There are certain rules and norms in politics. One of the biggest of those is, if you run in a primary, you buy into the outcome, and if you lose, you endorse the winner. That's not ideological - it's simply common courtesy.
But one of the more disturbing trends in the "Movement," for lack of a better term for the left edge of the Democratic coalition, has been the normalization of sore loser-ism. It began with Bernie Sanders' refusal to recognize simple math and his insistence that a nomination was still winnable long after that was possible, and his half-assed token "endorsement" of the woman who defeated him.
Fred Hubbell won an absolute majority in a five* way primary. John Norris, Andy McGuire, and Ross Wilburn immediately congratulated and endorsed him. (* The endorsement of the guy I voted for is not welcome.) That's how it's supposed to work.
But Glasson never said the appropriate words, and demanded speaking time at the Iowa Democratic convention. That was the moment the endorsement should have happened - yet it didn't. I grumbled that day, then set it aside for a bit.
A couple weeks back I got word that Glasson was speaking at the Iowa CCI convention, being held today. At that point I thought: "one more chance." It would be an awkward stage, sure, as Vote For Fred was not a message the CCI audience would want to hear. That made it even more important to say.
"Aside from those two lines," wrote Pat Rynard, "Glasson’s address was pretty much no different than one of her campaign rally speeches." Later in the day, he added: "after November she plans on shifting to a focus on presidential candidates and pressing the 2020 hopefuls who come into the state on progressive policy ideas & messaging.".@CathyGlasson at @CCIAction: “While my candidacy for governor has come to an end, our movement is just getting started ... A bold progessive future is not a race to be won, it’s a movement to be built.” pic.twitter.com/3xuL9pcj5H— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) July 21, 2018
That plays into the theory floated by the Des Moines Register that the "campaign" was never really about electing Catherine R. Glasson as Governor of Iowa - but was it was an elaborate mailing list building operation to help SEIU be a player in the 2020 caucuses.
Later in the day keynoter Nina Turner, the high profile Sanders backer who has never won a contested election larger than a city council race, made this thinly veiled dig at Hubbell: “Folks are just flat out buying elections, even people who we like... We shouldn’t support candidates who can buy the election"
True, Hubbell had the most money. But Glasson had the second most money of the candidates who finished the race (virtually all from the coffers of SEIU). She could not match Fred dollar for dollar, but unlike Norris and Wilburn, she had enough money to be visible and to make her case. And she made it well and she did so at the appropriate time.
And the voters rejected it.
Much has been made of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her defeat of congressional incumbent Joe Crowley on a "socialist" message. But Iowa is not the Bronx. Just weeks before, Cathy Glasson ran a much better funded campaign on a very similar message - and lost 55-20%.
What do you do when you lose 55 to 20%? You congratulate and endorse the winner. Refusing to endorse is not only rude, it's an insult to the majority of the voters. Primary night? Strike one. State convention? Strike two. Today? You're out.
Cathy Glasson has instead thrown in with those who think an 85% good Democrat is worse than a 100% bad Republican. Fortunately, most Glasson supporters I know have moved on and are ready for Hubbell to defeat Kim Reynolds.
Glasson's lack of endorsement will not harm Hubbell. The only damage is to her own credibility.
So today is the last time I will write about Cathy Glasson. She had a big stage today. It was her last best chance to be a team player, and she refused.
Today is the last time I will write about Cathy Glasson - because through her own actions, she has made herself irrelevant to the 2018 general election.