So I see the Democrats re-elected all of their officials this week, including anemic chair Nancy DiNardo, who has been chair since 2005. The reason?
DiNardo said the Democratic Party has had “tremendous success” in the past two years.
Undoubtedly true. They picked up two seats in our Congressional delegation and gained a supermajority in the General Assembly. On the surface, DiNardo looks like some sort of electoral genius.
Don’t worry. She isn’t.
In fact, DiNardo has presided over a period of remarkable division and breakdown among Democrats. For example, the Democratic Party could not ensure the victory of either longtime Senator Joe Lieberman or gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy, both of whom received the party’s blessing at the convention. And, once these two candidates had lost to Ned Lamont and John DeStefano, the party couldn’t muster enough support to bring either one close on election night despite a massive edge in voter registration and thousands of new registered Democrats. DeStefano’s loss was particularly embarrassing, coming as it did against a candidate who presented few new ideas and barely campaigned. The divisions caused by the primaries have still not healed, and Democratic leaders show no signs of being able to bridge a widening gap.
Democratic successes, though significant, can mostly be explained by national trends. The Democratic supermajority came about because Democrats picked up a mere handful of seats in the House–there was really no massive shift in numbers in either chamber. National issues like Iraq helped put Courtney over the top, and Murphy benefited from his own excellent campaign and Nancy Johnson’s terrible one. But why couldn’t Democrats defeat Chris Shays, whose weird statements and flip-flops on Iraq should have cost him the race?
The other factor, of course, is the luckless, leaderless and generally impotent party opposite. Democrats can win because the Republicans are in much worse shape. Jodi Rell can win statewide, but can any other Republican? Maybe a new chair like Rob Simmons could help turn that party around, but I’m not holding my breath.
Connecticut Democrats, instead of resting on their dubious laurels, should be wary of emerging trends showing that Republicans can win in big cities (New Britain, Torrington, Danbury, Middletown). The party organization should also seek to harness some of the incredible energy coming out of the progressive wing of the party, rather than either ignoring or trying to squelch it, and encourage the building of the party in the small towns where it is suddenly competitive.
Then again, Democratic leaders may believe that nothing is wrong, and that the creaky old machine, such as it is, is good for another few elections. They might be right. But sooner or later, it’s going to collapse.
Source
“State Democrats re-elect slate of officials.” Associated Press 18 January, 2007.
3 responses so far ↓
I think in five years you’ll see more progressive Democrats involved in the infrastructure. It has to start with the DTC’s, and I’m already seeing movement there. Eventually that will work it’s way up to State Central.
Governor Rell was recently on the WTIC morning show. The discussion centered on the Democrats proposal to end the Governor’s ability to fill a Senate vacancy. Governor Rell made it very clear that would seriously consider filling an empty seat with a Democrat.
As long as Connecticut Republicans are led by someone who not only refuses to build the party, but considers supporting the supermajority Democrats, nothing will stop the one party dominance of our state.
Ah, don’t sound TOO surprised ebpie…it’s not like Rell got elected on anything that could be even remotely described as “substance”. Besides, any and all things “Republican” about her are going to slip away even faster than they had because of the make-up of the legislature. She’d rather save face by being “bi-partisan” (read: doing whatever the Democrats want) than standing up to them and losing every battle.
You must log in to post a comment.