Not endorsed

Caveats: A prefatory note on the endorsement process

We want to thank candidates who took the time to complete our questionnaire in response to their invitation by members to participate in our 2018 election political endorsement process. A decision to not endorse is rarely unanimous and disappointing to some members who may differ from the group's majority-vote decision. Members who dissent are free as individuals to advocate for candidates based on those similarities in views but cannot represent endorsement or near-endorsement by Our Revolution Casper.

Often, a candidate that is not endorsed or did not seek our endorsement may still represent a relative better choice compared to their opponent, given the electoral choices awaiting progressive voters in Wyoming. But as our group's tagline is "the greater good, not the lesser evil; all of us, not just some of us" to remain true to our group's consensus view that the Democratic Party largely abandoned its voters by adopting the centrist New Democrat strategy, we agreed that only candidates whose positions closely match ours on ALL of our issues (even if they will never make a decision in office that could affect one or more of our policy platform items) could receive our endorsement. To advance progressive values and reclaim the moral high ground, we must insist upon our principles in order to undo decades of a shift in American politics to the right.

By consensus, we decided that in order to receive our endorsement, a candidate's responses should approach at least 80% similarity (with 90% ideal) to our platform positions on all of our issues which can be found here (click here). It's worth noting that given that Wyoming has become so extremely conservative in the last two decades compared to its past, our positions may be at odds in a candidates' mind with their electability given the hostile political environ to our ideal positions/views on these policy issues. Of course we'd beg to differ with candidates worried that taking bold moral positions on these issues would hurt them and believe that people yearn for hope they feel like can actually believe in.

For that reason, at this time, candidate responses to our questionnaires are confidential. However, we've attempted here to highlight areas where these candidates shined and areas where we felt the candidate had room to grow in order to provide a fair and balanced summary of the discussion that led to our group's decisions and provide to candidates meaningful feedback about areas we'd hope to influence their positions to take bolder stands for social, political, environmental, and economic justice.

Rod Miller for U.S. House of Representatives:

Status: Not endorsed

Statement: Including answers where Rod Miller’s answers revealed similarities in views but not congruence with our ideal positions on issues, Rod approached 74% congruence with our issues and his answers revealed that he is versed deeply in many policy issues and were thoughtful and thorough. His opponent, Liz Cheney (R) did not complete a questionnaire or seek our endorsement by contrast. He is a clear Wyoming populist who supports public lands and wants the corrupting influence of money out of politics (he's Wyoming Promise endorsed) but his answers revealed that fiscal conservatism overrides without recognition of the ways in which even deficit social spending reduces deficits and debt, and he would be willing to cut social spending and would not be willing to increase spending if it adds to the deficit as a way to balance the budget. 75% of voting members voted to not endorse, 12.5% to endorse, and 12.5% “other.” He's definitely a lesser evil in our opinion to Liz Cheney, but we could not endorse him due to our platform which guides our work and a few of his answers. Despite not being endorsed, most in attendance remarked Rod Miller is clearly a better choice over Liz Cheney and hoped to encourage members to vote for Rod despite the fact that we could not grant endorsement due to his overriding fiscal conservativism.

Glows: Rod supports progressive taxation and an end to offshoring of profits and he wants to regulate banking and reinstate Glass-Steagall. He is Wyoming Promise endorsed, supports a Constitution Amendment to repeal Citizens United, and supports public financing of campaigns to get money out of politics. He supports Medicare for All (although his answers would indicate he would oppose if it added to the deficit/debt). He’s a strong supporter of equality under the law and equal rights and wants to end imperialistic military adventurism. He supports immigration reform and a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. He supports criminal justice reform.

Grows: Rod does not support breaking up the too big to fail investment banks, does not want to guarantee social security in all circumstances or expend it if it adds to our deficit/debt, and does not support public financing of higher education and trade school, infrastructure investment, or youth jobs programs if it added to the deficit. Overriding his views is fiscal conservativism and does not seem to acknowledge that social spending may actually reduce the deficit/debt in the long run, but given that he is running as a Republican, we understand his need to position himself as one but that singular difference largely explains why we could not endorse. He also did not respond to the platform statement pertaining to women’s reproductive rights and a woman’s right to choose.

Mary Throne for Wyoming Governor

Status: Not endorsed

Statement: Including answers where Mary Throne’s answers revealed similarities in views but not congruence with our ideal positions on issues, Mary approached 65% congruence with our issues. 26% of items weren’t able to be considered in this calculation due to neutral positions and responses that the issues were federal, not state issues. Excluding these six items, the candidate would have a 91% favorable position, but those six questions to our members represent critical issues they want to know any candidate’s position on, even if those issues are legislated or enforced at the federal level because those policies affect people in their states, and governors do have opportunity to influence federal legislation. None of Mary’s primary opponents for any party sought endorsement with Our Revolution Casper. 50% of members voting voted not to endorse, 12.5% voted to endorse, and 12.5% voted “other.”

Glows: She supports improving our state campaign finance laws, and she supports overturning Citizens United by constitutional amendment. She supports automatic voter registration, early voting, and would support public financing of campaigns in Wyoming even if she was not optimistic that it would ever pass. She does support raising the minimum wage even if she is unsure that $15/hour is right in Wyoming. She supports universal, single payer Medicare-for-All which is a federal issue but would work for Medicaid expansion in Wyoming. She supports criminal justice reform, opposes private prisons, supports marijuana decriminalization, and supports approaching addiction as a public health and not a criminal justice problem. She supports an end to the deportation practices and proposed private immigration prison in Uinta county. She supports using job loss as a metric in trade deals. She supports education and college affordability.

Grows: Mary responded negatively instead of affirmatively when asked to share her position on progressive taxation as a response to income/wealth inequality, saying she opposed “highly regressive taxation” citing her past opposition to grocery or municipal sales taxes. At the state convention, she opposed a platform item that read to be in support of a progressive state income tax. Mary wants to work to ensure “export opportunities for Wyoming’s products” and supports carbon capture and sequestration research although she did concede climate change was a reality and supports the development of renewable alternatives and opposed the wind tax.

She responded neutral to platform statements pertaining to: breaking up the too big to fail investment banks, preserving/protecting/expanding social security, defense spending at the expense of social spending (although she did note she opposed education cuts in 2016), military intervention over diplomacy, a legal path to citizenship for undocumented workers and DACA, and caring for veterans, commenting that these are federal and not state issues.

Google Sites

Report abuse