I noticed today via a Capitol Watch Blog Post that Ken Krayeske has been nominated to run against my Congressman John Larson by the Green Party. The blog post depicts a candidate that is realistic about his chances (suggesting that while he might not win he hopes to raise the requisite $15,000 to participate in League of Women Voters Debates). Krayeske joins Tom Marsh, a candidate for Governor, and John Mertens, a candidate for senate, in a club of candidates that probably do not have a chance to win but will be on the ballot in November.

What role can these third party candidates play in these races? Krayeske seems to take a two pronged approach. First suggesting that he wants to build the Green Party. I think that this is a good approach to take because I do not believe people identify with parties as strongly as the people and the personalities behind the party. Without strong leaders and candidates running on the party line and bringing the party message to the people I do not believe a party can flourish. Secondly he looks to make pointed criticisms of the incumbent. Here he can bring to light issues people have but that have not yet been publicly voiced. Here we see that elections are good for holding the incumbent’s feet to the fire and making sure that citizens get the best representation possible.

Ultimately the thing that surprises me the most is that in spite of the general cynicism that most people seem to have towards politics and the current people in power, third parties have not taken off. Even the big “Tea Party” movement seems to associate itself with the Republican Party instead of forming its own entity. It makes me seriously question whether a third party might ever become viable on a statewide level.

You can stream it via CT-N. They are currently discussing their fix including increasing the CEP grant to gubernatorial candidates to $6 Million.

Not many tweets about this yet, but Matt Lesser and Gary Holder-Winfield usually do a great job of tweeting about these sessions.

UPDATE: Also found an article about the earlier Senate Session from CT News Junkie.

A recent Capitol Watch blog entry shares the experiences of House Minority Leader Larry Cafero campaigning door-to-door. He notes that:

[C]itizens are distracted by any number of issues . . . they’re thinking about everything from getting a root canal to firing up the casserole.

“When they log onto their computers at work,” Cafero said, “They see Lindsay Lohan’s picture in the corner, and she’s doing 90 days in jail. They’re not focused now.”

This presents a sharp contrast from the daily rush of commercials, blog entries, and other issues that the state’s politicos are currently pre-occupied with. However it also shows a level of disengagement by the Connecticut electorate that is disappointing. Unfortunately when talking with my less politically engaged friends I get a similar reaction. They either are not interested or believe that the politicians are the “same old” ones they’ve been dealing with for years.

I do not know what the secret to getting people excited about a Connecticut politician or just Connecticut in general. However, I think that stimulating that passion and vision in everyone will be key to the future of our state in the coming years. Otherwise jobs and young people will continue to slip away.

Since it’s Sunday several news outlets have pre-primary commentary. CTNewsJunkie had two interesting pieces. The first one I wanted to bring attention to is the video:

Having worked on campaigns before I shouldn’t be surprised by the number of people that rely on the political ads for information but I find it a bit disappointing. I think that this explains why money is a factor in these races because the candidates with more money are the ones that get to communicate with the voters. I would have thought more people would check out some of the emerging online news sources like CTNewsJunkie or CTMirror but the audience for these still seems a bit limited.

read more

A little late because I’ve had a rather busy couple of days. However I wanted to share some thoughts on the primary results. The media has been reporting on the low turnout levels and the Courant suggests that low turnout can be attributed to lack of avenues to participation. A reader suggests that negative campaigning and a lack of good candidates caused the low turnout. I do not believe that either of these are the cause. I think the voters are apathetic towards these primaries and that this is reflected in the turnout. For the past month voters have been inundated with direct mail, phone calls, television, and everything else. The election was not some kind of secret. 

The lack of interest in the primaries makes me wonder whether the primaries themselves are worth the taxpayer money spent on them. I’m referring not to the CEP but to the administrative costs of actually putting together the elections. I do not make the suggestion lightly, but maybe these primary contests are not worth the effort. If not a convention maybe we could find some alternative method to choose our candidates. The important thing is to do it in a way that saves money, allows people who are not engaged all year to become engaged, and might also save everyone else the pain and drama of a drawn out contest.

This election also showed that money is not the entire election equation. Many cynics suggested that Dan Malloy and other candidates would not be able to compete with the millions of dollars that Ned Lamont or Tom Foley would spend on their races. However Malloy was outspent by a four to one ratio ($2.5 to $10 Million) and managed to win with a comfortable 16% margin. At the same time Mike Fedele only lost by three points against Tom Foley after being outspent by him. The record amount of money spent by the candidates did not create a record turnout and it did not manage to create the wins these candidates should have seen if money could buy the election. Instead other factors, many intangible such as the field operation, mood of the voters, and sweat equity played a big role in deciding the outcomes. Money does matter but it suffers from diminishing marginal returns and can only take you so far.

The big loser in this election was the Quinnipiac Poll. I don’t know what they were doing but I think something is wrong with their polling operation because they did not seem to do a great job of predicting some of the races.

People have also been making comments about the negative advertisements. I’m not entirely convinced that they were the impetus for the low turnout or for the surprising results in the Democratic and Republican primaries but they certainly were noticed.

Ted Mann in a recent column raises a novel issue about Ned Lamont and his paid sick leave position:

Lamont’s position, a key policy difference with his intra-party rival Dan Malloy, is not as clear-cut as it has sometimes sounded.

In response to a questionnaire from the Working Families Party, the key backers of the bill for the past several years, Lamont said that he would sign one version of the sick leave proposal, the one that limited the mandate to “service workers.”

But in many public appearances and interviews, Lamont has seemed to suggest categorical rejection of a state law mandating sick leave for workers, while saying he could support a federal version of the law, which he believes would provide the sick leave without creating competitive disadvantages among individual states.

This has caused some concern for the Working Families Party who has taken up Paid Sick Leave as their issue:

But if Lamont’s support has been there, it hasn’t seemed very vocal to leaders of the Working Families Party, which has worked for several years to try to convince a deeply opposed business lobby that mandating sick leave for workers will improve worker health and productivity, and that it won’t prove an onerous burden on employers.

Hours after Lamont’s WNPR appearance on Friday, Jon Green, the party’s state director, e-mailed some party members about the answer Lamont gave. In the e-mail, obtained by The Day, Green wrote, “Unfortunately, Ned’s public statements still differ fairly dramatically with the position he articulated to the WFP on his questionnaire.”

Having listened to the NPR interview cited by Mann and having read this article I too was left with the impression that Lamont no longer supports mandated paid sick days. While Ned and I can legitimately disagree on this issue I think it’s important for him to a be a little more clear as to where he stands and whether he has in fact changed his mind about it.

Furthermore I think combining this with other issues such as his discussion of the elimination of the death penalty in the NBC30 debate we see what kind of leader Ned Lamont might be on these progressive issues. While he suggests he might sign legislation to eliminate the death penalty or implement paid sick days he certainly doesn’t sound like he is going to be out there leading the charge on it. Maybe more of a reluctant progressive?

When I wrote my post about substance marking the gubernatorial campaign I guess I forgot to knock on wood. One of the things I most enjoy about these campaigns are the debates. Getting to see two candidates go face to face matching wits and intelligence. Though some argue that debates are too often press conferences and talking points, they also give us a chance to see how candidates might react to the unexpected. It is also an opportunity for candidates to really lay out and contrast their plans and policy to average voters that are not always paying as much attention to the issues as the process.

So I was rather disappointed to find out Ned Lamont is skipping the traditional New London debate thus leaving us without one this cycle. Now this is not just some avoidance of Dan’s debate challenge by Lamont. I remember going to New London for the debate in 2006 (back when it was Malloy v. DeStefano) and getting to see not just the debate but the huge number of supporters that turned out before the debate to support their candidates. I thought it was a great rallying tool for both campaigns, so I don’t see why Ned Lamont doesn’t want to debate.

However I can come-up with one idea. After the last debate Bob Englehart published this cartoon to describe the outcome:

So maybe Ned Lamont is afraid he won’t do so well against Dan Malloy again? Is he concerned that his momentum is waining? If Ned won’t debate Dan anymore, will he still have the courage to debate Foley in the fall, or will we just be watching TV commercials constantly?

That being said, I think it’s too bad they cancelled it. I think they should “hold” it anyways and if Lamont doesn’t show-up they could just have Dan take questions from the audience and YouTube town hall style.  

Recently democratic political consultant Jon Pelto penned an op-ed for CT News Junkie chiding the democratic candidates for governor for going negative. This was followed with some press and most recently a column by Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant raising similar issues. Specifically McEnroe has stated:

I know what you’re thinking: Is there no candidate who has managed to rise above all this petty squabbling, no candidate who can stop bickering long enough to address the massive and extremely boring structural financial problems pushing this state to the brink of ruin?
Well, no. There isn’t. And I can’t believe you would bring up such a trivial and personal concern as the future of Connecticut while the candidates are working so hard to thrash out the incredibly difficult and knotty matter of which one of them is a bigger toolbox.

Yet candidates are and have been tackling policy and the future of Connecticut directly. In between exchanging the barbs with each other Dan Malloy most recently unveiled his education plan while Ned Lamont focused on transportation. If you visit Dan Malloy’s YouTube channel he has a little over 100 videos. Many, if not a majority, addressing Connecticut policy issues from his visits around the state since he began exploring his run for governor. Meanwhile Ned Lamont aired a commercial asking people to go to his website to read about his plan for Connecticut.

It seems the problem remains that these policy conferences and ideas seem to lack the element of sexiness that excites the media and electorate. Can Colin McEnroe really write an amusing article about Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and their impact on the budget? The drama of Jon Pelto’s declaration that democrats might “suck” certainly seems to have generated more discussion on the web and about this race than Dan Malloy’s proposals for early childhood education. Even here on MyLeftNutmeg there seems to be more effort put into attacking Dan Malloy or Ned Lamont than debating policy issues like transportation and transparency. In contrast the NBC30 debate highlighted policy issues and the candidates had an opportunity to discuss what they would cut in the budget or their position on the death penalty.

The bloggers and columnists may and will continue to criticize the state of the horserace. As a political junkie myself I make no apology for the fact that I devour every poll and endorsement with the zeal of a rabid sports fan. However at the same time these small things cannot and should not be allowed to drown out the larger and more important discussions. We cannot pretend that these discussions are not happening in our legislature, city halls, and at our kitchen tables. A week or two ago I got my tuition bill from the UCONN law school. After the legislature took money from the UCONN Operating Reserve Account to cover their budget gap I find my tuition has gone up and my aid has gone significantly down from last year. An experience I imagine many other UCONN students and Connecticut families had when they got their bills and something that I care about so much more than Tom Foley’s arrest record.

So I issue this challenge, not just to Colin or Jon, but to everyone as we go into August and then November. Let’s have the great discussion about the issues and future of our state. Let’s find a way to make energy policy sexy or transportation policy dramatic to the average voter. Let’s use our bully pulpit to get voters to ask if they really think that they want more trains or solar panels in Connecticut. Yes we’ll certainly continue to have the vigorous debates about the character and experience of our candidates. There are important and valid debates to be had on whether we want to be lead by a businessman or statesman. However let us not get distracted from the fact that these bigger discussions about Connecticut’s future are happening and we need to continue to have them.  

I wanted to start a topic to discuss the issue of Connecticut and transparency. Both candidates for governor have talked about transparency a little. Lamont mentions it in regards to procurement and Dan Malloy talks about the expenditure database. Meanwhile the right-leaning Yankee Institute has been leading a transparency charge. Using disclosures obtained in cooperation with the Comptroller’s office they developed CT Sunlight.org. The CT Mirror had an article about the legislature’s reaction to the database. Concern about the accuracy of the Yankee Institute data lead to an act directing the state to create its own version of the database.

While it’s certainly interesting that this data is online, I’m wondering about its usefulness. Candidates are calling for transparency and as activists and citizens I think its important for us to have the conversation about where it is best to focus these efforts. After all, transparency does not actually accomplish anything unless we as citizens we can use the data and then effect change with it. Whether it be informing ourselves as to the results of health inspections of restaurants so we know what to avoid, or using campaign contribution data to determine whether a representative may have been influenced by money, we can use the data to inform our eating and voting patterns.

What data should Connecticut be opening up? Where as a citizenry are we lacking important information the government has that could be useful?