Imagine if we had a Democratic primary debate every week or two through the fall and winter. Getting press coverage, focusing media attention on Democratic ideas and proposals, making people familiar with our candidates. Instead of limiting us to a tiny number of debates and hiding even some of those few by scheduling them for weekends or holidays.
Remember 2007/8? Really, look at that schedule in the link. Now think about this year, dominated by Republican debates and press coverage of Republicans, making the public think this election is all about who will bomb ISIS more.
Imagine if we had a DNC committed to a 50 state strategy. Funding more full time field organizers for all state parties, and focused on recruiting candidates for every office and every district.
Imagine a DNC that dealt calmly and quietly with NGP VAN voter file security problems, working with the Sanders campaign, investigating the situation and figuring out how to prevent it from happening. Instead of a DNC that impulsively shut down a major candidate’s field campaign all of a sudden, turning it into the biggest political story of the week and stoking acrimony between the two top campaigns.
We used to have a DNC like that. A DNC that worked for Democratic victory, rather than a DNC that works to give Republicans a bigger chance. We could have it again. But first, all of the current DNC leadership need to go. The sooner the better, so we can recover during this presidential campaign, in time for next fall.
Let’s start by calling on the DNC chair to resign.
Really big ones far too often, too.
She needs to go bye bye.
Make it play well in the press by appointing someone very well respected. Joe Biden would be perfect, if he’d do it.
I’m no fan of DWS, but publicly calling for her head on a pike will just give the Village Idiots a 2, 3 or more day news cycle centered on the disarray in the Democratic Party. This is the dumb shit the Town Criers eat up. There’s got to be a better, more private way to reconfigure DNC leadership.
I spent a large chunk of tonight trying to think how to express a similar point, but you said it better.
and somebody else can actually be the 8-cylinder engine in this car.
would dramatically change how the story would be covered, because then it wouldn’t be about DWS being fired, it would be about the other person being hired.
That’s why it has to be someone like Joe Biden. Or Elizabeth Warren. Someone on that level.
If DWS isn’t fired, then she needs to be removed from any decision making power… with the executive committee taking control.
But, honestly, even if the worst came true — and we got 2-3 days of bad press — the damage she is doing as chair is causing much, much worse damage than that, and the damage she could do in the days before Iowa or NH is terrifying.
Get her out, now. Do it right before the holidays and we don’t have to worry about any press at all, because no one will be watching it.
but disarray in the Democratic Party isn’t exactly a newsflash. Also, do you have any idea how creepy it sounds when you talk about “a better, more private way to reconfigure DNC leadership?” What exactly does that involve: “takin’ a ride” in an unmarked sedan? Should they just “walk to the end of the pier” and not look back?” Jeez. Just give DWS a cardboard box and tell her to clear her desk.
I’m not so sure the reason is for the debates. I’m not sure what I’d get out of more debates. They haven’t done much to change the race, and these days the more exposure the Republicans get, the more they hurt themselves. For anyone thinking that more debates would be salvation for underdogs, the performance of Bernie and Martin O’Malley prove the reverse.
Cos is right on the fifty-state strategy. The Democrats have lost Kentucky for the near future, and Virginia is slipping away. Any leads or hopes in North Dakota or Utah are vanishing.
DWS has sadly decided her role as DNC Chair is to steer the boat in a direction she’s told, without much worrying about the upkeep of the craft. But here’s a question: who’s more ineffective as a party chair, the Mass. Dems Chair, or the DNC Chair?
Having a lot of debates in 2007/8 worked really well for us because it kept Democratic ideas in the news. People’s awareness of the campaign builds slowly, and it matters what issues they’re thinking about.
As bad as most of the individual Republican candidates look, having them all thrust into the press every week means everyone’s writing about, reading about, talking about, thinking about, the sorts of things Republicans talk about. That builds the ground on which a Republican campaign can fare well.
When people have spent many months thinking about ISIS, and the “threat” of refugees, and so on, they’re going to be waiting for a candidate who addresses those concerns. We could, instead, be preparing the public to look for a candidate who addresses the concerns of how to improve health care, protect nature and our air and water, make the economy more fair and reduce the excessively disproportionate power that corporate lobbyists and wealthy people have, lower the barriers that people of color and women face compared to whites and men, and so on.
Furthermore, Republicans are using this time to bash Clinton, who is our likely nominee (I do think Sanders has a chance, but Clinton is more likely). With more Democratic debates, there would be more coverage of what Clinton says about herself, rather than just what Republicans say about her.
I’m with you on the vast majority of your post, but I’m not feeling you on Virginia.
POTUS NET (State GOP share minus national GOP share)
1988 GOP +12.5
1992 GOP +10
1996 GOP +10.5
2000 GOP +8.5
2004 GOP +5.5
2008 GOP -2
2012 GOP 0
VA GOV since 1990
D, R, R, D, D, R, D
VA Delegates (100 members) since 1988
Steady decline from 64 to 34 in 2003-2004. Slight resurgence peaking at 44 in 2008-2010. Drop to 32 in 2014-2016. 34 in 2016-2018.
VA Senate (40 members) since 1988
Steady decline from 30 to 17 in 2004-2008. Slight resurgence next term, 22 in 2008-2012. Drop to 20-20 tie in 2012-2016, 19 for 2016-2020. Note that Dems had a 20-20 tie and hence control in Jan 2014, but two different Dems resigned in the subsequent six months, handing control back to the GOP.
What does it all mean? State-wide, Virginia has turned steadily bluer (really, less red) over the past 25 years. The Dixiecrats realignment has finally (?!) resulted in GOP gains at the state legislature level across the state, but the increase in Dems in the Arlington area has exceeded that shift, which is why the POTUS and governor’s office have trended blue.
Virginia has a lot of built-in advantages for the GOP at the state legislature. Most districts skew red because so many blue voters are packed in the DC suburbs. Furthermore, they hold their statewide office elections on odd-numbered years (most recently Nov 2015), which means there’s less turnout from the Dems who only seem to show up for POTUS elections. Finally, Virginia’s unique system of excluding cities from the county government surrounding them results in additional packing of the poor in urban areas, creating a white donut with a black munchkin in the hole, thereby creating even more of a packing phenomena.
Virginia will continue to be fertile ground for POTUS and gubernatorial candidates, and the legislature will continue to be extremely challenging for Dems. Because the legislature draws the congressional districts, expect to see the GOP US Congressmen punching above their weight relative to the political demographics across the state.
Sorry, I don’t recall all of your posts on this topic earlier. So my sense this is Bernie crybaby crap.
…but it certainly has come up before. I think a good pool of candidates is state party chairs who have proven themselves in terms of partisan gains on their watch.
knee jerk reaction to anything negative towards Sanders. It’s sad.
I downrated your comment because it’s needlessly insulting, contributes nothing constructive, and is factually incorrect.
I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general.
My down-rate is neither “knee jerk” nor a reaction to “anything negative towards Sanders”. It is, instead, explicitly and intentionally negative towards your comment.
That’s what the ratings are for.
Did you down rate before or after? Didn’t think I noticed if you did earlier, there were 3 when I noted, seems like you added yourself and comment a great deal of time afterwards. So I’d relax a bit with the histrionics. That might be considered trolling. And I mean that.
I had enough of that baloney during the Marty Walsh campaign when I dared questioned his PAC money. It was ugly, attack after attack. There is now way in hell I’m going to allow that to happen again.
I also would just need jconway to better explain his down rating to my response kosta’s comment.
He could explain how that added to the discourse, because jconway thought that was fine, but when I added the amount of times that the Sanders campaign access data, that was down rated.
Please, if he cannot that maybe we need to think about how we respond to people.
Tom, didn’t see you downrating that either. Do you think that is a personal attack? Didn’t see you down rate. Jconway thought it was great, he up-rated it. How is that adding to the discourse, why isn’t his account blocked or send a message? Anyone?
and finally, I still think the reason for the post is a reaction to Sanders. I think that is the case.
Feel free to whine as much as you like, and downrate whenever you like for whatever reasons you like — that’s why the little button is there. You push your button when you like, and I do the same here. That’s how the site works.
I disagree with you about the “reason for the post”.
For the record, I’ve posted a few times to other places, like reddit and my Facebook, about my dissatisfaction with the DNC, well before this voter file kerfuffle. Several weeks ago I cancelled my monthly donation to the DNC, which I’ve been making for a *decade*, and called the DNC twice to complain about their policies and tell the why I was ceasing to donate.
Blue Mass Group is not the only thing in existence đŸ™‚
really?
Are you trolling, or do you think your comment makes sense and contributes something? I honestly can’t tell anymore.
and responded in kind. Trolling? please.
So if you want to contribute, who are you supporting? Do you work for any candidate? I want to better understand your post.
I’m not working for any candidate (if I were, I’d have said so), but it’s blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and have no interest in “better understanding” my post. Your anti-contributions on this post have diverted from sensible and valuable conversation in other comment threads. This post would have been much better for everyone else if you hadn’t commented. You’re ignoring what several people here have hinted at so I’m just saying it directly. Your comments here have contributed nothing of value and have harmed the quality of conversation.
The President was considering firing her all he way back in 2013.
She lined up people on the DNC, threatening to call him a sexist and an antisemite.
Seriously, can’t make this stuff up.
From giving the DNC’s membership, including leadership, zero say in the debate schedule, to refusing to fund or support Democratic races because she liked the Republican, to using the position of Chair strictly as a tool for her ambition (instead of trying to build the party), she has done untold amounts of damage to our party. She has to go.
Better now than later, when she could do even more damage.
Gee, thanks for the dispassionate, “reality based commentary” Johnk.
Someone’s sounding a bit tetchy.
Worried the unwashed masses are getting a bit too close to the trust fund, are we?
So with the breach, staffers for Sanders said they noticed it and wanted to help, or something totally moronic like that, so they accessed data:
once ….
then twice
then a third time
then a forth
a fifth
a sixth
a seventh
an eighth
a ninth
then a tenth time …
oh, wait, they did more.
an eleventh
twelfth
thirteenth
fourteenth
fifteenth
sixteenth
seventeenth
eighteenth
nineteenth
twentieth
Are we done? Nope.
As I don’t want to keep on typing numbers, a total of 24 times.
So keeping it “reality based”, you tell me what the F was going on Kosta. and as I’ve made it very clear I’m NOT voting for Clinton in the primary. That ship has sailed for me.
I’ll vote with the Democratic candidate in he general.
I’m far from an expert on how the DNC functions institutionally, but I suspect DWS, as chairperson, is elected to the position by the membership, which consists of the chairs of the state party committees. As such, she answers to them and carries out their policies. It’s the DNC that wants to bury the Sanders campaign, not Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Anyone who replaces her would carry out the same agenda.
…there’s more to the membership than state party chairs, but while you might describe how things should work I would not guarantee that’s how it actually does work. For the party that holds the Presidency, the President has by far the greatest influence over who is chair though that person is technically elected by the membership.
over the policies and agenda of the DNC. That actually supports my main point, I think, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not out there on her own, trying to bring down the Sanders campaign by shutting down its access to the NGP VAN database and scheduling debates when nobody will watch them. It appears she has her marching orders from both the DNC membership and the president.
I would think that if DWS was really out there on her own, screwing things up as far as they were concerned, she would have been gone long ago. That said, she may ultimately take the fall for the way things have gone down lately.
What you say seems plausible, but happens to miss the mark.
For example, Obama became less than enthusiastic about her leadership of the DNC, but he’s stuck with her. If she left, he could certainly get behind someone who would do much better.
State party chairs also wouldn’t necessarily have known how the DNC would be run when they last voted. Seeing what they see now, they may very wall want to opt for something different.
DWS herself may not even be the cause of all the trouble, as you guess. But even if that’s true, seeing that she hasn’t fixed it over such a long time, a change of leadership would still be the best opportunity to change things.
One man and one woman from each state (Ron Kaufman and Chanel Premier here) who elect the chair.
Do you not have National as opposed to State representation?
I find it scary that BMG of all places doesn’t seem to know
NO need to be scared, Porcupine. Christopher says explicitly that “…there’s more to the membership than state party chairs.” In Massachusetts the MDP chair and the vice chairs are members. There are also DNC members elected by the DSC directly. In Massachusetts we have a number of at-large members appointed by the Chair.
Chairs/Vice-Chairs of State Parties
Chairs/Vice-Chairs of various associations of Dem officers
Chairs/Vice-Chairs of certain other party organizations
Democratic leaders of the Congressional chambers
One man and one woman elected by each state committee
200 additional members apportioned to the states
Officers of the DNC
A couple of things to note: The foregoing are intended to be gender-balanced. Also “states” is construed to include the 50 US states AND various non-state territories. If you are really a nerd and want all the details see the charter/bylaws here.
Still publicly neutral so in the tank for neither candidate, proven capability of beating well funded Republicans running on populist resentment against Washington, an uncanny rhetorical ability to channel that populist resentment towards constructive and progressive ends. As popular with the Democrats in West Cambridge as she is with the ones in West Virginia. Replaces one woman with another, significantly more progressive and assertive one.
First, I don’t think Warren would want the job. It would take away from the time she has for the work she’s doing in the Senate. The DNC chair is basically an administrative job that involves carrying out the agenda of the party and the president, I believe. Warren is too independent-minded for that.
Warren would probably do a very good job, but I doubt you can be DNC chair and an effective Senator at the same time. She’s on a roll in the Senate, and she probably wants to stick with it, especially with the prospect of being back in the majority in a year.
The obvious choice is Howard Dean, since we already know he did a really great job as DNC chair 2005-2009 (*and* we had two elections in a row that went amazingly well for Democrats during his term, which is not a complete coincidence). However, Rahm Emanuel hates Dean – partly because Dean dismantled Emanuel’s idiotic strategies for the party that preceded Dean – so Dean was pushed out after Obama was elected. I doubt that has changed, and Obama and Emanuel are probably still close.
But there are plenty of other good solid choices available, so it’s not worth speculating too much on it now. Let’s instead speculate on how we can get to the point where it becomes relevant who the new DNC chair should be đŸ™‚
I think your post was completely on point, except that detail.
Mayor of Chicago seems to me like a big demotion from White House COS. Emanuel left voluntarily, but I suspect it was “voluntary”, and since it was due to general temperament and not a scandal, he and the administration were able to handle the PR better than would normally happen in this situation. Given how poorly he’s performed as Mayor, I think we can see why he would have been pushed out.
So perhaps this is Dean’s moment. But he has publicly endorsed Clinton, which may make him a bad choice for this moment.
If you come from Chicago politics, mayor is *the highest office in the land*. People have gone to Congress, US Senate, Governorship, and still aspired to be mayor. There’s even a running joke that when Obama finishes his term as President, he can run for higher office: Mayor.
Your suspicions are completely misplaced.
Emanuel wanted to be mayor. And it was a hugely bigger deal than any job he’d held before – even without the Chicago angle. Chief of staff is not an elected position. DCCC chair is not elected either. Being elected a big city mayor is generally considered a bigger thing than either of those positions even if it weren’t for the Chicago thing.
And that one mistake is a pretty thin hook to hang such a big speculation on, that somehow Obama and Emanuel had a rupture. You don’t have any other evidence to point to, so I have to assume your speculation is wrong.