From Mark Wachtler at Opposition News via Jed Ziggler at American Third Party Report:
For years, the Working Families Party has swayed between an opposition political party and an establishment political organization. At first glance, those efforts seem to contradict each other. But their strategy has paid off in recent years and they are applying it once again in the 2016 Presidential race. Instead of running a candidate of their own, the WFP has officially endorsed independent US Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary.
Opposition or Establishment
When people ask us here at Opposition News why we don’t cover the Tea Party, we explain that the Tea Party isn’t an opposition party. They’re not a political party at all. Instead, they are merely a wing of the establishment Republican Party. Likewise, the Working Families Party has traditionally been a wing of the establishment Democratic Party. But at least the WFP occasionally runs opposition candidates on its own ballot line.
With the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), WFP has managed to combine the best of both worlds. They are endorsing a fellow independent who has infiltrated the Democratic Party to run for President. Another important item to remember is that the Working Families endorsement only covers the 2016 Democratic Primary. That leaves the Party free to make a separate endorsement for President in the General Election, possibly a Green or a Socialist, depending on who the eventual Democratic nominee is.
WFP endorses Sanders
For the past two weeks, the Working Families Party has been polling its membership via an online caucus to determine which candidate to endorse in the Democratic Primary. Party leaders offered three choices – Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. When the votes were counted, the WFP rank and file shunned the two establishment candidates and overwhelmingly voted to endorse the independent Sanders.
“The votes are in,” WFP National Director Dan Cantor announced Tuesday, “With the support of 87% of WFP members, the Working Families Party is officially endorsing Bernie Sanders for President in the Democratic Party Primary.” This is the first time in the WFP’s 17-year history that it has endorsed a candidate for President.
Cantor went on to say, “We’re proud to stand with Senator Sanders. Our members overwhelmingly see him as a progressive who understands the problems our country faces, who understands that it will take a ‘political revolution’ to challenge the power of the big money crowd that puts greed above all other values.”
What WFP members are saying
While announcing their endorsement of Bernie Sanders, Party leaders also provided a handful of statements from Working Families members on the local level explaining why they voted for Bernie Sanders:
Patricia in WV: I voted for Bernie because I don’t want to see my mother working two jobs until she’s 65 only to retire in poverty.
Tracey in WI: We need to move the Democrats back to being true progressives and not corporate Democrats. That is the basic of the Working Families Party – a party that works for the people, not Wall Street.
Dan in NY: In casting my vote for Bernie Sanders, I was expressing my deepest hopes for racial, social and economic justice and environmental stewardship, not exploitation.
Wayne in VA: The WFP is the only organization on the scene capable of advancing his agenda after the 2016 election.
One final observation Party leaders made came in the form of a Google map showing where each WFP voter lives in the US. The map shows support for Working Families coming from all corners of the nation. But the most dense concentrations of support are found around Seattle, Portland, Chicago, southern California, south Florida, and a massive stretch of coverage throughout the northeast’s New England states.
For more information, visit WorkingFamilies.org.
Once Ron Paul returned to the Republican party he decided to fight from within for Libertarian ideals. I think he was wrong and I think Rand Paul;s political career reinforces the failure of fighting within the GOP. A true Libertarian within that party is a rare breed indeed.
It is not for me to give advice to left-wing political activists, but Senator Sanders does not need to run for President in November to show support for building an independent left party. Running in the Democrat primaries will give him a name and a following, and he can use that to campaign for independent left candidates for Congress etc running as Progressives in Vermont, or on the Working Families Party ticket or Green Party ticket in other states.
Ron Paul could have really helped in 2008 or 2012 by backing Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates for Congress, instead of supporting any Republican that asked no matter how far he was from the constitutional or libertarian position.
Ron Paul sort-of actively opposed that, but he waited until it was too late. He could have had his name removed in both the states he was on, if he’d requested it sooner than he did. If I recall correctly, he was removed in one or two other states. I forget the exact details. He seemed pretty ambivalent about it.
Richard Winger could give you the citation, but there’s a Supreme Court precedent saying that states can’t force somebody to be a candidate, or on the ballot, against their will. The states don’t have to necessarily require any affirmative consent from the candidate, but they do have to take them off the ballot if they request to be removed. Only wiggle room being that of course there does have to be some sort of deadline, a candidate can’t withdraw the day before the election and expect ballots to all be re-printed.
There are probably some states where the Republicans will do their best to make sure Sanders is on the ballot if he wants to be or not. His supporters might get him on the ballots but the Republicans will try to prevent Sanders in attempts to remove his name.
I don’t think Ron Paul actively opposed that, though. I expect Sanders would. But you are correct, I think there are some states where he can’t do anything about it.
Maybe not in New York, but I’d not be surprised if Sanders supporters tried to get him on a few ballots in the general election that he did not have to give an okay on, sort of like how Ron Paul got on 2 ballots I think back in 2008.
WFP has no intention of running their own candidate (be it Sanders or whoever else) against the Dem. nominee in the general election. Sanders himself has said he wouldn’t, and he would presumably also request his name be taken off any state ballots it was put on against his will.
I’m not sure about the presidential ballot but for other offices he’d have to accept a judgeship or leave the district or state. For president the parties actually nominate electors pledged to vote for a candidate – not the candidates themselves. That was how MacBride was able to be elected pledged to Nixon but vote for Hospers in 1972.
Does NY require him to agree to appear on the ballot if a party nominates him, or can they place him on the ballot against his wishes?
Assuming that the Working Families Party holds binding primaries Senator Sanders might be on the ballot in several states that Secretary Clinton would need to carry the electoral college, The Working Families Party isn’t a national party yet.
As a New Yorker I’d welcome an opportunity to vote for Sanders in November on any line.