The Progressive Party has announced a complete slate of statewide candidates for their party’s primary. While the goal seems partially to avoid “squatting” from non-Progressives looking for an easy major party ballot line, there still will likely (although not certainly) be a Progressive on most ballot lines, which will lead to more spoiler debates.

On the one hand, it’s probably the case that the only candidate of sufficient statewide prominence to impact the final vote totals is Party Chair and former Auditor candidate Martha Abbott for Governor. In fact, in a close race, Abbott could easily draw 5% or more, the lion’s share of which would likely otherwise go to a Democratic nominee and create the same troubling dynamic (that IRV, for example, would avoid); a left wing primary election co-existing on the same ballot as a broader statewide general election.

But on the other hand, it means that many Democrats who were losing hope that a credible candidate would emerge from their own party to challenge Auditor Tom Salmon can no longer look to Progressive Martha Abbott to fill that role. In this way, Abbott may be walking away from the Progs’ clearest path towards statewide victory and open acceptance from many liberal Dems.

Also, one is left to wonder at most of these names. Charlotte Dennett is a familiar one, but is clearly not competitive against Sorrell based on recent history. The others are unknown names and represent a continuation of the odd, counterintuitive paradigm among Progressive candidates; the sharp delineation between those who choose to run for statewide office, and those who run for local office. With few exceptions, the high profile Progressive electoral success stories are not the population from which their statewide candidates are drawn. The Zuckermans, Edwards, Pearsons, for example, may occasional flirt with statewide ambitions, but generally they are not the candidates.

So the question for debate is, is it a greater impact on the Progressives credibility to allow a few ballot lines to fall prey to squatters, or to present an official slate of statewide candidates that are virtually unrecognizable and will be unlikely to register much more than negligibly in final tallies?

Also, can we expect to see a stronger push from Progressives at the legislative level, given the badly damaged relationship between many among the liberal advocacy community and the Democratic legislators following a session characterized by many as a failure, or even an outright betrayal (based on the “Challenges for Change” fiasco)?

It’s been a while since the last GMD discussion/debate on the Progressive/Democratic electoral spectrum, so consider this a wide open thread on the whole, broad topic.