Category Archives: Democratic Party

Chicago, New York, Houston and Atlanta bid for 2024 Democratic Convention

By Matt | Published May 30, 2022

Four cities are vying to host the 2020 Dem convention:

Four cities submitted bids to host the 2024 Democratic convention by Friday’s deadline, with Chicago’s front runner status challenged by the emergence of New York City’s bid.

  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2024 Convention | Tagged | Comments Off on Chicago, New York, Houston and Atlanta bid for 2024 Democratic Convention

Country vs. Party (not what you think…)

By DocJess | Published September 9, 2019

As “not-Republicans”, many of us are bewildered and angered by the fact rank and file Republicans support what the Republican Party has become – a belief system of hate, devoid of science. Many people who were party Democrats for many years have adopted the attitude that they will vote for any Democrat in 2020 because the 45 regime is different from everything else, and must be vanquished, but, they are not so sure about the rest of the Democrats because there are Democrats who cannot be trusted to put country above party either. Many of these folks in Pennsylvania would give up their Democratic registration in a heartbeat if open primaries were enacted.

The story I’m about to tell you is a microcosm of that, and before I begin, I need to state that I am part-owner of this blog. Other than that, I am a private citizen. Therefore, I have First Amendment rights to write what I want here so long as I adhere to the Code of Journalistic Ethics to which my partners and I are committed,  and I do not libel anyone.

Here in Chester County, we have local elections this November. These elections are both countywide (County Commissioner, District Attorney, “Row Offices”) and hyperlocal Boards. For those of you who don’t live around here “Row Offices” are jobs that in many places are filled by people who are hired because of their expertise: like Treasurer, Comptroller, Coroner, etc. Here, they are political positions, even though the work should be devoid of politics. For example, the office headed by the elected “Coroner” evaluates human passing, irrespective of political registration, or lack thereof. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Climate Change, Democrats, Elections, Mariner Pipeline, Platform, Politics | Comments Off on Country vs. Party (not what you think…)

Catching Up with TMess, and a Local Note

By DocJess | Published August 13, 2019

I don’t just blog here, I read, too. And over the past few days, TMess has posted some riveting information, and I learned tons! I agree completely with his take on the House (link), and learned about the upcoming international elections (link) which he keeps up with, and the rest of us really should since we’re part of the world. Oh! Canada! Touch blue, make it true (for those of you who remember the 70’s).

But what really fascinated me was his information on the 2020 delegate selection plans. (Link.) The most compelling tidbit related to the changes in how Iowa will calculate its delegates. Far different from how it was through 2016. It will be a real game changer, although the math will be tricky. Remember, folks, that no matter what the national polls say, “All Politics Is Local” and it’s those primaries and caucuses that will lead to the delegate count.

I do, however, take issue with TMess’ numbers. He says that approximately a third of the delegates will be chosen by Super Tuesday. And that’s been true in the past BUT this year is different, as is my math. There are two ways to calculate delegates: one is off the total number of delegates, meaning both pledged delegates and Super Delegates. That number is 4,532. And if that’s how one counts, then “approximately a third” is okay math – the actual number is 35%. HOWEVER, the Super Delegates are not chosen at primaries nor caucuses. They are already delegates. So when you subtract the 764 Super Delegates, math indicated 3,768 pledged delegates, meaning that the actual amount of chosen delegates by Super Tuesday is 42%. Not that much of a difference, but it’s closer to half than a third. Granted, some of the dates might shift, but having both Texas and California as Super Tuesday states is a big deal in terms of pledged delegates allocated. Together, they hold 17% of the pledged delegates. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Delegate Count, Delegates, Elections, House of Representatives, Money in Politics, Primary Elections, Superdelegates | Comments Off on Catching Up with TMess, and a Local Note

Delegate Selection Rules — Hawaii

By tmess2 | Published March 30, 2019

This week we continue our review of the draft delegate selection plans from the 2016 caucus states with Hawaii.  The focus of this on-going review has been how these states are implementing the new provisions for state parties that do not have the option of or choose not to use a state-run primary.  Under Rule 2.K of the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules, such state parties must make efforts to increase participation in these party-run processes and (just like states that use a state-run primary) the state must use the vote at the “first-determining step” to allocate its pledged delegates to candidates.  Of course, the simple way to comply with these rules is to follow the suggestion to use a state-run primary which is what this week’s draft plan from Nebraska does (like prior draft plans from Colorado and Idaho and one of the two draft plans from Washington). 

For states that do not have a state-run primary in the Spring of 2020 that they can use, however, the only option is to use a party-run process.  In 2016, Hawaii used a traditional precinct caucus.  The individuals present at those caucuses cast a presidential-preference vote.  The results of that preference vote from the individual precincts were totaled and used to determine the allocation of district-level and state-level (party leader and at-large) delegates.

Since the allocation of delegates in Hawaii already complies with Rule 2.K, the issue for Hawaii was what steps to take to make it easier for Democrats to participate in the caucus process.  For 2020, Hawaii has opted to use a party-run primary (sometimes called a firehouse primary) instead of a traditional caucus.  Under this system, there will be two ways that voters can participate in this primary.  First, a person can vote absentee by mail.  Apparently, all individuals registered as Democrats by February 18 will receive a mail-in ballot by March 3.  If the voter would rather vote absentee, they can mail in that ballot at any time before March 28.  Second, a person can vote in person on April 4 during the eight-hour voting period.  Individuals choosing to use the in-person option apparently will be able to vote at any location even if it is not their “home precinct.”  (For the most part, there should not be much of an issue in making sure that a ballot is counted in the right congressional district.  The only island that is in the First Congressional District is Oahu.  Only a small number of voters from the First Congressional District will be on another island on April 4 and likewise only a small number of voters from the other islands will be on Oahu on April 4.  The issue is most likely to be voters from Oahu casting votes in the part of Oahu that is in the “other” district.) Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Hawaii

Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus

By tmess2 | Published March 10, 2019

Under the current national rules, the state Democratic parties are encouraged to use a state-run election when available as the “first binding step” in the delegate selection process.  Since 2016, the legislatures in several of the states that had a caucus in 2016 had authorized a primary for 2020.  In Colorado and Idaho, the draft delegate selection rules reflect that the party will use the primary instead of the caucus to select delegates.  The other caucus states and territories fit into one of several categories:  1) primary authorized but state party has yet to release its delegate selection plan (Minnesota and Nebraska); 2) no primary authorized and delegate selection plan released (Iowa); 3) no primary authorized and no legislation pending but no delegate selection plan released (Nevada); 4) legislation related to primary but no delegate selection plan released; and 5) legislation pending but tentative delegate selection plan released.   

Washington fits into this last category.   In 2016, Washington had a primary authorized but it was set for May.  Wanting earlier input, Washington opted for a March caucus.  However, the Washington legislature has passed a bill moving the primary to the second Tuesday in March but allowing the Washington Secretary of State to reschedule the primary to another date in March to be part of a regional cluster.  As California is on the list of potential partners, Washington could hold its primary on Super Tuesday.  This bill is waiting for the governor’s signature.  Given that the current governor is currently running for President, it is highly likely that this bill will become law.  Given the requirements of the national rules, the Washington Democratic Party has released two alternative plans.  One plan would use the primary to allocate the delegates.   Like many states, while delegates are allocated based on the results of the primary, Washington would retain its caucus system for the purpose of selecting the actual delegates.  (This plan would get rid of the precinct caucuses and start the process at the legislative district level.)

The other plan would keep the primary as non-binding and use the caucus system to allocate the delegates.  Under this plan, Washington would keep the precinct caucuses which would be scheduled for March 21.  In keeping with the language in the national rules requiring states to take steps to increase participation in the caucuses, the plan pledges to set up a system to allow absentee voting by those who are unable to attend.  However, the current draft does not include any details of this system.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Primary Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus

Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look

By tmess2 | Published February 17, 2019

Part of the changes in the DNC Call for the 2020 Convention and National Delegate Selection Rules were provisions governing the caucus states.  In past cycles, the results in states which used caucuses as their delegate selection process but also used a later non-binding primary showed two things.  First, significantly more people participated in the non-binding primary.  Second, the voters in the non-binding primary had different preferences than those who attended the caucuses.  Additionally, the rules in some of the caucus states created an opportunity for “mischief” at the later levels of the delegate selection process permitting a well-organized campaign to win additional delegates at those later levels and costing a poorly-organized campaigns delegates that they had apparently won on caucus nights.  The new rules attempted to address these “problems”  In particular, Rule 2.K of the Delegate Selection Rules includes requirements that caucus state have a procedure for early or absentee votes in the caucus, have a mechanism to allow participation by those who are unable to attend their local caucus at the time and location set for the local caucus, a means for reporting the “statewide and district level results for each candidate based on the first expression of preference by the participants” in the first level of caucuses; and require that “the allocation of all national delegates, be locked in at the final expression of preference” in the first level of caucuses.  However, Rule 14.B and Rule 14.E seem to suggest that caucus states might still be able a later level as the determining step.  (In primary states, these same rules require using the primary vote.)

In 2016, the Iowa Caucus (held under the old rules) did have a process by which voters could vote absentee via satellite and tele-caucuses but the satellite caucuses only elected three state convention delegates and the tele-caucuses only selected two state convention delegates.  Voters participating in either of these alternative caucuses had no role in the selecting delegates at the district level.  For those who could attend the precinct caucuses, at the precinct caucus, attendees would divide into an initial preference and determine which groups were viable (with a general 15% threshold unless the precinct was electing three or fewer delegates to the county convention).  After the initial count, attendees would have the opportunity (based on which preferences were viable or close to viable) to change their preference.  The precinct chair would report the results of this second count to the state party in terms of “state delegate equivalents” and would not result raw votes.  The delegates selected at the precinct caucuses would attend the county conventions where a similar process would occur to select the delegates who would be attending the congressional district convention and the state convention.  A similar process would again occur at the congressional district conventions and the state convention to determine the allocation of the national convention delegates selected at those conventions.  For multiple reasons (the possibility of delegates elected at precinct caucuses and county conventions not attending later conventions, the possibility of changes in preference of such delegates, delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates choosing between the remaining candidates, and the fact that each delegate chosen at a precinct meeting was a fraction of a state delegate and those fractions would be converted to whole numbers at the county convention), the report of the state delegate equivalent only provided a rough estimate of the national delegates that each candidate was likely to receive from Iowa.

We now have a draft of the 2020 Delegate Selection Rules for Iowa.  (Of course, these rules still have to go through a public comment period, be finally approved by the Iowa Democratic Party, and by approved by the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee before becoming final.)  This draft gives us a first look at how the caucus states might change their state rules to comply with the new national rules.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Elections | Tagged , | Comments Off on Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look

Debate Rules

By tmess2 | Published February 16, 2019

This past week, the Democratic National Committee announced the standards that will be used to determine which candidates will appear in the first two debates of the cycle (one in June and one in July).  As these standards set a very low bar to participation, it is more likely than not that each debate will actually be two debates on consecutive nights.

A candidate can qualify by meeting one of two standards.  First, a candidate qualifies by getting one percent in at least three “approved” polls.  I assume by “approved” that the DNC means a poll by a reputable media organization that, at the very least, includes all of the declared candidates that major media organizations and blogs like this site are listing.  (There are always a large number of unknown candidates who file paperwork with the FEC and file declarations of candidacy in states like New Hampshire.  Currently, beyond the present and former elected officials that are listed here, there are four other candidates who filed paperwork with the FEC to run.)  Figuring that we will probably end up with fifteen to twenty candidates, it is likely that there will be over ten candidates who meet this standard.

Second, a candidate can qualify by raising $65,000 from a minimum of 200 donors in a minimum of 20 states.   Those candidates who have declared and have announced fundraising to date appear to be blowing well past this threshold.  This threshold appears to be set in a way that favors late declarers.  If a candidate who declares before May 1 hasn’t raised more than $1 million from over 1,000 donors in over 30 states by June 1, it is unlikely that they will be the nominee.  Continue Reading...

Also posted in 2020 Convention, Debates, Democratic Debates, DNC | 1 Comment

A Long December

By tmess2 | Published December 16, 2018

As we come to the end of another year, there are a lot of things happening. 

Let’s start with North Carolina and the Ninth District, the last of the House seats still up in the air.  It is unclear how much of the vote count has been impacted by the shenanigans.  There is substantial evidence showing that political operatives broke North Carolina law by getting involved in the collection of absentee ballots from non-relatives.  There is also evidence suggesting that these individuals may suggests that these operaves were selective in turning in the ballots that they received and may have altered other ballots (e.g., by casting votes in races that the voter left blank).  Since some states do allow non-relatives to collect absentee ballots, what is happening in North Carolina shows the need to have some anti-fraud measures in such voting.  Making it easy to vote is a good thing.  However, historically, we have known that most voter fraud is connected with mail-in or absentee voting and not with in-person voter-impersonation.    Of course, Republicans have been more concerned with stopping in-person fraud in ways that make it difficult to vote in person.  Meanwhile, they have uniformly been willing to relax the rules designed to assure that ballots received in the mail actually reflect the intent of the person who supposedly have cast them.  Going forward, Democrats — wanting to make it easy for people to vote — need to be sure that the rules include adequate protection to prevent con-artists from stealing and altering ballots before they get to the election office.

We have also seen the start of Democrats announcing that they are considering running for President.  Over the next three to six months, we will see more Democrats announce their campaigns; some of these candidates will decide to halt their campaigns before we reach July, but many of them will make the late Summer when we begin to have debates.  While the DNC does not need to finalize its debate plans yet, it does need to consider what the Republicans did wrong in 2016 (as well as what the Democrats did wrong in 2016).  The Republicans big problem was having too many candidates for a single debate.  The simple reality is that more candidates on the stage translates into less substance and more personal attacks and everyone agreeing with what they perceive as party orthodoxy.  On the other hand, there is no rational method for choosing which candidates make the debate.  The Republican tentative solution was what many called the JV or kiddie-table debate in which polls were used to separate the top candidates from the others.  However, after the first four or five candidates, the gap between the remaining candidates will often be less than the standard margin of error in most polls.  (In other words, the difference is close enough that the real standing of the candidates is unclear.)  Offering my humble suggestions, the following makes sense to me:  1) No more than six or seven candidates on the stage at a time (even that is probably too many, but it allows each candidate to have a semi-substantive response to each question); 2) all parts of the debate need to be in prime time (see next suggestion below) even if that means short breaks between the parts in which candidates are rushed on and off the stage with no opportunity to schmooze with the audience for those in the earlier parts; and 3) the candidates in part one or part two (or part three if there are even more candidates) should be randomly suggested and there should be a limit on the number of consecutive times that a candidate can be in any part (in other words, no part is clearly the “Not Ready for Prime Time” debate and no candidate is consistently going in the early debate or the late debate).  Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Long December

The Need for a Leadership Shuffle

By tmess2 | Published November 25, 2018

On Tuesday, the House Democratic Caucus-elect will meet to select its leaders for the upcoming Congress.  Both before and since the election, there has been discussion about whether the caucus should pick Nancy Pelosi as its candidate for Speaker of the House.  It is hard to think of a credible reason for removing a leader who just had a tremendous victory other than the Democrat’s usual flaw of forming a circular firing squad.  While Representative Pelosi — like most leaders of both parties — currently has a negative favorability rating, that goes along with the job and whomever would replace her would soon have similar numbers.

What is disheartening about this discussion is the failure to look at what does need to change — the rest of the leadership team.  One of the reasons for this lack of discussion is how difficult it is to replace any of them.  The current team represents a decent cross-section of the senior Democrats in the House.  That will make it difficult to challenge any one of the leaders.  But the problem is how long these individuals have been in the leadership.   Our senior leadership is getting too senior, and it needs to renew and revitalize.

Start with likely majority leader Stenny Hoyer, Representative from Maryland.  Representative Hoyer will turn 80 in the next Congress.  He has been in Congress for thirty-seven years.  He became Chair of the Democratic Conference (technically the number four position when Democrats are in the majority and the number three position when Democrats are in the minority) in 1989 and served in that position until 1994.  In 2002, when Nancy Pelosi became minority leader, Representative Hoyer (who had earlier that year lost the race for minority whip to Representative Pelosi) became the new minority whip and has been the number two for the last sixteen years.  It is not unusual in most democracies for the loser in a leadership battle to become the new deputy.  What is unusual is for that person to keep that position for sixteen years.

Likely majority whip Jim Clyburn is currently 78.  He has been in Congress for twenty-six years.  He became chair of the Democratic Conference in 2006 (just before the Democrats took control) and ascended to majority whip in 2007.  When the Democrats lost control in 2010, Representative Clyburn was given the newly-created position of Assistant to the Leader to avoid a contest between Clyburn and Hoyer over the minority whip position.  As the senior minority in the leadership, it will be hard to just challenge Representative Clyburn.

With Representative Joe Crowley losing in his primary, the next person in line in the current leadership is Representative Linda Sanchez of California who is the current vice-chair of the Democratic Conference.   Compared to the senior leadership, she is relatively young — will turn 50 in the next Congress — and has only been in Congress for fifteen years.

Looking at the committee chairs, twelve of the current ranking members (and the likely chairs of those committees) are over seventy.  Only four of the current ranking members are under 60.   For the two committees in which the ranking member did not run for re-election, the next senior member of one is over 70.  The other (Veteran’s Affairs) does not have a clear-cut next in line in terms of seniority — which is problematic for other reasons as no remaining Democratic member has been on the committee for more than six years — but the next senior member is under 60.    When you look at the big committees (Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight, Rules, and Ways and Means), six are over 70.

While seniority and experience are important, it is also important to have a next generation that is ready to take over.  One of the reasons that Representative Pelosi is the likely speaker is that you can’t beat somebody with nobody, and there is no logical successor with any significant experience in a leadership position — either in the Conference or as ranking member on a committee.   Speaker Pelosi has to get started on the transition process for the next generation.   We need members in their forties and fifties as chair and vice-chair of the Conference.  We need to have as many younger members as possible serving as chairs of the sub-committees.  With all due respect to Representative Clyburn and Representative Hoyer, they need to prepare to step down from their leadership positions after the 2020 elections and somebody needs to step up to challenge them.  Saying that it is time for Representative Hoyer to make way for the next generation may not get the same traction with activists as a direct challenge to Representative Pelosi but getting into that heir apparent position is a necessary first step to making the argument that Representative Pelosi needs to step down after the 2022 election.

Those of us who were alive in the 80s remembers all of those May Day parades in the Soviet Union in which the entire senior leadership of the Soviet Union looked like they were on death’s door.  And until recently, the Saudi monarchy was best classified as a group of men over 70 hoping that their older brothers and half-brothers would die first so that they could sit on the throne for ten to thirty months.  A well rounded political party needs some senior members who are there to advice their younger colleagues and provide some institutional experience on what has been tried and failed.  But you also need a mix of youth and vitality in the leadership as well; a group with a stake in making a better future for all.  Today’s Democratic Party has too many who have been holding on for the past eight years hoping for their shot to run the House.  They will get that shot, but they also need to start making way for the next generation to renew and revitalize the Democratic Party.

Also posted in House of Representatives | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Need for a Leadership Shuffle

Superdelegates and Pendulums

By DocJess | Published August 29, 2018

Reprinted with Permission

50 years ago, Democratic candidates were chosen by “The Party”.

50 years ago this week, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, that began to change. There had been some primaries and caucuses in 1968,  of which Vice President Hubert Humphrey won a tiny amount, but “The Party” wanted Humphrey to be the party’s presidential nominee. They got that, and a whole lot of protests, and a disaster in November. Nixon won the Electoral College 301 – 191, with the remainder going to George Wallace.

Surprisingly, “The Party” formed a committee to see about changes, and some of those changes have lasted until now. To this day, delegates to the DNC are elected by voters in primaries and caucuses, and they need to reflect the diversity of the party. Delegates are required to represent, on at least the first DNC ballot, the will of the voters who elected them.

This lasted through George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. But the internecine warfare between Carter and Ted Kennedy proved a bridge too far in 1980. Superdelegates were created by “The Party” in 1982. These Superdelegates were elected officials, DNC members, and other “important party members” and all had the right to vote in the first ballot at the DNC.

That lasted until last weekend, when the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to change the role of Superdelgates. (And yes “DNC” is the abbreviation for both the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic National Committee.) Going forward, Superdelegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot. Going into a second ballot would be considered a “brokered convention” — the last time that officially happened in the Democratic Party was in 1952. The most number of ballots at a brokered convention was in 1924, where 102 ballots were needed. For a full discussion of the rules changes, see TMess’ article. Unlike this article, his has specific information and no snark.  Onward and downward….

So what does this mean to us as Democrats?

It means that we have come full circle in 46 years, and that in 2020, things will look very different. Back in 2008, DCW published Superdelegate standings daily, because the final tally between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could have come down to those votes. In 2016, Clinton had a lot of “The Party” support from the Superdelegates, and thus went into primary/caucus season with a whole bunch of dedicated DNC votes that had Bernie Sanders fighting to play catch-up from Iowa onward. While the outcome wouldn’t have changed (the primary calendar was somewhat rigged in favour of Clinton) it still came across as unfair to many Berniecrats. There is a case to be made that had the Berniecrats who stayed home or voted third party in November instead voted for Clinton, Washington, DC would look very different today. But I digress.

What is the purpose of any political party? 

To get their candidates elected. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.

The Democratic Party is comprised of many factions:

  • The Old Guard (aka “The Party”). These people hold positions of power in the Party, and have for many years. They range from Committee People at the hyperlocal level, through the State Committees, up to the DNC. This also includes a certain percentage of elected officials, as well as the majority of the money people.
  • The Left Flank (aka “Activists”). This is the part of the party that currently most wants to see changes. They call themselves “Progressives”, which is both a misnomer and improper over time. In the current environment, they support the most Liberal of candidates and issues. They want a seat at the table.
  • The Base. These are the people who vote. They vote in all or some general elections (although often not primaries). Oftentimes, they are not “involved”. They may give a little money, but they don’t attend Party meetings, and generally don’t work for candidates.
  • The Rest of the Tent. These are people who don’t fit neatly into any of the other three categories. Many of them could be called “failed Democrats”. They generally vote a straight Democratic ticket, although will consider Third Party candidates. Often, they worked for the party many years ago, and got fed up and left. They give money to candidates, but never to the party. Also included in this group are single-issue voters. Some of them are recalcitrant voters except in presidential years, and others are incredibly active although not necessarily involved with non-Establishment candidates.

It’s a grand experiment to see who can do better in getting candidates elected: “The Party” or the others. We will see a preview of this in 2018 at the local, state and Congressional levels. There have been many Democratic primaries this year where an Establishment-backed candidate ran against an Activist candidate. The results have been mixed, but we will have a clear idea in November of which group did a better job running against the GOP in the General. Some of those GOP candidates are incumbent “moderates” (yeah, I know, but comparatively) and some are aligned with the Trumpite fascist regime.

This will have an impact on who ends up winning the presidential nomination in 2020. Democratic voters of all stripes will have choices between the Left Flank, the Establishment, and “The Famous”. Who wins which races in 2018 will certainly affect who people select. If the Establishment candidates do much better than the Activist candidates, voters may be gun-shy in 2020, and if the Activist candidates prevail, they will capture more votes. Time will tell. One thing to remember, it is the engaged who vote in primaries, not the overall base.

There is an ancillary point here. That being the party platform. That document, created by committee every 4 years, defines what each party stands for – what the party wishes to accomplish if their candidates are elected. And who writes the platform? With the exception of 2008, “The Party”. So there is a potentially interesting dichotomy of what the active party members want in terms of a presidential candidate, and what “The Party” wants that candidate, and other elected officials, to accomplish during the ensuing four years. This is going to be a bigger deal in 2020 than you probably think.

In 2008, the Obama campaign set up hyperlocal platform meetings in virtually every city and town in America. There was a format, and a list of issue positions came from those meetings. That data was sent up to the county level where it was compiled and considered, and the outcome of those meetings went to the state level. Those state documents (including DC, Puerto Rico and the Territories) went to the Platform Committee at the DNC. Only time in history.

When 2020 rolls around, people will run to be delegates. In some states, voters don’t actually choose candidates as much as they select delegates. In most states, delegates are pledged to a specific candidate. It is those delegates who, on the floor of the convention, vote to either accept or amend the proposed platform.  And so, what the party stands for may differ from what the eventual presidential nominee stands for.

An example: In 2020, one of the issues that will be considered for the platform will be Single Payer (in one or various forms). If pro-Single Payer delegates are the majority at the convention, but the eventual candidate is establishment enough to fear running on that issue, there can be a floor fight. Conversely, if the eventual candidate ran on Single Payer as a primary issue, but the preponderance of delegates are establishment, again, floor fight. Remember that the vote on the platform will occur early in the convention, and the candidate will not be finalized until later. By the way, I don’t say this often enough: READ THE PLATFORM.   You should know what your party stands for.

An old Chinese curse is “May you live in interesting times.” And we certainly are doing that now. As our party fights to wrest control of Congress and state legislatures and governors’ mansions, it is a fight between those supporting a fascist regime, and anything else. While there are some third party candidates, we can only hope to too many idiots don’t choose platform over the primary objective of dislodging the criminal, racist…..you know the rest…..

After the midterms, we will, as a party, resume our fight for the soul of the party. As an individual, think about what you want to do….perhaps you’d like to run next year for a local office, because whichever area of our tent wins out, we still need to build from the ground out. School boards control local taxes. Supervisors, Commissioners and Boards enact laws  and regulations that affect your daily life and how your money is spent on things like roads and other infrastructure. Perhaps you’re interested in becoming a delegate in 2020 – it’s not too early to learn the process and what you’ll need to do to win. And do that thinking in your spare time — we need a Blue Wave this November!

 

 

 

  Continue Reading...

Also posted in Bernie Sanders, Delegate Count, Delegates, Democrats, DNC, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Primary Elections, Superdelegates | 1 Comment