The involvement of readers here to the latest poll here was fairly surprising, but pretty clear. First of all, only a little more than one in ten readers of this blog in the last few days are Les Roberts supporters. Secondly, Michael Arcuri supporters appear not to be bothered, for the most part, by their candidate's fuzzy record of a position on the Iraq War back in 2003. Even if they found out that Michael Arcuri supported the Iraq War in 2003, on 22 percent of readers who support Arcuri would change their vote away from Arcuri even if they found out that Mike Arcuri supported going to war against Iraq in 2003. That speaks to both the hawkishness and the dedication of Arcuri supporters.
I'll hazard a guess and say that we will find out that Michael Arcuri outperformed Les Roberts in fundraising the first quarter of this year - by something around 30 or 40 thousand dollars, though the Les Roberts campaign will be shown to have done an admirable job at raising money nonetheless.
If the Les Roberts campaign is to have a chance at gaining the nomination, it will have to mount an underdog's campaign - appealing to Democrats at a grassroots level instead of at the level of county Democratic committees. The national appeal of Les Roberts (search for him on Google News to see the wide reach of his name) will have to be leveraged in order to contest the local lockdown on Democratic insider support by Michael Arcuri.
If there is that kind of contest, it will be fascinating to watch, a struggle not just between two politicians, but between two styles of campaigning, and two ideas about what the Democratic Party should be.
That's exactly what a primary contest ought to be like. "Party unity" of the sort that Leon Koziol recently referred to is more appropriate to Soviet-style Communism than to American democracy. Go to it, guys - the conflict will be good for everybody involved.