WTF WFP?
To pick up some balls played by Gatemouth, I'm just now noticing that the Working Families Party is running its own candidate in a state Senate race that is one of the top pick-up opportunities this year. The race in question is in SD-3, Suffolk, pitting a young, fresh-faced Democrat, Jimmy Dahroug, 28 27, against antediluvian republican Caesar Trunzo, 78 80.
The WFP endorsed one David Ochoa, after he won its primary and thus its ballot line; however, Ochoa was simultaneously defeated in the Democratic primary by Dahroug, who had run in 2004 (full disclosure: my organization, New Democratic Majority, supported Dahroug in 2004 and again this year).
The truly unfortunate thing is that the presence of two Progressive candidates on the ballot makes toppling Trunzo more difficult. It's also not helpful, as the WFP blog makes clear, that their advertising in the district urges voters to vote their ballot line.
The strategic implications of this divided ballot become clearer if you take a look at the broader battlefield. The party establishment's rallying cry on the Senate all this year has been "2008! 2008!", but with strong challengers coming out of the woodwork everywhere, it's not as unlikely as the kommentariat seems to think that the Senate could flip on November 7th. We need four seats to take control, and there are more than four serious challengers: Dahroug, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Matt Titone, Brian Keeler, Brooke Ellison come to mind, with newcomers Leslie Bielanski and Odelia Goldberg rounding out the pack.
I have a very soft spot in my heart for the WFP, but they should give some major thought to what it is that they're doing out in Suffolk. It won't engender any goodwill if they turn out to be the stumbling block for a Democratic Senate. How about an Ochoa endorsement of Dahroug?
[Update]: A commenter thinks Ochoa may have says Ochoa has endorsed Dahroug.
[Update 2]: From the comments: WFP is urging a vote for Dahroug, as per the WFP blog. Excellent work.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | Democratic Party | Jimmy Dahroug | Progressive Movement | Suffolk | Working Families Party
SOP vs. fluke
Submitted by mole333 on 30 October 2006 - 12:45pm.
In general, WFP works with the Dems excpet in cases like when they (thankfully) backed Letisha James. There are actually some times I even wish WFP WOULD give an alternative to a so-so Dem...Perhaps Ed Towns would be a good Dem for them to go up against, for example. But in general, WFP plays a very strategic game that means mostly cooperating with Democrats. I may be less forgiving of WFP than Michael because of rare cases where they backed a Republican, something I find hard to stomach these days. However, even in those cases they leveraged something out of it (e.g. raise in minimum wage).
By contrast, the SOP of the Greens seems to be to help Republicans in close races. This is not always the case, and, here I am kinder than Michael, I recognize that there are more strategic Greens as well who pick their fights better than, say, Nader did. But looking nationally since 2000, Greens have done more harm than good and when they did there was no material benefit from it as there was when WFP got the minimum wage increase.
I once eyed both Greens and WFP as an alternative to Dems anytime I found the Dem unpalatable. But these days I prefer a united front against a Republican Party that has shown itself to be willing to do anything to loot America for their own benefit. WFP seems to have a better sense of timing and location than Greens do. Greens seem to be taking random pot shots in hopes they might someday, somewhere hit a target. WFP, if anything, is too cautious in their timing and location.
Not spread too thin
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on 1 November 2006 - 5:55pm.
We're all too busy now doing election work, but when there's more time post-election it'll interesting to discuss the tradeoffs between being equally active in many races and maintaining different levels of activity in different races.
Not strange at all
Submitted by Bouldin on 30 October 2006 - 12:22pm.
...because the WFP has been a team player all along in getting Progressives elected, while the Greens get republicans elected. The WFP still deserves the benefit of the doubt; the Greens have shown themselves to be enthusiastic prostitutes for the right-wing agenda.
Which reminds me that the last installment of my 'Worse than Worthless' series on those tools of the forces of evil is still outstanding.
Ochoa not actively pursuing this...
Submitted by nync (not verified) on 30 October 2006 - 2:19pm.
I think Ochoa DID endorse Jimmy. He's not actively pursuing this. By the way, Jimmy is 27 and Trunzo is 80.
Ochoa Has Endorsed Dahroug
Submitted by Kevin (not verified) on 30 October 2006 - 3:34pm.
David Ochoa has formally endorsed Jimmy Dahroug and appeared with Jimmy at a Democratic Unity rally for his candidacy at Suffolk County Democratic Headquarters three weeks ago.
Glad Ochoa's Done Right, But That's Hardly The Issue.
Submitted by Gatemouth on 30 October 2006 - 10:03pm.
Ochoa did the right thing, but WFP still persists in urging folks to vote for Ochoa. By contrast, under similar circumstances, in the 47th SD, they are now uring folks to support the Democrat rather than their own candidate.
Why the difference? Because some in the WFP want Trunzo to win. Remember, Trunzo had enough support in WFP circles to get a Wilson-Pakula from the WFP leadership allowing him to run in the primary (Ochoa beat him). Now, the same folks actively keep Ochoa's candidacy alive, against his will, to benefit Trunzo.
Meanwhile in Westchester, WFP keeps their line blank and works for Republican Spano under the table.
In the fight to keep the Senate as the GOP's last bullwark in state government, WFP serve's as Larry to The Independence Party's Shemp.
Finally signed up, eh?
Submitted by mole333 on 31 October 2006 - 7:55am.
Finally signed up, Gatemouth? We now have a "verified" Gatemouth on the site.
Welcome.
same old Gatemouth
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on 31 October 2006 - 12:56pm.
If you were really covering the race, you'd know Ochoa dropped his campaign and the WFP is telling people to vote for Dahroug.
Be honest, that's why you didn't link to the WFP endorsements page, because it shows a Dahroug endorsement.
Wrong Steve
Submitted by Gatemouth on 31 October 2006 - 8:40pm.
1) When I posted on the 28th, Ochao was still the WFP candidate listed on their website. My piece said this.
2) WFP road signs in the area encouraged a vote for their straight ticket. This was posted on the WFP blog.
3) I would have linked both the WFP site and blog, but Room 8 had technical problems making it impossible at the time
4) WFP did not post a Dahroug endorsement until today.
5) So who are you calling a lying sack of shit? Next thing you'll being saying is a vote for Spitzer on the WFP line is a way to send a message you don't like Gatemouth; anything for the cause; but, I'm the one who told the truth and WFP is now backing Dahroug only because I shamed them into it.
WFP gave us Spano
Submitted by Marty Connor (not verified) on 30 October 2006 - 11:56pm.
We are all out for Cousins against Spano and the Senate Dems are spending big money on this race--and are strapped for $$ for other State Senate races in this super year for Democrats in New York. Why? The WFP gave Spano his 18 vote victory in 2004. Nice work for the "progressive" WFP.
In fairness, Senator, the
Submitted by Bouldin on 31 October 2006 - 10:56pm.
In fairness, Senator, the Dems' deficiencies in this cycle are too manifold to be laid solely at the doorstep of the WFP. Certainly not the DSCC's lack of fundraising prowess.
Setting the record straight : WFP says vote for Dahroug
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on 31 October 2006 - 12:51pm.
To set the record straight, the Working Families Party is calling for people to vote for Jimmy Dahroug for State Senate.
http://wfpjournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/working-families-party-endorses-jimmy.html
David Ochoa won the WFP primary in the 3rd District, but he suspended his campaign and endorsed Jimmy Dahroug after losing the Democratic primary.
You can see all of of the WFP endorsements, including Jimmy Dahroug, at
http://workingfamiliesparty.org/WFPendorsements2006.html
Good enough
Submitted by Bouldin on 31 October 2006 - 1:54pm.
...but it seems that WFP had overlooked this. No harm done, obviously, and the general affection for WFP in these parts is undiminished, but I think the value of an express statement for the benefit of voters is real.
I think Gatemouth deserves credit for pointing this out, for awareness reasons alone. Kudos.
got a question? just ask
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on 1 November 2006 - 8:58pm.
If a blog post makes things clear then I'm happy to do it.
OK...
Submitted by Bouldin on 1 November 2006 - 9:21pm.
Is WFP counteracting its billboards urging people to vote Row E with any pro-Dahroug messaging? The message of those billboards is very clear, widespread - according to your blog - and confusing.
I would also find it helpful if you created a user account here, because presently, your comments need to be manually reviewed and approved, which takes time, needless to say.
Vote Dahroug on Row B
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on 5 November 2006 - 9:42pm.
We're telling people to vote for Jimmy Dahroug on Row B - I just sent out an email reminding people to Vote for Jimmy Dahroug on election day - and we're setting the record straight when this question comes up.
Are you sure about this?
Submitted by sidnora on 31 October 2006 - 9:23pm.
I was phonebanking last night with WFP (for Mike Arcuri) and I happened to speak to the person running the phone bank about Spano/Stewart-Cousins, and she told me they had endorsed Stewart-Cousins this year. OTOH, I just checked their website and there's no mention of the district.
If it turns out that this woman lied to me because she thought I'd walk out if she told me the truth, I'll never work with them again.
The more I think about it,
Submitted by sidnora on 2 November 2006 - 12:12am.
the more I think this person consciously lied. I'd asked her whether WFP had ever backed a Republican, she explained the Spano/minimum wage thing, and I accepted it (inside I was thinking, "18 freakin' votes!", but it could be argued that the minimum wage increase was worth it). But I think she saw something in my face. Then I asked her what they had done about it this time, and she told me directly they'd endorsed Stewart-Cousins.
This is hard to communicate in words, but there was just something about the whole conversation....I think she lied.
She shouldn't have told you that
Submitted by SteveWFP on 2 November 2006 - 6:05pm.
The WFP is neutral in the 35th Senate District race. WFP endorsements here
Strange...
if it was the Green Party you would be going nuts, but since it is WFP for which you have an oh-so-soft spot your words are a lot kinder. What a double standard!