There’s no spinning this. We tried something that others said couldn’t be done. So far, the evidence supports their theory. We went big in New Hampshire. Going big increased the salience of the issue among the citizens of New Hampshire. But among the 7% of New Hampshire who voted in the Republican Primary, another issue was even more salient: who could beat the Democrat in November….
But in the end, the burden of this mistake rests with me, and me alone. Our first poll found our candidate with 9% of the vote. I knew we had to take on some unwinnable races — and win them. But by failing now, we have made the others harder. I should have accepted the advice not to take on that risk.
Moreover, it will be little solace to progressives that Stark360, like Mayday, supported Jim Rubens for the United States Senate in New Hampshire. It supported Rubens for entirely different reasons and utterly opposed electing him for the reason motivating Mayday. So if Rubens had been elected, to whom in this alliance would he have owed his allegiance—the organization in the coalition that wants public financing reform, or the one very much against it? It seems this is quite a muddled politics that can only send the candidate Mayday is supporting a mixed message about what level of obligation he actually carries into office as a campaign finance supporter.
How then, in these circumstances, could Mayday have shown what it most wanted to—that its spending demonstrated the power of reform as a message and the strength of public support for it? If Rubens had won, who would have elected him—Mayday, or the organization working hand-in-glove with Mayday that doesn’t support reform but did like the other elements of Rubens’ distinctly un-progressive program?