate media as an 
ally.  This is a very big obstacle because third party candidates will 
almost never have enough money to buy enough media time. They depend on the 
media to do its job fairly to let the public know that we are running 
and what we stand for.  While we were able to get more coverage than most 
third party candidates it was still very unbalanced in comparison to my 
opponents, incomplete and unfair.

There are many examples, but once again the Hartford Courant stands out 
as the worst among the worst!   The Connecticut Post did five, six articles
on the impact 
of the Drug War and education on Connecticut politics.  These included an A
section front 
page story and two B section front page stories. 

When the New Haven Register covered my candidacy 

they wrote about my key issues as early as January.  The Register

even had the Dems and Repubs answering questions posed in

earlier articles by Greens. There were editorials and for the

most part the Register was fair in its coverage.

An example of television media was WFSB-TV in Hartford and channel 30.  They
did a 
series of stories on various issues -- e.g., the environment, economy, 
energy, Iraq -- comparing the Senate candidates. But, they decided to 
only cover the two status quo party candidates.  Their rationale -- they 
applied the 15 percent standard that was used by The New London Day for
inclusion in 
debates.  If we get WFSB, WCNH and Channel 30 to change it may have a
broader effect on other 
electronic media.  I might mention that Channel 30 had me on twice, WFSB
once, nothing for channel

8--only during the protest and a couple of other times.

I did pretty well regarding radio coverage.  But even here there were 
bias problems.  WNPR -- the public radio station in Hartford -- did a 
lot of stories on the Senate campaign.  Sometimes they covered me but 
too many times they didn't -- repeatedly defining the race as a two 
candidate race.  Complaints by my supporters definitely seemed to make a 
difference. The Dankosky show did have me on twice, once during the 
primary and once during the general election.

Candidates should not shy away from being very aggressive with the media 
when they fail to cover you.  They need to hear from you when they are 
prejudiced as one thing about prejudice is that those who act based on 
it are often unaware of it as it is deeply ingrained.  They are part of 
a corporate culture that has an attitude that they have adopted.  
Further, it is important to meet face-to-face with the key people in the 
media -- and come dressed for the job you want.  This made a tremendous 
difference in my campaign. After meeting with some key people I at least 
got mentioned in the media. 

Independent media is very important.  It reaches key groups of people 
and is growing in its reach.  Further, it provides an opportunity to 
show your views and activities on your website.  We need to encourage 
independent media, help expand it and add to its credibility.  Every 
year independent media is catching up to the shrinking circulation and 
viewership of the corporate media.  Soon the tipping point will be 
reached and it will become an equal factor in communication.  My hat

is off to the independent media of Connecticut.  They continuously had

us in the news, TV, radio and print.

*Campaign management:* One of the big weaknesses of the third party 
movement is the lack of experience in managing campaigns.  This includes 
a lack of campaign managers, fundraisers, press secretaries, volunteer 
coordinators and other campaign staff.  The third party movement 
desperately needs an organization that trains people in these areas as 
well as provides support to campaigns.  In my case I had three dedicated 
staff members who did excellent work but who each had very little 
campaign experience.  I'm sure they would agree that if we had one 
experienced campaign manager to direct them we would have achieved much 
greater levels of success as each of us (me and my staff) would have 
done better with aggressive direction. This improvement also would have 
positively affected the work of volunteers.

*Fundraising:* The biggest failure of my campaign -- out of things I 
could control (I could not completely control the debates or media 
coverage) was fundraising.  I have worked in three significant movements 
-- drug policy reform, the anti-war movement and democracy reform -- but 
these movements (like most others) are infected with the two party 
virus.  They have no confidence in third parties and therefore most of 
their participants do not fund them.

I was particularly disappointed in the drug policy reform movement where 
I have had a fifteen year career. Although there were a few exceptions my 
career-long allies, who I have no doubt respect my work, did not provide 
major funding for this campaign. Many did not even make token 
contributions as a sign of respect or friendship.  Similarly the peace 
and democracy movements provided insignificant funding. 

Frankly, this is one reason that all these movements (and the union, 
environmental and women's rights movements) are weaker than they should 
be.  They cow-tow to the Democratic Party even though the Democrats do 
very little for them -- indeed often hurt their agenda.  They give 
support no matter what the Democratic candidate stands for, thus, they 
are taken for granted. I'm not sure how to convince them that this is a 
failed strategy but we need to keep trying.  They will not make progress 
on their issues until they get serious about electoral politics -- 
putting their agenda far ahead of loyalty to any political party.

Many in the Green Party that nominated me do not understand the 
importance of money.  While I did receive support from some members of 
each party, generally speaking I was disappointed. The Greens in 
particular seem very uncomfortable with money as they see it as a 
corrupting influence no matter what the circumstances.  We need to find 
ways to convince members of party that funding their candidates 
is THE top priority.  There were times I went to Green Party meetings 
and did not even leave with enough money to pay the gas bill!  Sadly, 
the media measures potential for success by how much money we raise, 
more than by the strength of our ideas or the number of volunteers we 
have.  Money is critical and must be made the top priority.  It should 
not be feared but welcomed!

*Viability of Third Parties:* There are a lot of people who are 
disgusted with the Democrats and Republicans but they do not see 
anywhere else to go.  For those of us who want to see peace, justice, 
environmental transformation as well as a populist economic policy, we 
have two choices (1) change either of the two established parties, or 
(2) create an effective alternative to them. 

Neither choice is easy.  The established parties are very good at 
absorbing insurgents who want to change their party from the inside.  
They let them speak but the primary system is an excellent way to kill 
off any insurgency.  The primary is focused on the people committed to 
the party and therefore the voters are more likely to support the choice 
of the party leadership.  I am not sure what exactly went on in Duffey's

bid for office so I can not make a clear consice comment or evaluation.

I am not sure if we had insurgents or not as I was concentrating on

my campaign and in particular our media thrust.

The third party option is also very challenging.  The reasons above -- 
money, media, lack of campaign experience -- are all hurdles to 
overcome.  But, the biggest hurdle is the dedication of voters 
associated with their own established party.  In my race, The Democrats 
did not want to risk getting the mayor elected so most who said they

would have voted for me did not. I would estimate that I got as many

Republican votes as Dems. 



The "returning to their party" phenomenon is common in the last month of 
almost every election with third party candidates unless they are 
showing a chance of winning.  Traditionally, half the vote for third 
party candidates is lost in the last month.  Polling showing a close 
race is one of the factors, but my sense is that the more powerful 
factor is the sense that "we can't win" is the overwhelming factor.

People want to be represented in government.  They 
feel like they are better represented when they vote for someone who 
wins even if they don't agree with what s/he stands for than to vote for 
someone they agree with. That leads me to (2) educating voters on the 
power of voting for what you want.  They need to see that they can 
change the course of the government better by voting for what they want, 
rather than voting for a winner who they disagree with.  U.S. history is 
replete with examples of such impact but Americans don't know this history.

I see two good signs in Connecticut. First, the African American community, 
a key voting bloc making up 12% of the voting population, is tired of 
being taken for granted by the Democrats and distrustful of the 
Republicans even when they run an African American candidate.  We need 
to show them that joining with an independent alternative that includes 
disenchanted blacks and whites, anti-war voters and independents is the 
way for them to have the most electoral power.  Three-way races will 
increase minority power because we can win with as little as 34%.  I 
want to find ways to reach out to the African American community and 
keep building among the other communities.

Secondly, support among independents is rising for the Green Party. We are 
becoming the alternative for independents.  My guess is this has nothing 
to do with "Green" (in fact that may even be a detriment) but has more 
to do with being tired of the two established parties, seeing their 
corruption and their inability to be effective in response to the 
peoples needs. There are going to be opportunities for the Greens

(or other third parties) to become the second party in some areas of the
state.

Indeed, this seems to already be occurring in Willimantic.

Pulling people from the two parties requires a bridge.  Calab Kleppner, 
Green Party, New Haven has been raising the possibility of an 
independent non-partisan voters league that would function as a way to 
educate voters tired of the two parties and unite them behind 
candidates.  This could include supporting an independent candidate or a 
candidate of a third party, or a real insurgent inside either of the two 
parties.  This kind of flexibility will make it easier for those not 
quite ready to put the two parties behind them to consider the 
possibility and perhaps show them that there is a viable third 
alternative.  

This is also consistent with a viewpoint expressed to me 
by Libertarians, who expressed the view that we should 
all find ways to keep working together but it is important that people 
be able to keep their own independent identity with whomever political 
party they prefer. If an independent non-partisan voter league was 
developed in Connecticut successfully then the support of that league may 
provide more credibility of candidates they got behind.  This could also 
have a very positive effect on media coverage and fundraising.

 

Clifford Wallace Thornton, Jr.

 

Efficacy
PO Box 1234
860 657 8438
Hartford, CT 06143
efficacy at msn.com
www.Efficacy-online.org
 
Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit
501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax
deductible

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20061128/dae68a7e/attachment.html>