Where a lot of BMG’ers have been on the subject of the state’s Democratic Party for some time. His comments as reported in the Globe:
“There are plenty of conservative Democrats who have been elected, unchallenged, for years if not decades, including at the local and legislative level….I personally think the time is ripe … for Sanders supporters/ progressives to ‘take over’ the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and have a serious influence on its platform, candidates, and policies.”
Please share widely!
Not just BMG but the entire progressive community across this state. I’ve had the pleasure to meet many of you in person, meet many more activists who aren’t posters here, and organize some of the best volunteers in the state. We can work within and from outside the institutional Democratic Party to achieve these changes and do these things in tandem.
These are not cross purposes. We need more contested local primaries and more contested local general elections. Challenging these reps and beating them, and doing so in a strategic and deliberative way is the the only way to move the chamber in the direction it needs to go.
Honestly, who’s our next gubernatorial nominee or presidential nominee matters less than this work. This is what conservatives have understood for a generation. Michelle Bachman got her start on a school board, this is the kind of piecemeal agenda and long term game we have to play. Kudos to Jamie for speaking out, what will he and other progressives in power do to make this happen?
As discussed, the platform is already basically there. If Jamie were still in the House I’d suggest he push the platform among his colleagues during caucus meetings. He’s welcome to do it in the Senate too, but from what I can tell it’s less necessary. I believe he is one of the co-chairs of the Public Policy subcommittee of the DSC, so maybe he can use that position to forge a stronger connection between the activist and legislative wings of the party.
Actually, the state platform is basically on life support. It was not a bad platform for its time (early 2013), but we will be writing and passing a new one this coming spring. And the process leading to that starts way sooner than most may realize: the recruitment of a platform committee presumably will happen at the state committee meeting about a week after the general election; delegate selection caucuses for the 2017 state convention start only about 10 weeks after that.
Lest any think that what that convention will do in approving a platform or otherwise is just word-spinning, keep this in mind: a resolution passed at this past June’s convention became the framework of the mandate adopted by last month’s Democratic National Convention which will result in the elimination of 2/3 of the current numbers of unpledged superdelegates – a reform which had it been in place for the current presidential cycle may well have altered the eventual result.
As I recall the last drafting committee was selected in early 2013, but it is the platform for now and I don’t anticipate significant changes on substance. Clinton won the pledged delegates and popular vote too, so lets not relitigate that.
Thought I saw your name on the primary list-by all means post about that race!
…..sadly, it’s not the walk. It provides cover for those “I’m socially liberal but economically conservative” types.
Conservadems are often actually socially conservative, but say they remain Dems because they believe in a role for government in improving people’s lives.
Tim Toomey is one of those conservadems, he’s always been good on labor, transit and housing issues. For awhile he was anti-choice, pro-death penalty, and anti-marriage equality. Still votes with the leadership on fiscal issues. It’s why Steve Lynch always gets labor’s endorsements.
But Miceli is fiscally and socially conservative, and so are a lot of them (Rogers, Garry, O’Connor Ives, Mariano, Donato). And then you got a decent number that are socially moderate and fiscally conservative (Dempsey, Parisella, Boncore, and of course DeLeo himself). The ratings are really helpful for educating voters, as are primaries where at least door knickers can say “do you know your rep voted for x?”. Even if they don’t vote them out, it puts the rep on notice.
…as for Garry she was actually one of the ones I was thinking about when citing the above dichotomy. I asked her point blank once what keeps her a Democrat and she told me it was because she felt the Dems were better for people who aren’t already well-off, and that government can play a role in that. She has been supportive of raising revenue for local public services.
Since you didn’t link I’m not entirely sure which rankings you are referring to in this context, but I remember that Progressive Mass put DeLeo (and thus many others who follow his lead) as voting their way 2/3 of the time so not nearly as terrible a record as some seem to think.
They only endorse for folks who are 9/10 on their issues. And the fact that 100 members had exactly identical records shows how top down it is. Frankly anyone who voted against Deval’s transit proposal deserves a primary. That’s how we have to play this game. They said Ciampa was a reliable progressive on worker issues as well, but the people of Medford and Somerville wisely decided to replace him since he was a foe of marriage equality. Just one issue, but it made a huge difference and we got a 10/10 progressive to boot.
2/3 is considered a supermajority in most contexts and if DeLeo brings the House along on that I’m not going to complain too loudly. I certainly have next to no patience with bringing it down to a single issue.
labor endorsements because when they call, he answers and provides good constituent services.
It’s not just the votes. It really isn’t.
I meant that as a positive plug for Lynch. He’s also legitimately evolved on the social issues and is fighting the Spectra pipeline. Not my first choice, but he’s learned from his two primaries.
Jerry Parisella is a progressive Democrat on both social and fiscal issues. His record speaks for itself. This year alone he pushed for the passage of the public accommodations bill and sponsored a bill to expand access to public housing for the disabled. Last month he voted to override every last one of the Governor’s budget vetoes.
…about making this about Sanders supporters per se. Clinton did win this state and as a Clinton supporter myself I’d hate to fall victim to a purity purge.
We can’t seen to get liberals elected any more, so let’s get us some of them there really wicked lefty liberals instead?
Yeah. That’s the ticket.
This has been the Republican Assembly’s strategy for decades.
We’d rather lose with the RIGHT candidate than win with the ‘wrong’ one
You said it yourself we would be better off with a statehouse full of Warrens, Sanders, and Eldridges and we can do that while also working to elect Hillary, a progressive US Senate, and denying a racist like Trump the White House.
Bernie supports in MA alone donated nearly $2 million. That’s enough to make 10 state rep and 5 state senate races competitive. Over 3,000 MA voters signed up as volunteers.
I know I don’t need to tell you how effective they would be on the ground as doorknockers for local races. This is good for Clinton, this is how she will have a majority to govern and regain the 18 statehouses lost under Obama.
GTFOHWTBS
n/t
N/t
Uprate for you for telling me, but downrate on the original comment for that tone and language.
…to find you uprated his comment. You are usually more civil.
Less a “purity change” and more a change of the guards to make sure the state party actually represents its core membership. It doesn’t now.
It’s not just where people are on the issues, either. One thing that happens when outsiders become insiders is that they become the new insiders, and will naturally want to stick up for their new friends.
It’s natural and human nature and why any state party desperately needs fresh faces every few years, and for some old hats to step aside and make room for newcomers.
Insularity is bad for democracy.
I don’t see their initial enthusiasm surviving the boring explanation that change – that real change – begins with school boards, city halls, and local reps.
Just tonight people across the country watched Sanders create this very mechanism called One Revolution and he has actually endorsed Pat Jehlen and Mike Connolly in their primaries.
To quote my friend Nina Berg, also my age, also a Sanders supporter, and also a loyal campaign worker for an entire slate of Cambridge city council and state rep candidates:
Happy to hear so much lately about Mike Connolly too.
As far as engaging with some characters too, perhaps paraphrasing an old adage about horses might help: You can present a toxic and bitter cynic with positive information, but you can’t force him or her to read it nor acknowledge it.
has been our mantra forever.
That is why I’ve devoted myself to elect the progressive candidate for state rep for my home Ninth Essex District ( Wakefield, Saugus, Lynn ). Jen Migliore has a DINO opponent for the primary two weeks from today on September 8. The winner of that race will challenge the conservative Republican incumbent Donald Wong in the November 8 general election.
To date, Jen has knocked on over 6,500 doors, identifying 1,500 strong 1’s and leaning 2’s. She has won an impressive 29 endorsements including the AFL-CIO, MA Teachers and Nurses Associations and the Sierra Club. And she has raised $ 51,986 through 501 donations from 406 individuals. The average contribution is $103 with 37% coming from donors living in the district.
Turning a red district blue is hard work but it can be done. Thomas Edison said : ” Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” I couldn’t agree more.
To learn more about Jen’s campaign go to jenforrep.com or email : jenforrep@gmail.com or call 339-293-3087.
I want to thank all our friends at BMG and volunteers from the progressive community for their encouragement and support.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Campaign Manager
Jen Migliore Committee
In today’s email from MASSterlist, it reads “(Republicans would) just love to see Democrats blow up a moderate-leftist party coalition — previously nicknamed the Hack Progressive Alliance by a certain MassterList author, thank you — that has completely dominated Beacon Hill for more than a half century and made Massachusetts one of the bluest of blue states.”
I’ll give you that we were the first state to legislate marriage equality. Apart from that, what makes us so “Blue”? From my view, the “moderate-leftist coalition” has stymied any talk of health care reform, brought in casinos, balked at the idea of a $15 minimum wage, succumbed to the demands of big business, and probably a lot more that I can’t list at the moment.
Our wealth disparity is an embarrassment and we are currently involved in a battle to save our public schools from being absorbed into the corporate quagmire of charter schools.
If this is a moderate leftist coalition, we’d have something “leftist” to show for it.
…we have I believe some of the strictest gun controls and most liberal abortion laws. If you want to look back historically we were the first to abolish slavery, first in public education, and first in child labor laws. Even the Know-Nothing near monopoly in the 1850s was driven in part by that party’s ability to outflank the major parties on abolition (and yes, a reaction to Irish immigration). MA has been a dominant party state since the Civil War, flipping from GOP to Dem in the years following WWII, tending to favor the party arguably the more liberal of the two.
But looking at the past 20 years, I fail to see the same party that existed way back then.
…abortion and gun control…are Federally controlled issues.
…but I WAS referring to state law.
Porcupine, gun control is in large measure a state issue. A complete gun ban would be indeed an issue that is constitutional.
Ditto, I think for abortion – there is considerable variation in how abortion is treated state to state. Though in this case federal rules and federal judges exercise a lot more influence than in the case of gun control.
MA has one of the most restrictive laws around minors access to abortion (was one of most restrictive until SJC lightened it a bit).
a coalition has also for YEARS been trying to pass a sex education bill (not even a mandate for sex education but only a requirement that if a school system is teaching sex ed it should be comprehensive, medically accurate and age appropriate). Passed by senate, Even though it would pass if it came to the House floor, it has been kept off the floor for years
then we’re doing it wrong.
If we haven’t done something good in 5 years, it doesn’t count, not to the voters, anyway.
…first I cited one example from the 1850s as part of a trend that goes further back AND reaches closer to today. Second, the question on this subthread was about MA politics overall, not the Dems and not the General Court. I certainly am not giving much credit to the Dems in the 1850s since they were tying themselves in knots over slavery, mostly coddling the South. IIRC Whigs were the favored major party in the state at the time, though they were trying to hold themselves together nationally as well. MA was fertile ground for the nascent Republican Party and I, and I suspect others here, would have been happy to be one of their founding members.
And I actually think more Republicans would act as a good cleanser for the DINOs in conservative districts and also be allies on procedural issues like voice votes, roll calls, open debates, and speaker term limits. Incidentally UIP candidates can take a progressive message to doors that are usually closed to it.
Keri Thompson has won over a lot of independents and Republicans in her door knocking so far. I’ll also add progressive Democratic challengers endorsed by us like Kim Maxwell attract Republican and independent voters as well. Her re-match with Hay will be a barn burner. And she’d be the first woman of color elected outside 495. Dan Cohen is putting together a good book about how to win these primaries, but they are incredibly important.
make it much easier to block a bill.
If the most conservative 10% of the Democratic Caucus became Republicans tomorrow, the Democratic House Caucus would probably pass twice as many liberal bills… and still have a veto proof majority.
If DeLeo is as all powerful as everyone says he could work around the true DINOs. (I don’t think he is personally part of the conservative 10% you mention.) Does he use the Hastert Rule to decide what bills come up?
He’s leading them.
And I’ve never seen a bill go through during his leadership that he was against. Feel free to provide examples.
…but what didn’t quite compute was that DeLeo was part of the most conservative 10%. At least I took block to mean a minority that keeps things from happening leadership notwithstanding, like a US Senate filibuster. DeLeo after all got 2/3 from the last Progressive Mass scorecard I saw, so I’m just saying that IF he wanted to get around the most conservative 10% he could. If he is leading then he has to by definition have more than 10% backing him up or he would not last very long as Speaker.
who have been around a long time and hold a lot of power.
And it would make the progressive wing of the house caucus have all that much more power within the caucus.
So, I respectfully disagree.
This was done by SJC (though I do admit that finally the legislature afterwards did not let a challenge go to the ballot)
And they couldn’t get the needed 1/4 of the Legislature to object so that it would make it on the ballot.
Show me the state body that is more liberal than ours. Vermont did a little dance over single payer, but did they get it?
Yeah, Vermont “did a little dance” while we remain wallflowers at the party.
So we’re more liberal than 46 states?
If we’re so “Blue”, why are we not leading the nation on progressive issues? We have state house of representatives and a state senate that is occupied by a lot of people with a (D) after their name and on occasion, we elect a governor with a (D). That’s just a letter (D). We’ve elected Elizabeth Warren but only after being given a shock treatment to get out of our complacent delusion of being a true (D) when we elected Scott Brown.
From the posts I see here often, we’re paralyzed by the past failed campaign of Dukakis and the rise of Reagan.
We’re liberal by our past, but not our present. We have an inferiority complex. We have been told over and over that we can’t win. It reminds me of the many times when an overwhelming number of Democrats would tell me that “I like Berwick…or I would support Sanders….but they can’t WIN”. If that same overwhelming number would just look at each other instead of the past, we’d be the most liberal state in the union.
I still think we are leading the nation on progressive issues. I agree that we’re not perfect, and we pre-surrender on too many fights, but I’m not sure the states you named are even doing much better.
…earned sick time and our relatively high minimum wage. If you ever need to feel better about our state spend some time on Daily Kos. I’ve been reminded multiple times of things we take for granted in MA that aren’t true about other states.
Both earned sick time and the recent minimum wage hike came about due to active ballot question campaigns. The legislature was the brake not the driving force on both those issues. Similarly, equal marriage went through the courts and the fight in the legislature was to keep repeal off the ballot.
…as being about whether the state were liberal rather than the legislature.
Especially post-Brown.
It really isn’t close.
Colorado is adopting a really innovative and workable approach to truly universal health care, they are also way more liberal than we are when it comes to drug policy, clean elections and gerrymandering.
Oregon has more liberal public college tuition plans, liberal ballot access laws, and vote by mail which has way higher turnout than our elections. They also adopted non partisan gerrymandering and are considering single payer and clean elections.
California’s legislature is considerably more progressive on tackling climate change, they passed a progressive income tax already, and they are more progressive on immigration reform and in state tuition which were far harder to pass our “Democratic” body.
Illinois which I usually avoid praising, has a legislature that actually fights is Republican governor on draconian cuts to education, the arts, public defenders, pensions and human services. It also has a more progressive approach to fair housing, albeit, due to court intervention.
Any of the 8 states that don’t elect judges and don’t have a governors council. Rhode Island just built an operational wind farm off Block Island, good luck every finding one off Cape Cod.
There’s a great book on Massachusetts liberalism that shows how NIMBY we really are.
There are folks who have a D after their name who would be Republicans in any other state. Unfortunately, the conservative Democrats seem to have significant influence in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
In 2004, Carl Sciortino defeated conservative Democrat Vincent Ciampa in a primary for a Medford-Somerville house seat. I don’t think it is coincidence that the legislature’s position on marriage equality shifted quite rapidly after that primary. I would think that a progressive challenge to some House DINOs would certainly result in a significant institutional change.
Changing the party from within seems to be a much better task for Bernie supporters than wandering off with Jill Stein or going away disillusioned.
It would bring in more voters for elections where the turnout has generally been abysmal.
I don’t see the logic of having early voting in Presidential elections, where the turnout is high, and prohibiting it in the primaries.
…while he didn’t deny or walk back his comments, Jamie mentioned on FB that this quote came from an email to a supporter which was leaked to the Globe and is a few months old.
And how did the ‘conservative’ dems get elected to the State Legislature in the bluest of the blue states? By claiming to be progressive!
How will they be kicked out? By others claiming to be progressive!
One of these days we should really have a conversation about what it means to be progessive. A hundred years ago, when the Progressive revolution started – the good old time of Robert LaFollette – it was a reaction against corruption in government, against patronage, in support of a strong and professionalized civil service organization.
Us, moderns, have borrowed a perfectly good name, but often fail to live up to its original meaning.
…I tried that in February, though not as much about what positions are progressive as how progressive you have to be to be Progressive.
A lot of the debate, however, seems to be about lack of activism in the House and the Senate… What BMGers seem to want is a more activist House, in particular. The name of the person most lauded upthread being Carl Sciortino – a fine fellow, but one known first and foremost for activism, above and beyond everything else.
It might be an overreach, I think, to equate activism with progressivism. There are certainly interesections between the two, but progressivism should be much more than that.
Certainly activism is necessary – in order to draw attention to real problems. Sometimes, however, there’s a lot of ground work needed to solve the real problems that remains not done – and the measures proposed risk being loud calls for reform without doing much meaningful or effective to back up that call for reform.
I am not saying the House does not need more Carl Sciortinos… What I do say, however, is that the House cannot be formed only by Carls. And I do like and respect Carl. Activism is good, but work must be done on the back end also – thoughtful, sometimes unpopular work, needed to set effective rules for the state & local administration, where most of the services are provided.
Pat Jehlen and Denise Provost come to mind as figures with similar voting records, lower profiles, and more substantive legislation to their name. I want voting records identitical to Carl’s, who is the only rep who got a perfect score from PM year after year on the House side. I am disappointed Barber has been quiter and more deferential to leadership, though she was certainly the most progressive choice available in that primary.
Decker should have a voting record identical to Hecht’s based on her activist past and how liberal her district is but it’s actually identical to Toomey’s and DeLeo’s. That same 67% most reps have. Steve Ultrino who I lauded for beating back Brown endorsing Charlie Fallon a few years ago now has that record as well, same as Fallon’s his last year. So something happens that stifles courage when people get on the hill, and they definitely seem to conclude that the grassroots is easier to disappoint than the Speaker. It’s up to all of us to change that calculus.
I don’t know any of the names you mention, but would warmly agree with your last two sentences, about courage stifled, and change of calculus.
Looking more closely at the progressivemass.com scorecard, I am starting to get the idea that scorecards tell a very incomplete story.
For example: 2015-2016 Senate side, 189.6s – Transportation, Privatization, “Pacheco Law”:
Vote on the Conference Committee report of the FY16 state budget, which included a suspension of the Taxpayers Protection Act (aka “Pacheco law”), which requires an audit of the privatizaton of government services, for the MBTA. This vote was an opportunity for Senators to express their opposition to the privatization of the MBTA.
(Roll Call #49, Bill H3650, Conf. Committee Report, 7/8/2015, Progressive Position: No)
This is about contracting out some of the MBTA services that are poorly performed by the the agency. To me, the opposition to this measure is ideological, and is explained in ideological terms – instead of being a function of what has been observed and reported about the MBTA.
Yet it does show on the scorecard and takes away points from some of the legislators.
“If elected, will you vote for the Speaker to continue to remain in power?”
…or is this a more general question on term limits? If the former my own answer would probably be depends on the alternative.
They definitely should vote to restore term limits and they should pledge to vote against the Speaker. Keri Thompson, a candidate I’m advising, has made this pledge.
…whom does she vote FOR. I can’t take pledges to vote against the Speaker very seriously unless an alternative is named. I can’t imagine she would prefer the designated human sacrifice nominated by the GOP. I assume she would caucus with the Dems, but what is the likelihood of a challenge from within the caucus? I suppose she COULD abstain, but that just needlessly ticks people off right out the starting gate with no corresponding possibility that her candidate just might win.
I would prefer the designated human sacrifice nominated by the GOP. I would also prefer the potted plant in the corner.
There is no chance of a challenge from within the caucus, because the rules place near-dictatorial power in the hands of leadership. Change those rules, get a better government. But since there will never be a challenge from within, that mean the challenge must come from without, which is why I am rooting for jconway. But honestly, I don’t much care where the challenge comes from, so long as it is successful.
We publicly backed Sen. Eldridge for his comments and would love to coordinate our efforts as part of a broader agenda to elect reformers. We’ve cross endorsed candidates running in Democratic primaries as well. Hoping the insiders change the rules that made them insiders is a futile strategy that fails year after year.
maybe you can function a bit like the parallel Liberal Party in NY, so that people might distinguish between “these” Democrats and “those” Democrats.
Fusion voting would make our task infinitely easier, as would IRV, clean elections and a host of other reforms. But that’s why we don’t have them 🙁