I figured BMGers might be interested in some of the highlights:
- Two special elections are pending in the House due to appointments to the Baker administration – namely Carlo Basile of 1st Suffolk (Charlestown, East Boston) and Matthew Beaton of 11th Worcester (Shrewsbury, Westborough). News of the former broke during the meeting and the latter already has a Dem candidate.
- There are two openings on the DSC – a male for 1st Plymouth & Bristol and a female for 2nd Worcester. If you qualify and are interested you must inform the state party by 5PM on 1/19. District conferences in the events of a contest will be 1/24.
- Arthur Antonio Fernandes of Winthrop was elected to a gay male add-on vacancy without opposition.
- The next convention is 9/19 in Springfield, which means caucuses will likely be in April rather than February. Chairman McGee expressed hope that presidential candidates might detour out of New Hampshire long enough to make an appearance.
- Mike Murray has been hired as Field Director/Voter File Manager.
- There will be a “candidate college” offered late winter for Dems interested in running for local office. Details to follow.
- There was a presentation of Democracy.com, a website that candidates and committees can use to set up profiles, etc.
- Next meeting will be Wednesday 2/4 at a location TBD, possibly in Taunton.
Others who were present may clarify, expand, etc. in the comments.
Please share widely!
One discussion that really stood out to me was when it was brought up how we should respond when an elected Democrat endorses a Republican candidate over our own nominee in a partisan race. This was brought up because of several Democratic officials endorsing Baker over Coakley. There were calls for sanctions, barring wayward Democrats from attending future conventions, and withholding Party funds from those candidates during the next election. All points I found reasonable, with the withholding of funds especially appealing – our donors should expect that their money will not be going towards candidates who undermine our cause (which, of course, is to elect Democrats).
What was frustrating about last night is that, despite all the bravado about sanctions, none of the speakers were willing to call out any offender by name. It was noticeable (made all the more so when one speaker actually said he would not name names).
If the DSC isn’t going to hold Democrats endorsing Republicans accountable, then who will?
Fortunately, one woman stood up and declared her agreement – and keenly said we can’t do anything if we don’t know who the offenders are. Only after being pressed a bit more on who endorsed Baker over Coakley were the names of two State Reps spoken from the podium.
There are many things at play in each legislative district, and I’d largely leave it up to local Dems and their DCCs & DTCs to decide whether offenders deserve primaries. However, as the Democratic State Committee, I think our response to Democrats endorsing against our nominee(s) should be uniform and unwavering – withhold funds, databases, and every other benefit we give to our Democratic candidates.
Most importantly, we can’t be afraid to call out offenders by name.
Not only are we not losing it, but it’s a super-majority that routinely fails to pass or even advance progressive legislation. It is time to consider giving strong primary challengers to every Democratic elected official that endorsed Baker, every Democratic elected official involved in corrupt or shady practices, and every Democratic elected official who gets under a 50% rating in the progressive MA scorecard.
I am under no illusion all these challengers will win, but a strong primary challenge, even if it fails, does a lot to force a complacent official to take our priorities seriously. Carl Sciortino got elected taking on a long time incumbent out of tune with his constituents. My family in Cambridge always liked Tim Toomey for his constituent services, but his past advocacy of the death penalty and hesitancy to embrace gay rights were out of tune with his constituents in Cambridge and Somerville. Avi Green gave them a voice through his challenge, even if he lost, and Toomey has been a strong proponent of gay rights and death penalty opponent for almost a decade.
Primary challenges work, even when they fail. There is a reason McConnell has moved from the center to the right, a reason Pat Roberts, the sponsor of the pork laden Freedom to Farm Act, is now opposing farm subsidies and backing the tea party agenda. There is ZERO risk of a Republican takeover of the Massachusetts legislature, and to the extent that the likes of DeLeo might lose their supermajority if DINOs are replaced by Republicans, it might actually move the leg to the left. If our DSC committee people are too scared to name names, time to replace them with people that have backbones.
Nangle has already killed his chances to be an ex officio delegate for the next couple of conventions. I asked Curtis if he had an idea for a primary challenger to which he demurred noting Nangle is entrenched and related by blood or marriage to many of his constituents. Nangle endorsed Baker for Governor AND Brown for Senator:(
To name a few. Nangle endorsed Scott Brown, too. Not supporting the Party’s candidate is one thing, and was widespread. But outright public endorsements of the Republican candidate is another thing altogether. I noticed Christopher didn’t name names – is it because the complete list of those who worked against her is too long?
Thanks for sharing.
Christopher didn’t mention the topic at all. I was the one who fired that arrow, but yes I don’t know the names of every Dem.
I didn’t bring it up because I thought the diary as more of a news-you-can-use, such as scheduling, vacancies and the like.
You gave a great rundown. Re-reading my response it looked like I was implying you avoided it – when my intention was that I did not want anyone to think you didn’t want to name names. 🙂
What makes you think this isn’t news that can be used?
It came up in that very vague agenda item called “new business” which a lot of people use to vent. It was one of a few comments made about what did or did not go wrong with the election.
Shame. Not out of character, but a shame nonetheless.
Even though I agree on the merits venting was just my characterization. I didn’t call it worthless; we all need to vent sometimes. The DSC I think agrees that such people should be denied party assistance and positions and those are already the rules. There was no additional action taken, and as I said elsewhere no word of a primary challenger for Nangle.
It’s just that new business is a catch-all term that I have learned to be weary of. Often DSC meetings go swimmingly until someone brings something under new business. If it’s controversial there ends up being a lot of back and forth that doesn’t seem to accomplish anything other than DSC members leaving the meeting mad at each other. How do you think THAT helps party unity?
That took courage, and I’d like to thank them.
…with plenty of others, myself included, in agreement.
that it is perceived to be a greater sin for a Democrat to endorse a Republican over an awful Democratic candidate, than it is, say, to introduce corporate casino gambling to the Commonwealth, or to strip trade unions of collective bargaining rights in hush-hush, dead-of-night legislative sessions, or to support the prosecution of citizens attempting to publicize abuse of power by law enforcement.
Since they are linked together. These same names also backed casinos, voted to strip collective bargaining, and have lousy ratings on the ProgressiveMA scorecard. They are the faces of the corporate patronage wing of the party. Getting rid of them is actually going to help is get better nominees and better legislation in the future. Disloyalty to Coakley is one of the last reasons on my list, but actions should have consequences. Time for them to start now.
The indisputable mission of this organization is…to help Democrats win. Not help elevate Democrats who then turn around and tear other Democrats down.
that you don’t like political parties as a mechanism. That doesn’t mean it’s OK for elected Democrats to endorse nominees of the other party. I’m not going for the lazy logic that no Democrat can say anything, ever, about Democrats endorsing Republican nominees just because there are conservaDems in power doing things we don’t like. It is possible to oppose both things.
In fact, get rid of those “Democrats” and you’d be doing something to address a lot of the same issues you raised. None of them endorsed Baker because she was “awful” and they care about civil liberties oh so much. They did it because in their view she’s too far to the left. That’s why Nangle preferred Scott Brown to Elizabeth Warren. I’d kick him out. I don’t care if he’s related to half the district. Let him run for the seat as a Republican if he thinks they’re so great. He can sit in the back corner five rows behind Brad Jones.