Ashland Democratic Town Committee Wine and Cheese Party, Saturday, February 20, 3 – 6 PM, Ashland Fish & Game Club, 3 Ponderosa Road, Ashland
Along with our Co-Hosts Senator Karen Spilka and Rep. Tom Sannicandro, we are honored to be welcoming very special guests including Congressman Jim McGovern, Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, Democratic State Party Chairman John Walsh, representatives from the Governor’s campaign as well as a number of elected officials and candidates. Tickets are $25.00 and will be available at the door. If you can call Bill Browne at 508-881-3300 to let him know you will be attending, that would be appreciated.
Please share widely!
If the turnout numbers at last week’s local caucuses around the state are an indication of enthusiasm and activity in this election year, there is cause for concern. Hopefully today’s will be an improvement. Reports from Methuen and Lawrence this morning show very weak attendance.
<
p>At many of the caucuses there are not enough people present to fill the delegate slates (some are winking at the rules and allowing people who are not present at the caucus to be nominated and elected as delegate or alternate delegate), the same old same olds are there (but tired… the operative word is AARP) and the participants are outnumbered by folks who are attending to get signatures for local and statewide candidates. Not a good sign.
<
p>We need to light a fire under the grassroots Dems across the state and give them a reason to get involved. Under 60’s need to step up…
…albeit with some mild arm-twisting. A pet peeve of mine is that in some towns not even all the members of the town committees are bothering to show.
Is this usual? Could affect attendance by those with school-age kids.
Caucus turnout was on the higher side, including people energized in the wake of the special Senate election. The usual suspects were elected as delegates; there was a slate of committee officials, not beholden to any particular candidate.
<
p>We saw several state and county officeholders, including Congressman Barney Frank. Piles of nomination papers were circulated and signed.
Usual suspects attended…low turnout…could not fill all delegate positions.
I know most of the the caucuses were today, and some were last week. Most of the participants in my caucus last Saturday were over 40 (and mostly over 50). Where are the young Democrats? I worked with tons of them during the Obama campaign.
Being a Rebublican is the hip, happening new thing. No snark intended at all.
MC Rove
Happens to most people. Republicans don’t offer anything for young people. Everyone I know under 30-and I know lots of people under 30-are liberal.
It was Barack Obama being Barack Obama, catching lightning in a bottle. We don’t have any New Deal here–no Social Security, no WPA, nothing to actually create a new generation of progressives.
<
p>People sent the largest Democratic majorities in recent time, and a Democratic president, to Washington, and next to nothing happened. Any enthusiasm I see is, to me, unexpected enthusiasm.
It’s always nice to have someone at these events that knows all the rules. #26 came in handy đŸ™‚
<
p>Hudson had a good turnout and filled our quota of 4 men 4 women, and an alternate. We’ll have a couple of ex-officio delegates.
<
p>One of the delegates made a great point and I support him 100% – we can’t have a “bloody” convention. Division among the ranks will only create openings for the other party…
What did he mean by a bloody convention? Would he have said that four years ago?
I don’t anticipate a replay of Chicago ’68.
<
p>Nor do I want this to be a free ride for the incumbents who’ve turned off voters, either.
I think was an expression of fear of a “circular firing squad” (my term, not his) where we all shoot at each other. The commenter was also quite down on Martha for her lackluster performance and did not want to see a repeat of that.
Veterans of the ’02 convention know what I mean.
Boston’s own Ward 21 (Allston-Brighton) filled our allotment of male delegates (including two BU undergraduates), but only half (6 of 12) of our allotment of female delegates.
<
p>Elected officials in attendance included Boston City Councilor Mark Ciommo and State Representative Michael Moran, as well as two of the six candidates in the special election for disgraced State Sen. Anthony Galluchio’s seat (Tim Flaherty of Cambridge and Michael Albano of Chelsea).
<
p>Ward Committee Chair Darrin Wilson ran a tight ship, finishing the caucus after just 35 minutes (quickest I remember). Kudos to him.
<
p>My take:
<
p>The good news is that everyone who wanted a delegate spot got one.
<
p>The bad news is that so few people (women in particular) decided to run for delegate.
Nice turnout, with homemade Irish Soda bread, coffee, juice, two congressmen (Lynch and Capuano) a sheriff (cabral), 2 reps (Walsh and St Fleur) and 1 senator(Hart)1 city counselor (Pressley). Lots of folks carrying signature papers (Gov,LtGov,Treas,Auditor,DA, Sheriff).Saddened but not surprised when Rep St Fleur announced she was not running for re election. Standing O with tears. Dorchester Reporter got the scoop.
<
p>Special address on fighting for Democratic principles by Rep Capuano, our own beloved Congressman (Congressman Lynch adn Reps Walsh and StFluer stayed for the whole thing). Sparked a formal deep discussion about reaching out to the young people in Ward 15 who have been so active in recent local peace and summer job projects. Sparked another informal witsful but deep discussion about Capuano for President.
<
p>See you in June in Worcester.
Woburn has seven precincts each of which has a committee and was represented. The City Committe is chaired by Ed Quinn, who was the moderator/leader for the caucus. Sen. Jehlen and Sen. Donnelly were present, as were Rep. Dwyer. Several candidates spoke: Three for auditor, Guy Glodis, Susanne Bump, and newcomer Mike Lake; note that Mike Lake was the only one of the auditor candidates that is on record as NOT supporting an expansion of gambling, certainly an issue that will impact the office of Auditor. Steven Grossman and gubernatorial challenger Grace Ross spoke.
<
p>I was a bit late, as I had a conflict and could have missed someone. Also, this was my first time at a Woburn caucus, so I don’t know how the attendance compared. My understanding, though, is that all precincts now have active committees, and that this was not always the case. it was a well run caucus. Kudos to Ed Quinn!
We had over 100 people attend our caucus today. All 21 Delegate slots were filled as well as the 4 alternate slots.
<
p>A slate of delegates received the support of the ward’s elected officials including Representative Michlewitz, Senator Petruccelli, Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino and City Councilor LaMattina.
<
p>Most attendees hailed from the North End, however, residents from neighborhoods across the ward including the South End, Beacon Hill, Leather District, West End and Chinatown attended the caucus.
<
p>Barbara Grossman attended on behalf of her husband Steve – DA Dan Conley dropped by – candidate for Auditor Mike Lake worked the room – local Rep. Aaron Michlewitz was there for the whole caucus – North End staffers for Senator Petruccelli and Councilor LaMatinna, were present due to the Ward 1 (East Boston) caucus scheduled at the same time.
<
p>A slew of volunteers from nearly every statewide and local campaign were there collecting signatures for their nomination papers and doing the quadriennial networking.
<
p>
Was the slate consecrated to a particular candidate(s)?
…just saying….
It’s a way to make voters go in lockstep, even if they aren’t. It’s also a way to shut out anyone outside a machine.
A slate is a neutral concept. You can use one to lock out a machine if you’re organized.
You can also use a tank to build a structure, if you’re patient and creative enough.
Maybe I’m too sanguine about caucuses because my first experience with one was a home run, but I think you are really overestimating the ability of DTCs to get ‘their people’ out to the caucus. Yes, there are some communities in Massachusetts with honest-to-goodness political machines that can pull people out on a moments notice, but there are really very few of them outside of some of the more active wards of our larger cities.
<
p>Turnout at caucuses is microscopically tiny compared to the number of people eligible to attend. This fact is your best friend if you are running an outsider slate. You can almost always bring more people than the other guy if you work harder.
<
p>Your second-best friend is the fact that machine style slates — especially if they are ‘unity slates’ — have TERRIBLE slate discipline. Even if you bring fewer people than the machine, you can still sneak into the delegation if folks on the slate think it’s going to be close and end up voting only for themselves and their close ideological counterparts.
<
p>Pro-tip: If you are just showing up to a caucus by yourself and thinking that you will be able to get a delegate seat you are doing it wrong. It might work, but only because you’re lucky that no one else bothered to organize. (And if no one else bothered to organize, that is a missed opportunity for you and everyone else).
<
p>Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that it’s easy to storm a caucus; it’s incredibly hard work to drag people out to something they’ve never heard of or thought about before. It helps if you have a natural constituency (from an elected official, community group, etc). But it is certainly easier than trying to build the Petra Treasury by shooting a rock wall with a tank.
You would think that the chosen delegates would represent the views of all of the attendees, not just the views of the majority.
<
p>Even if there are only a few representives at a causus for a
non-incumbent candidate, don’t you think they should get at least a small percentage of delegates?
<
p>I am new to the Dem committee and this is my second year
being involved at that level. In our committee, we don’t
take a litmus test prior to nominations. No wonder it’s nearly impossible to get an outsider on the ballot.
…that officially slates do not exist. In fact they have never been allowed as an entity for as along as I have been involved. What are called slates are very informal agreements for everyone to vote for everyone else among those making up the slate. The rules very clearly state that each candidate for delegate must be nominated one at a time and each caucus participant can choose any combination of candidates for delegate up to the number of slots to be filled.
<
p>You can encourage people for example to vote only for delegates pledged to support Deval Patrick and say by the way, here the names of people so pledged, but a caucus participant is perfectly free to vote for only half of those people and cast his other votes for Grace Ross supporters. If a lot of people at caucus think like that then you could easily come out of caucus with a divided delegation. Finally, each delegate casts his own vote on the floor as the “unit rule” (aka winner take all) is prohibited. The minority of the delegation cannot be forced to vote with the majority for the sake of delegation unity.
I am caucus challenged. Our town is very small. Delegates are nominated and elected without it ever going to vote. Our committee is small; few townspeople come to participate. I will say that because of my sometimes contrary views, I could easily be shut out of delegate land. I am not, though, and for that I give KUDO’s to our Dem committe for appreciating the value of differing views.
<
p>
…unless there are only enough candidates for delegate to fill the spots available. If there are more candidates than delegate spots, then it is against the rules for there to be no vote whatsoever, and you do have the right to challenge your town’s caucus. The Mass Democratic Party provides resources to understand the rules.
<
p>Just to be more specific. If your town has 10 delegate spots for instance, and 2 alternates, the town chair goes automatically in one of those spots. The other 9 get elected, 4 men, 4 women, and 1 either gender, and 1 male and 1 female alternate. When the chair opens the floor for nominations for the 4 male spots, if more than 4 men are nominated and seconded, and they accept the nomination, there is a required election where everyone in the room who is a voter in that caucus gets to vote on their 4 preferred delegates. The 4 highest vote getters win. If there are only 4 or fewer nominees for those 4 spots, then they chair can accept a motion to accept all delegates by acclimation, and there’s a process around that. The same then happens for 4 women, etc.
<
p>So if you feel like the process in your caucus was not by the rules, and you feel aggrieved, you have 10 days to challenge.
We had exactly enough nominees to fill the slots. He double checked twice to be sure everyone was heard. Everyone was satisfied and there was no need to go for a vote. I do not feel aggrieved at all. I am actually quite inspired by how our town committee is accepting of differing views. They didn’t conspire to shut me out because oh, say, I happen to be pro-casino where most of the committee is anti-casino. Or that I might be inclined to vote for an outsider instead of the incumbent. (They could have easily shut me out. All they needed to do was nominate one more person, it would have gone to vote, and I could have been voted out.)
<
p>So I can see how the system could work against someone trying to become a delegate who did not share the views of the majority at the caucus. Perhaps that’s why people don’t want to get involved. But I would imagine it all depends on how big the caucus is.
you must have misunderstood what I meant by “caucus challenged”. I mean that I’m a newbie and have a lot to learn about how the system works. I didn’t mean that I thought our town caucus was unfair or pre-determined.
As SmartMass mentioned I am particularly fond of Rule 26.
<
p>
<
p>Candidates who are unopposed are simply deemed elected. It’s not a big deal, but it is technically not appropriate to have the “secretary cast one ballot” because it is not a DTC vote, but a vote of the caucus. There is not a position of secretary. A vote by acclamation captures the sense of it and may be a way of showing support. But the way I read Rule 26 the candidates are simply deemed elected.
however, as chair I asked for a voice vote of the caucus attendees anyhow.
Candidates for delegates did not state any commitment to any statewide candidates – although some were obviously supporters of the Governor. No one in the audience asked either.
<
p>The slate of candidates ran unopposed and was elected unanimously.
Shrewsbury was well attended and things went quite smoothly. Congressman McGovern, LG Tim Murray and candidate for Governor’s Council, Fran Ford spoke. A representative of Steve Grossman also spoke.
<
p>I then attended a meeting in Shirley which was very well attended. Rep. Jen Benson and Senator Jamie Eldridge both attended the meeting. Lots of great discussion about the Democratic Party and what we need to do to elect Democrats. They were filling a vacancy in their chair position and had their meeting before their caucus.
<
p>Just as the caucus was beginning, I left for Hudson. Strong support for Deval Patrick and Tim Murray in the room. Rep. Kate Hogan and Senator Jamie Eldridge both joined the caucus for a while.
<
p>Last caucus of the day was Stow. Rep. Kate Hogan and Senator Jamie Eldridge were also in Stow, coming there from the Maynard caucus. Some good discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party.
<
p>There was a good crowd at the caucus day wine and cheese party in Ashland. Senator Karen Spilka, Rep. Tom Sannicandro,Congressman Jim McGovern, Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, Democratic State Party Chairman John Walsh, Doug Rubin, Newton Mayor Setti Warren, Rep. Carolyn Dykema and Rep. Pam Richardson were all present. Candidate for Governor’s Council Bob Jubinville was present.
<
p>Many thinks to the outgoing officers, especially my good friend, Diane Ring.
<
p>Southborough and Westborough on Sunday! If I’m all set for my own caucus, I’ll try to fit in Framingham.
This has probably been explained in some of the other threads about the road to the convention, but what’s the point of all this? Caucuses appoint people to go to the conventions, and then the convention does exactly? In so far as the Democratic Party is an actual organization instead of just a little D that candidates get to put after their name, there’s institutional wonkery and platform writing that goes on at the convention and that’s valid, but the main event seems to be endorsing candidates. But that’s what primaries are for, aren’t they? And looking at the schedule, the primaries seem to happen AFTER the convention, so it’s not like with the national convention where the delegates get to have the glory of officially announcing the foregone conclusion. (Technically the national convention has things like superdelegates which makes it messier, but I don’t see how they’d be able to fit into this picture.) Plus, with the national convention, even if it’s all just pointless theater: it’s televised theater that makes for free advertising.
<
p>Bottom line, what does it mean for a candidate to be endorsed? Does it mean they need less signatures in order to get on the primary ballot?
I’ll focus on the techncial aspects first.
<
p>1) In order to appear on the primary ballot, a candidate needs BOTH a minimum of 15% of the delegate votes at the convention and the required signatures.
<
p>2) For all practical purposes at this time the actual endorsement of a candidiate does not bring much tangible benefit. Potenttially there is the possibility of the endorsement being included on the primary ballot. See the rules of the convention.
<
p>From a non-technical perspective there are many other beneftis to the annual convention, including party building, network opportunties, training and skill building.
First, a correction. Delegates to the Convention are elected not appointed. In Lynn Ward One we had a contested race for the 4 female Delegate slots (6 candidates). No one appointed anyone and a secret ballot elected 4 to represent that Ward.
<
p>The Nominating Convention offers statewide candidates the opportunity to show organizational strength, provides access to what are for lack of a better word “activists” within the Democratic Party so that candidates can make their case for support, and does offer the overall voting population a window into the candidate able to win the nomination from the Convention floor.
<
p>The 15% Rule for the Convention also does impact candidates. Then Somerville Mayor Mike Capuano failed to get 15% of the Delegates when he ran for Secretary of the Commonwealth. State Rep. Augie Grace won the nonimation and State Rep Bill Galvin gained the required 15%. So the elected Delegates do have a real say on the floor of the Convention.
Good turnout and we filled out our delegation of 23 delegates and 4 alternates.
<
p>A lot of enthusiasm and about a dozen young Dems in attendance.
Do the “slates” list the delegate nominees only or are they categories according to the candidates they support?
Slates are unofficial beasts that do not appear in the rules or the voting process. In many cases, the group who organized themselves into a slate prefers to write down and distribute lists — which may or may not include which candidate they support — to voters.
Someday I’ll have to attend a large caucus to get a sense of how they work.
In my town there were 9 attendees. 6 favored Patrick for governor, 3 Ross, that is 67% Patrick, 33% Ross.
<
p>Four women contended for three delegate spots. All four gave 2-minute speeches. One woman favored Ross, the other three Patrick. The Ross contender was shut out due to the majority power.
<
p>It seems theoretically possible for all the caucuses to have 49% attendee support for a candidate and for that candidate to have no supporting delegates at the convention.
if the delegates were chosen according to percentage of support, not according to the majority. It almost makes the whole process seem futile.
Seriously, this is going to sound a little harsh, but if Grace Ross supporters in your town could not get more than 6 people to come to a caucus then they are bad at organizing and should feel bad that they missed this opportunity.
<
p>What actually happens at a caucus is determined by what campaigns and their supporters do BEFORE the caucus.
supporters did organize well enough then it looks like the entire delegation would be sent in support of Grace Ross.
Governor Patrick supporters would sh*t out of luck.
<
p>It is what it is, I guess. If that’s what the Democratic Party thinks is the best way to handle delegate selection then so be it. It is true that organization is very important and if a minority candidate is not prepared to
handle a general election, then they shouldn’t be on the general election ballot. But I would think that is what the primary is for – to pick the most popular and well organized. The convention should be a place to welcome new candidates and encourage them to run.
I’d say the same thing about the Deval Patrick organizers in that community. Shame on them if they got beat in a caucus that only attracted nine people.
that’s true.
<
p>What we have is a situation similar to what we have at the national scale with the electoral college.
<
p>It would be possible for a minority candidate to get the majority of delegates statewide. That could happen if the minority candidate ecked out a narrow majority in enough towns/districts and lost by a landslide everywhere else.
Remember a caucus is basically an election of delegates –
<
p>If people attend and vote for a particular slate, delgate or delegates that are pledged to a certain nominee and they win, then the process IS working…thats how elections work – whoever gets the most votes wins the seat! (unless you are Al Gore!)
A caucus is indeed very much like the elctoral college. When Grace first announced the below was said in a comment:
<
p>
<
p>I just wasn’t ready to get into a lesson on slates at the time. But it is not as simple as getting one out of every six or seven people who come to a caucus.
It appears that I’m on sco’s side in this debate. A few further thoughts.
<
p>I was well-trained for caucus organization in 2005 by a team that, if memory serves correctly, included Kate D. and Nancy Stolberg. One thing I remember specifically is that we were told to learn about the history and traditions of our own DTC’s caucus and be sure not to commit any “unforgivable sins” (my terminology). For example, if a particular person traditionally goes to every convention and bumping that person would piss off just about everyone, don’t do it.
<
p>But all else within the rules is fair game.
<
p>The point: In some towns, slates are common and accepted. Poo-poo them if you will, but if want to participate there and expect to convince everyone that slates are evil, you likely will not get far.
<
p>—-
<
p>I often hear that Democrats don’t know how to fight and this discussion reminds me of that. The caucus and convention rules are what they are and if you are really committed to see that a candidate or particular candidates get onto the ballot, you need to do what’s necessary to get the maximum number of your people to the convention. And you can’t feel sorry if the other candidates aren’t as well organized (or organized at all). This was particularly true in 2006 when Deval was the underdog and, in our case, we didn’t know what to expect from the Reilly camp. We were not going to rely on appeals to the caucus voters’ sense of fairness to ensure some of our slate members got to the convention – we worked to make sure that it happened. And that organizing work paid dividends later in the campaign.
<
p>When Grace Ross posted on BMG, I replied that if she was running, she should run a serious campaign, which meant building an organization that could execute. She showed up at our caucus but didn’t bring any support (at least none that was visible, and being invisible at a caucus isn’t what I’d call helpful). Not a good start IMO.
<
p>I’m sure someone will reply that we shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves this way. Two replies to that: 1) Unless and until the rules change, if you want to see your candidate on the ballot, you are just going to have to accept that others will organize even if you do not. 2) Practicing a little political hardball is a good thing, IMHO. Especially in a case like this where your opponent(s), in the long run, want you to become a better activist / organizer.
<
p>—-
<
p>Lexington’s caucus turnout, based on the number of votes cast, was about 1/4 the size of 2006.
You hit the nail on the head!
I was naive about the implications of what I stepped into.
<
p>I won’t be fooled twice. This progressive isn’t going away or to a (by definition futile) third party.
As part of the Deval Patrick team we prepared a curriculum that you described. We were in it for the general, not the primary. I’m glad that you found the training helpful.
<
p>I believe that as a volunteer it is my job to carry out the philosophy of the campaign for which I am volunteering. When we began preparing the training program I asked about strategy. Were we out for every single vote? Was it a “crush the opposition mentality.” I got very clear guidance from John Walsh and it served the campaign well. First do the work. Get people activated and involved. Then don’t commit any “unforgiveable sins.” But when you are including someone, whether it is a beloved senior citizen who wants to go to the convention, or someone who works for an elected official who needs to be there, do it from strength.
<
p>I had the numbers to “run the table” in Westborough for Deval but I didn’t do it. We included a union leader and a Reilly supporter in the interest of unity.
<
p>There were other situations like that throughout the Commonwealth. I worked with a large community where Deval’s supporters had been organizing. They could have had all the delegates, but in the interest of unity, they allowed Reilly to have 1/3 of the delegates. The slate sheet listed the names of the delegates and the candidate that the delegate was supporting.