Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added his endorsement of Brian Schatz to that of President Obama, making March 31 a big day for the Schatz campaign.
A comment on yesterday’s post is worth noting here:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added his endorsement of Schatz shortly after the POTUS.
These developments are sticky wickets for Hanabusa’s camp. It’s one thing to cast a progressive group as Mainland interlopers trying to manipulate the vote of the local people. Trying to hang the interloper tag on Obama,… that’s not going to work. And if Hanabusa says anything negative about Reid, so much for convincing anyone about how effective she would be as a legislator in the Senate.
These endorsements are going to have to be “grin and bear it” moments for Hanabusa. Lashing out at Obama and Reid would be counterproductive for her already struggling campaign.
Talking Points Memo added an interesting analysis (“4 Reasons Obama’s Endorsement In The Hawaii Senate Race Matters“).
One point it makes is that this race reflects a split in Hawaii’s dominant Democratic Party.
In a profile of the race, The Washington Post reported that this Democratic primary isn’t about ideology (both Schatz and Hanabusa are left-of-center), it’s more a fight between the older “Japanese American political machine” versus the younger “whiter progressive wing” of the Democratic party in Hawaii. Hanabusa represents the Japanese-American contingent (as did Inouye) while Schatz is considered the candidate for that whiter, more progressive wing (Schatz is often labeled the more liberal candidate compared to Hanabusa and has been a champion on progressive issues like climate change).
Perhaps that’s what bothers me this primary, which looks like it will end up as quite a bruising race. I’ve supported both of these candidates in the past. They both, in my view, represent solid Democratic Party values. Not identical, obviously, but broadly similar.
The intra-party battle seems unnecessary, and could result in a self-inflicted wound for the state party. To use the foreign policy analogy, this is a war of choice. Whereas Hanabusa had a lock on the 1st District House seat, she and her backers–who really do need to be publicly defined–decided it was more important to attempt to reassert control of this Senate seat, and the potential for patronage it provides, than to assure both the House and Senate seats would remain Democratic.
Whether Democratic primary voters agree is still untested.
So here’s a question, or a couple of questions.
If Hanabusa and Schatz represent different factions of the Democratic Party, how are those factions best described? Is the AJA v. haole analysis of TPM sufficient?
What evidence can you point to as support for your description of the factions, i.e., patterns of campaign contributions, prominent insiders, campaign advisors, etc?
I’m not thinking in terms of voter demographics at the retail level, but more the factions that play out behind the scenes.
Hopefully some of you with a better knowledge of these dynamics will chime in here.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m a regular reader of Talking Points. I disagree with its simplistic “analysis” of the race as one between AJA voters and progressive white Democrats. I count myself as a progressive or liberal and am AJA. I plan on voting for Hanabusa.
So how would Talking Points account for my vote?
I have personal reasons not based on shared ethnicity for voting for Schatz, but politically I do see him as being more progressive and less influenced by development and military interests. I think either will be effective, though, and I hope we won’t see more divisive email like the one sent out by the Hanabusa campaign. Frankly, that buried any chance of my switching my support.
For people under fifty the old, ethnically stained politics must seem strange. Hawaii is a thriving multi-cultural society with the highest percentage of mixed-race people in the world. We have shown the world that race doesn’t matter. The old limits and boundaries are gone and the permeability of contemporary life, while threatening to some, is alternatively exhilarating and empowering. I support Schatz because his values are more closely aligned with mine than Hanabusa’s. He has navigated Hawaii’s incestuous politics with greater care than she has. He better represents the future; she the past. Which do you value more?
Let’s ask the obvious question first: How big a shadow will the late DKI cast on this race? Will older people who are most likely to vote see Hanabusa as his successor and decide they want to continue his legacy? Or will they decide to turn the page and give the next generation a chance to make things better?
That leads to the next question about the importance of age. Other then gender, the 20 year gap between the candidates is the most obvious difference. Hanabusa has smartly tried to defang this early with a message that it’s an insult to older women to talk about age. She also tried to take away the advantage of Schatz’s super cute family by saying many women are forced to choose between starting a family and advancing their careers. Is that an effective message? Remains to be seen.
Both need to define themselves as leaders w/o looking like they are engaging in petty bickering with their opponent. The back and forth between candidates delights reporters and editors because conflict! But I think it’s seen as inane and alienating by most people who just want their elected leaders to shut up and get things done.
Finally, someone who wanted to go negative would look at Hanabusa’s disastrous interview with Bill O’Reilly several years ago. She foolishly stepped into the ring with a heavyweight and got her block knocked off. Not a mature decision.
While this race could still go either way, I see a few pitfalls that stand before the Hanabusa campaign that could make or break her chances:
1) Colleen should not take her support from senior citizens for granted. Schatz is going to come out hard on the social security issue. She’s going to have to come up with substantive responses for that. Personal attacks against Schatz on this front or reminding folks for the umpteenth time about Inouye’s deathbed wish,…. I don’t know if those tactics are going to get the job done as far as garnering the senior vote.
2) Her campaign making an emphasis on Colleen being bipartisan,… is that really what her camp should be focusing on at this point? Funny, I thought that the primary election was a time when candidates appealed to their party’s base and the general election was when the remaining candidates would move to the political center and that would be the time to talk about being bipartisan and all. This is one of those tactics from Hanabusa’s camp that is really a head-scratcher.
3) The temptation to use old video/soundbites of Obama endorsing Hanabusa in a past congressional run, with the idea that it will effectively counteract Obama’s current endorsement of her opponent,…. Not smart, for many reasons. Schatz’s campaign will have endorsements from Obama that will make it clear who the commander-in-chief is supporting this coming election. Hanabusa trotting out old endorsements would only make her look desperate and open her up to accusations of being a spinmeister.
The Democrats here in Hawaii have maintained their hegonomy by being the party of both business and labor. Schwartz-Ambercrombie are more ideologically hostile to both business and the military than Inouye. I wonder if the Democrats will be able to keep their absolute majorities as the local party steers leftwards.
Schwartz? Ambercrombie? John’s comment might be more persuasive if he knew the candidates names.
a combination of auto-complete and poor typing were to blame, but at least you were spared having to say anything substantive!
Senator Schatz is a true progressive. Rep. Hanabusa is not. She joined up last year with a group of formerly blue dog style Dems that gave themselves a new name, but no new ideas. Schatz’s main focus is mitigation of climate change, for this alone he is a better candidate. Sen. Schatz , Sen Hirono and Rep. Gabbard all signed onto Sen. Boxer’s gmo labelling bill, and Hanabusa did not. This is definitely one of the best things that Abercrombie did for our state, next to marriage equality!
Hanabusa joined the New Democrat Coalition. Definitely Blue Dogs rebranded. I guess she is a member of the Democrat party. I think Schatz is a member of the Democratic Party!
History seems lost in he Schatz/Hanabusa equation.
How dare Colleen’s people claim Obama interference, given their background, After all, when the President began his primary campaign it was the state senate president Hanabusa who jumped into the fray as his opponent’s Hawaii campaign manager with the backing of her alleged patron saint.
And, the hybrid Wednesday had the audacity to raise a poll question about the fairness of this week’s backing of Schatz by Barrack Obama. Come on, you cannot have it worth ways.
Would be nice if there was some perspective of history, particularly over the last decade.
It is disturbing that Hanabusa seems to feel that her House seat isn’t good enough. Our Congressional delegation is suddenly very junior and infighting among those juniors is irritating. Although Hanabusa may have aspired to the Senate, she should now work for her constituents from the seat she has.