Progress Illinois

It was a pleasure meeting you and am impressed by the report of your learning experience. I regret that I did not spend more time or money on your behalf. You are young with the advantage of future involvement in government ahead. This is a new era, a new paradigm economically and politically. I can entrust my grandchild's future in your hands. You can balance the uneven equation in American life.

Daniel,

Do you think bringing back straight ticket voting might help progressives -- or at least might have helped you if we had it last year? When I canvassed for you, everyone said the same thing: "I'm voting straight Democrat this year." Yet relatively few total votes were cast in your race compared with the races at the top of the ballot. Apparently to many "straight Democrat" meant voting for Obama and Durbin, and maybe Schakowsky, and going home....

Jay -- thanks for the kind words. It was a pleasure to meet you (at your door and on the phone!) during the campaign...I'm sure I'll see you around the neighborhood soon.

Jim -- Interesting question. A few ill-thought-out comments:
* Actually, the "undervote" in our race was only around 4%. In other words, among voters who showed up, almost 96% voted for either me or the incumbent. That's unusually good for a race this far down the ballot, and is probably a reflection of the fact that this was a comparatively high-profile race. Your point, though, stands: had those 4% all voted, and had they broken overwhelmingly my way, it would have been enough to change the result.
* The bigger problem was the "ticket splitters". Obama (and Durbin and Schakowsky) just did way better than I did. (Dan Seals had the same problem.) So: does that mean that you didn't happen to talk to people who voted for Obama but against me? Or does it mean that they described their own behavior inaccurately? Probably some of each. In any case, I think it's fair to assume that in my race in particular, where the top of the ticket swung so clearly Democratic, straight ticket voting would have been a big help.
* But of course you're asking a general question, not a question about a specific and small district. That question is basically whether straight-ticket voting would help downballot Dems or downballot Republicans more overall. And the answer is that I just don't know. But here's an interesting blog post that basically suggests that it shouldn't make a difference:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11134
What the post actually points out is that across the country and across elections, Democratic presidential candidates and Democratic Congressional candidates basically perform equally. In other words, for every Mark Kirk who's substantially outperforming McCain, you have a Melissa Bean who's substantially outperforming Obama.
* That doesn't completely close the book on this discussion, but it is certainly food for thought. (It's also interesting that Democratic candidates like Obama and Bill Clinton who have the reputation as being awesome politicians who win lots of votes perform -- relative to the Congressional baseline -- pretty much exactly as well as Democratic candidates like Dukakis who have a reputation as being terrible politicians who lose lots of votes. This also doesn't close the book on any discussion since there's a major causality question left to address, but, still, it's interesting.)
* That also doesn't address my thoughts on straight-ticket voting. I'm sort of against it, although I don't have a particularly good reason. (My reasoning would be that people should make up their own minds, but that's sort of nonsensical since having the option of straight-ticket voting simply gives more choices to people who are already making up their own minds.)
* While on the subject, let me make one last point. Being involved in my campaign and, before that, the Seals campaign, I must've heard a thousand people say "I don't vote for the party; I vote for the person." I think this is a really unfortunate oversimplification, more of a feel-good slogan than any kind of philosophy. You shouldn't vote for the party without thinking, and you shouldn't vote for "the person" (whatever that means!) unthinkingly either. You should vote based on the outcome. And that's a really complicated and difficult thing to measure, but for a lot of offices, one extremely important aspect of it is party. So for example, when you're voting for Congress, it's often really hard to tell what specific impact the candidate will have if they win. This is partially because politicians tend to be really good at sounding like they agree with you when they're actually just sort of mouthing platitudes, and partially because the U.S. House has 435 members, and it takes a lot of leadership and coalition-building skills to get anything substantive done there, and it's very very difficult to evaluate whether a candidate has those qualities and it's even harder to evaluate what the candidate will be able to use those qualities to do -- after all, there are a lot of competing interests facing Congressional representatives! However, one thing that's really easy to tell is what party the candidate belongs to, who's leading each party, and who each party would pick to chair most committees. That stuff is important! Really important! And caring about that stuff and using it when deciding who to vote for doesn't make you a thoughtless vote-the-party automaton; it makes you someone who's soberly evaluating the available information! (This doesn't mean, by the way, that I just have some really complicated justification for always voting for all Democrats -- I actually don't always for for all Democrats. But party matters a lot and I wish we could be a little more honest about that in our political discussions.)

Sorry, Jim, I seem to have used your question as an excuse to talk endlessly about stuff that doesn't actually provide an answer...

Thanks for those thoughts Daniel. I didn't realize the undervote was so small, but it was still potentially decisive. Seals would be harder to see as an undervote problem. How Kirk outperformed his 2006 percentage with Obama at the top of the ticket and with some of the votes Kirk cast (against the fair pay act, against extending unemployment benefits, against foreclosure relief, etc.) is beyond me.

IIRC, it was the Republicans who killed straight ticket voting when they controlled the IL legislature and Governor's office, so they obviously thought they had something to fear from it, at least in the Chicago area.

Daniel I'm proud to say I was probably one of the first to contribute to your campaign at Yearly Kos in the summer of 2007.

I think you, Seals, and Scott Harper may have suffered a bit from the same problem. In the last weeks of the campaign it became obvious Obama was going to win pretty big, Durbin too. Their success may have resulted in some backlash downballot, even from people who voted for them. Regardless of Blago's troubles Democratic control of Springfield looked to get even stronger. I think there was a small but significant number of voters who voted for the Republican incumbents in your races as a counter weight to balance government. It makes them feel like they're being cautious, hedging their bets, diversifying their portfolio so to speak. It also lets them tell themselves that their reasoning was "candidate, not party". For a lot of them, they had to convince themselves that's what they were doing to vote for a Democrat for president and US senator anyway, so it wasn't a big step for them to split the ticket.

We'll probably have the same problem in 2010, "counter weight" may be the only argument Republicans have left on the national level if they continue to act crazy. But I for one plan on exposing their dumb policy ideas as often as I can.

Hey Daniel,

Good post and thanks for running in 08.

Just a little off topic, but what are your plans now. Will you be taking another go at it or returning to teaching or what?

I think Markg8 has hit the nail on the head - some Obamacans (Republicans who voted for Obama) just couldn't help not voting for a few Republicans lower down on the ballot. Also, Blago's sorry performance, and the legislative gridlock, made Democrats look bad. Democrats are supposed to be the party that is good at GOVERNING. We haven't been of late in Illinois, though I have great hopes for new Gov. Quinn.

First of all Daniel ,I take exception to your characterization of the Progressive organizations that seemingly dismissed your candidacy. Many of the organizations you mentioned in your column like SEIU, AFSCME, IEA and Sierra Club ARE the Progressive movement in Illinois and nationally. We have funded, staffed and helped organize the civil rights movement, anti war movement, environmental movement, women and gay rights movements, the immigrant rights movement, not to mention, creating and funding this very blog where you have seen fit to question our commitment to the Progressive Movement. You may not want to hear this Dan but there are a couple real simple reasons why you didn't enjoy the support of the established Progressive organizations in Illinois.

First, your opponent has been a strong supporter of our members and has gone against her own party time and again demonstrating that support. My job is to improve the lives of the 165,000 members of SEIU not help further your personal political ambitions. We support Progressives wherever they exist including the few that still reside within the Republican Party. Second, and you might not like to hear this Dan, but the first anyone in the Progressive community ever heard of you was when you decided to run for office. Prior to running had you ever met an SEIU member? Did you support our members struggles in any substantial way?

You still may be elected someday Dan. I only hope when you do you have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process and the Progressive Movement you so passionately claim to represent.

Hi Jerry :)

Obviously we mean different things when we use the phrase "progressive movement." Part of that has to do with where we sit and what our roles are, and a lot of that has to do with plain old semantics. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "new progressive movement" consistently throughout my post, or maybe I should have said "grassroots progressive movement" or something. Certainly there's some new collection of infrastructures that have appeared in the last decade, resulting in substantial growth of the movement, and whenever that happens, growing pains and internal divisions are inevitable. I was referring to one side of one of those divisions.

If you seriously want to retroactively debate whether you made the right call with your endorsement, I guess I could do that, although frankly I don't see the point and there may be a better forum to do so than the comment thread of a blog. If you go back to my post, you'll see that I was careful not to say that SEIU made the wrong call. You'll also see that I described SEIU as a valued ally. Perhaps your comment would have benefited from a similarly civil tone.

Daniel, you apparently still don't get it. If there are "internal divisions within the Progressive Movement" as you contend I would ask what have you done to bridge that divivde, if it does exist? As far as I know you have never asked to meet with SEIU members to offer your support in their struggles. I don't remember you turning out your friends and allies in support of the Big Box Living Wage Campaign or man the picket line during our nursing home contract fight. I don't say this to embarass you, but if you apsire to a leadership role in the Illinois Progressive Movement you need to know that there are responsibilities that go along with that priviledge.

You may ask, what has SEIU done to bridge this perceived division within the movement? First and foremost we created Progress Illinois so that Progressives would have a unique online voice in the ongoing political debate.

As far as retroactively debating the SEIU endorsement in your race I see no need to do that what-so-ever. I am proud of the decision we made to back your opponent and would recommend
we do it again in a heartbeat. I only wish you had followed your own advice about debating this issue in another forum. Unfortunately, you chose to use the space we provided you at this blog to question the integrity of some of the most Progressive organizations in the state merely because they did not support your candidacy.

This may surprise you Dan but as a young organizer I ran for office against a longtime alderman and, like yourself, enjoyed very little institutional support from the Progressive community. But, unlike you I did not question their motivations but set out to better understand these organizations and their members ongoing struggles. In retrospect these groups made the right decision in my race just as most Progressive orgs. did in yours.

Proclaiming one's self "the Progressive candidate" in a race is not enough to garner the support of the Progressive community.

Dan, why don't you spend some time doing the nuts and bolts organizing necessary to help build a vibrant and strong Progressive Movement here in illinois. Once you have demonstrtated your understanding of the issues and your commitment to something bigger than yourself I am sure that you will make real progress with Illinois Progressives.

Seeing Progressive organizations as "valued allies" is a two-way street Dan. It requires something from you first, BEFORE you ask for political support. Anyway, I am glad Progress Illinois has afforded you this opportunity to make your commitment to Progressive values known. I hope the dialogue leads to some work. There is plenty to do brother.

Jerry,

I'm also glad that Progress Illinois granted me this opportunity, and that you joined the discussion . These dialogues are very valuable.

I don't think this is the venue to provide detailed responses to your questions about my past actions on behalf of the movement; hopefully we can focus on broader movement-building questions rather than focusing on one fairly obscure former candidate. Like most passionate supporters of the progressive movement, I've worked hard on behalf of the causes you describe, and like anyone who's honest with themselves, I would like to have done more and intend to do more in the future.

Just one last clarification: my post didn't question anyone's integrity. Indeed, I singled out organizations whose integrity was, I thought, unimpeachable.

Thanks again,
Daniel

I don't remember you turning out your friends and allies in support of the Big Box Living Wage Campaign or man the picket line during our nursing home contract fight.

Let me ask you Jerry, did Dan's opponent?

IVI-IPO was very involved in the Big Box Living Wage Campaign, and Daniel Biss' campaign. Daniel did some amazing organizing in his district, and should be given credit for it. And while each organization here is obviously welcome to choose it's own criteria for endorsement, I think the big picture is being lost. The structure in Springfield has been so twisted as to make the individual Representatives' positions and votes almost meaningless, and Daniel's attempt to run outside that system should be given credit for at least trying. Other organizations who have to try and get things done in Springfield (and Chicago and Cook Co.) are forced to deal with the structures there; if they want to get things done, they do what they have to for their members or constituents, and that sometimes means they buy into the structure because it works for them. But that doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

Also, if you put up a forum, and bash people with a different view, the, eventually, you're only going to hear your own view.

Daniel, I supported your campaign for state representative and felt you ran a good campaign. But I have to agree with Jerry that you are way off base asserting that those particular organizations are "valued allies" of any progressive movement in Illinois, in whatever terms you want to use. To make that statement is to assume that they are not on board with progressive change and simply on the fringes of a progressive movement while people like you are the "real grassroots progressives". Indeed, these organizations are at the forefront and have been for years.

To say "some of these organizations simply don’t understand the potential of the progressive movement" is absolutely ridiculous and insulting. Frankly, I'm surprised you would characterize any of the organizations you listed in that way. Whether you meant it to be or not, it came off as very arrogant. As if there is an elite group of "progressives" who just understand these things better and it probably doesn't include union service workers without fancy college degrees who may or may not speak English. Think about what your saying, Daniel!

I think you should elaborate on why you think your campaign was movement building. I think you ran a good campaign and I'd support you again, but I'm not sure I would characterize your campaign as a movement. I'm interested in why you think otherwise.

I do not agree with Jerry's statement that "the first anyone in the Progressive community ever heard of you was when you decided to run for office". Maybe that statement runs true for SEIU, but it's certainly not true in general. I recall your efforts with the Committee of 100 that was founded to elect Barack Obama to the U.S. Senate in the primary. Also with the Kerry Travelers group organized by Jan Schakowsky's organization to send people up to Wisconsin for John Kerry and as a volunteer on many other campaigns. There's a reason why so many activists were thrilled that you decided to take a run at it yourself. It was largely because you'd been on the frontlines busting your behind in the trenches with the rest of us.

Daniel: I give you credit for pointing out that it is in the best interests of some organizations to support an incumbent, often times reflexively, because of the power of incumbency. It's an easy bet. But I think that the critical point here, for the folks commenting on Daniel's post, is -- in my opinion -- that don't make it right. Sure, it is great to have a pseudo progressive Republican that you can claim as in your corner, who will vote with you when it is easy for them to do so. But when it really matters, I would think you would want someone who is willing to LEAD and to take risks, and who really believes in the causes that you believe in. And who will work when in office to make those things a reality. I personally think that Daniel's opponent really believes in the causes of the corporate insurance-medical establishment, and will vote for other progressive agenda items that others bring up because it is easy for her to do so. But since folks like her and the congressman from the area ACT like they are independent from their party, while not really being so. Making it tougher for progressive organizations to reach their goals. If one of your org's goals is, let's say, quality healthcare for all, then easily Daniel Biss would have been the person the org should have endorsed.

I was proud to vote for Daniel Biss and Dan Seals in the last election. When going door to door, I met several people who described themselves as very Liberal, and would be voting for Obama, but were also going to be voting for Coulson (because she's a woman) and Kirk (because he's good for Israel, whatever that means).

Elections have consequences. How did Obama's stimulus bill do in the House? Not one Republican voted for it, and that includes Mark Kirk. Some Republicans may like to sell themselves as "independent" but at the end of the day, they're still Republicans and they usually vote like them too.

Dan,
I met you in WI during the Kerry campaign. You stated it was your first try at campaigning. I was nonplussed when hearing you were runnnng in 17. What made you think you were ready to be a state legislator? Your Ph.d? Obviously not your math skills since politics is all about addition and I don't see the you understanding that concept. You need to build upon your base of 'progressives". May I suggest that you get involved with the local community before running for another political office. MIght fly in Hyde Park but not in 17. Sorry that you gave up your tenure track job before fully investigating your new career choice.

I am going to ask everyone to lighten up on Dan. He and I spoke earlier today and he was clearly upset by how his column has been received. I think he wishes he would have stated things differently and there may have been some misunderstanding of what he was trying to communicate.

Dan and I are going to get together after the 5th CD special election to talk about some of the issues brought up by his column and many others facing the Progressive movement. I look forward to hearing his thoughts and hope that we can work together on the issues where we have agreement such as REAL campaign finance reform. Until then, give Dan a break.

Thanks Jerry and Rob, for your comments. I am obviously a Daniel Biss supporter, and I agree that he was the best choice in the election. You don't win 'em all, but he ran his campaign the right way, and that is ultimately more important. And anon. from the 17th, have you ever met Daniel's opponent? Have you ever talked to the two of them regarding the issues in Illinois? Daniel was and is more than ready to be a state rep., especially since he has more leadership and a deeper understanding of the issues than did his opponent. Daniel IS involved in his local community as well, so get your facts straight before you start saying bull like that. One last thing ... nice "Hyde Park" crack. So, anonymous, I think that each point that you made was incorrect, up until the Hyde Park comment, which was just, I don't know, odd and off-putting.

Dude-
You lost in a substantially Democrat district in the biggest Democrat year. There wasn't a movement. You rode a wave that would have carried a well-run campaign across the finish line. However-no message meant no change in this district.

I think Dan ran a very good campaign. I was a contributor to his campaign from early on. I am also quite a bit surprised that he did not have more support from a number of groups.

As to the critique that Dan came from a University Mathematics background, I view that as a strength - I don't really know how to take some of these derogatory comments. And the Hyde Park reference was unusual, considering that we have someone from the Hyde Park area in the White House right now.

I consider that what Dan brought to his campaign was a great deal of intelligence and caring. I've spoken with him at length, and I felt that he was very insightful about the problems are society is facing, and in particular, our educational system.

While I am saddened that Dan did not make it into office, I am happy of what he did accomplish, and that this was a terrific first step in the political arena, and I am certain that we will see him run again for office.

Easy:

That is a GROSS oversimplification of both the mood in the district and the election as well. Obviously you weren't paying attention during the campaign, or else you would have known that it was one of the best run in the state with an aggressive field plan that covered literally every precinct in the district multiple times.

To call it a heavily Democratic district, while having some merit, also ignores the history of the district. It's a Democratic leaning district, but then how is that not only Daniel, but 4 other Democrats failed to win that seat in previous cycles? The truth is that it's a very independent district that is issue focused, not loyal to any party. Beth Coulson has survived by having a strong pro-choice and pro-environment voting record.

And to claim that Daniel had no message tells me you didn't see any of the countless mailers that spoke a very clear message of government reform (which has now obviously become a very relevant issue), a need for a green economy and green development, and necessary reform in the formula for school funding and lowering property taxes.

While it's true that there was a Democratic wave this year, Daniel got a surprising amount of support from McCain voters who liked his message of independence and fiscal responsibility. One of my favorite pictures from the campaign is of a McCain/Kirk/Biss combo on a yard in Skokie! And the wave actually was stronger outside of Illinois were we had a Democratic Governor and County Board President with 4% approval ratings. What's the old saying? I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat.

I'm proud of what was accomplished in that campaign and it was an honor and a privilege to have been a part of it.

Luis Klein
Former Field Director
Daniel Biss for State Rep

P.S I wrote this with my SEIU local 73 pin on.

I've taken the time to read Daniel's post several times, and also really thought about what he meant. I just never saw any offensive language in his post, and I think he brought up a critical point--and I'd love to be involved in any discussions on the endorsement process. I've been a union activist for over 15 years, and I just ran for the 5th Congressional seat. I've been on organizing drives, I've walked many a picket line, and I've prepared members to strike. However, we saw a phenomenal split in this race. I received the endorsements of the most of the transportation unions, AFL-CIO mostly endorsed Fritchey, SEIU endorsed Feigenholtz, and a few Teamsters and Nurse unions supported Geoghegan, and a few medical associations supported the doctors. We saw serious money and time spent in this race--money that's raised by PAC contributions of hard-working labor members such as myself, and money that was pretty much wasted because none of our candidates won, although we kept our members energized in the political process.. Now I'm sure I missed a few endorsements, and I haven't even brought up the Progressive organizations or other interest groups. For now, I'm sticking with Labor, as that's my personal background, and I'm going to ask a few questions for everyone to think about as it ties in with Daniel's post. And please don't anyone take this personally as my questioning their integrity or judgment, but Daniel raised a serious issue---should organizations support those who've been supportive of them, or those who will be guaranteed to be MORE supportive? Should groups have to support their own members to keep up the fire and activism as we grow our movement? I understand there's often the fear to support a challenger to an incumbent, but personally, I think we need to get more idealistic, and tougher on our choices. I also saw that early money was the only thing the press cared about--but if we could all band together a bit more and truly fight for the better candidates, not the practical candidates, I'm pretty sure we could get more accomplished in Congress because the better candidates would get the early money. And this is not about this race because we had great choices and Mike Quigley will do a great job, but I bring it up as I saw it firsthand. I had a great time, made wonderful new friends, and dragged the candidates to talk about foreclosures, the Employee Free Choice Act, Fair Trade not Free Trade, and better help for our veterans. But I'm pretty disappointed in some of the choices Labor has made lately, and believe me, my own union is hearing about this too. We supported Judy Biggert instead of Scott Harper because "she's been a pretty good friend to us." Well, I ask everyone to truly consider Daniel's point--we understand the nature of politics, but shouldn't we push for more? I answer "Yes, we can!"

And Daniel, it was great to meet you--never be afraid of a good firefight, it's the only way to keep pushing for change! And Jerry, looking forward to meeting you, too, someday.

Jan Donatelli
proud ALPA member, Council 44, AFL-CIO affiliate

This is so disingenous. Biss was not in a tenure-track position at Chicago, he couldn't "seek tenure" there. Moreover his most important publication in the most prestigious journal in mathematics had a horrendous error.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w38x142531g78t28/

He was going nowhere in mathematics.

Biss was in a tenure track position. It's just that his main work had a major error, and his other main work had another major error. Check his wiki page.