I really wish LDs would not endorse when there are multiple good democrats in a race. Yeah if one of them is a nutter or a republican in disguise then they should endorse to make that clear, but here both seem like decent options.

Though Joe is the way to go!

@1 - if we didn't have this stupid open primary, we could allow Democratic voters to pick our candidates. Until then, every District has the right to nominate and endorse candidates whom they believe best represent their values. Freedom of association swings both ways.

@ Oh they have the right for sure, but it just seems like a stupid idea in a case like this. Both of these guys are democrats. Endorsing one seems like it would just serve to cause division in the organization. I know if I were involved and my LD endorsed a candidate I did not support I would certainly not work to get that person elected. Especially because the leadership in LDs often bares little to no relation to the make up of a district.

Plus when their chosen candidate gets beat it just makes them look weak and leads to recrimination.

Why not just endorse them both instead of going through some tortured and meaningless process?

@3 - Oh, hey Giffy!

While I do agree that the risk is there to make the District look bad when their nominee doesn't win, I also think it's important that the membership make a decision. LD's endorse in just about everything, and they're not always right, nor does that endorsement always translate into a win (either overall, or in their district), but dual endorsements are a cop-out.

I know in my District, and I believe more than a few more, the endorsement also comes with a spot on a sample ballot - a cheat sheet - that will be dropped along with lit by PCO's. I remember in 2009, while doorbelling for a candidate, I was in a precinct that had been lit dropped, and the lit from one of the endorsed candidates was not included, only lit from the other. That's fine, and the PCO's prerogative.

However, if I"m a lay voter and I receive something from the District Democrat organization, and it has both candidates that are on the ballot on the cheat sheet, I'm going to be dubious about any of their endorsements.

Of course, this year, regardless of how the endorsement breaks down in the 34th, I hope that everyone does their lit drops and cheat sheet drops, and works on GOTV for their candidate. Turnout in Seattle will be very important for Sen. Murray and the initiatives. I also hope those without a strong feeling about either Joe or Mike are willing to put their feet to work on Eastside races, and really work to make a difference by keeping progressive Democrats (including the dreamy Eric Oemig) in office.

Just sayin'.

@1 is correct.

as is @3.

@4 But won't more people be engaged if the LD took a pass on this race and worked to support both along with the Dems in competitive races and the initiatives? It seems like taking a stand in a divided race like this will cause people who support the other candidate to perhaps not show up and distribute lit. It seems like the primary endorsement did more harm than good.

@6 - I have mixed feelings about that idea. On the one hand, I feel that once there's a nominee, that person is the nominee of the Party. The Party is basically a club, and it's not hard to become a member of the club. The infighting that situations like this create take away from the ability of actual swing districts to poach volunteers, because these volunteers will be volunteering for their favorite Democrat, as opposed to doing a lit drop, and then volunteering on races that actually have the threat of a Republican winning (Patty Murray, Rick Larsen, the dreamy Eric Oemig, Randy Gordon, etc. etc.).

The flip side, however, boils back down to our stupid primary system. Having two Democrats run against each other (this isn't the only district with this problem) turns it into people more focused on candidates and egos, and less focused on what's best for the Party (although, some people would say, rightly so, that what's best for the Party is strong Democrats that can be effective being elected).

I almost feel bad for people who started to get involved in the Party back in 2008, realized that the rules and the process are both arcane as can be, there are people who master those rules to use to their advantage, and quickly became discouraged and stopped showing up.

The fact is, though, that each LD organization is a club (and not all exclusive like the County and State organizations). And if enough people join that have the same viewpoint, they can make internal change happen. But it takes commitment, time and work.

The other big question, of course, is why does it matter? Well, when you have a district organization that can turn out voters, and turn them out for candidates that they support, you tend to get more love from those elected officials. When you can use your organization to rally people to a cause, or encourage people to citizen lobby, then there's a real impact that can be made.

They could just endorse both as good Dems.

Same as staying out of it, but then they can carry the campaign lit for both candidates.

For some strange reason plenty of other LD's identified who they would endorse and sorted out the party politics where it belongs, in the LD caucus. Forcing voters to tell you what the fuck time it is is a bullshit way out of forming meaningful party leadership.

Maybe the 34th should get their shit together long before this vote.

I love the open primary. The 34th is a perfect example of what could and should. The worst case for the 34th is that they have Dems on the ballot, the rest is insider hand wringing and bitching.

They can vote to dual endorse, too.