Viability is a topic of discussion on the Political Chairs listserve. I
am thinking about collecting articles like the one below,  editing them
and posting to the Iowa Topics listserve. What do you think ?

Original memo:

The way I see it, the Sierra Club's "viability" policy is not
automatically based upon what party someone comes from, but rather on
the quality of the campaign they are running.  A candidate with little
money, no full time paid campaign manager, and few volunteers is just
not viable by any measure.

But the purpose of our viability criterion is based upon a few
philosphical assumptions about the Club's political program:
1) While the Sierra Club's endorsement and involvement in a campaign can

provide the margin of victory in a close race between two viable
candidates, it cannot catapult a non-viable candidate into viable
status.
2)  Only candidates can make their campaigns viable or not.
3)  The Sierra Club wants to been seen as a player in political races
and enhance the value of our endorsement.  If we endorse a lot of losing

candidates, the perceived value of our endorsement is diminished.  We
need to maintain a respectable won/loss record with our endorsments.
4) We need to maintain good relations with friendly office holders.
Pissing off a relatively good incumbent who is sure to win re-election
by snubbing him in favor of a Green party candidate does not help our
lobbying efforts, and makes the Club look foolish.

There are a couple strategies I have used to finesse this issue:
1)  I always try to give Green party candidates interviews and due
process even if they are not running viable campaigns and have no chance

of winning.  This way we show that we care and are listening, and do not

unnessesarily piss anyone off.  It allows us to explain our process
better and also ask them tough questions about the viability of their
campaign compared to their challengers, all while maintiaining mutual
respect.
2)  On several occaisions I have chosen to recommend that we give out
dual endorsements as a way to finesse the issue.   Based upon the little

I know about the Colorado endorsements mentioned below, I think I would
have recommended dual endorsments in some of those races.

If the Club is going to change or modify its political endorsement
process, I would like to see us give consideration to the "traffic
light" model that NARAL often uses.  Rather than an "endorsement", they
give Green, Yellow, and Red lights to all candidates.  Green if they are

good, Yellow if only so-so, and Red if they are bad.  Basically anyone
who is good enough on our issues can get a green light regardless of
viability.  We would end up with a lot of multiple green lights in
Democratic primaries, and some Democrat vs Republican contests also.
Green party members could more easilty get green lights.  But it would
dramatically simplify our process, reduce conflicts, and make it easier
for people to understand.  The disadvantage is that it would reduce our
ability to split hairs and make sole endorsments for candidates that are

slightly better then others, and thereby decrease our potential clout in

these elections (especially Democratic primaries).  We would be
relegated to trying to make a difference only in races where there was
definitely a clear difference between candidates.  But this might not be

a bad thing overall.

Adam Zielinski

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam Zielinski
1413 SE Madison St.
Portland, OR 97214
P: 503-230-0381
M: 503-799-6908
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]