The election of a new party chair was the main event at tonight’s DSC meeting. After facing a challenge from Governor’s Councilor Eileen Duff Sen. Tom McGee opted not to seek re-election. Councilor Duff also ultimately withdrew for personal reasons and DNC member David O’Brien was a candidate for a while, but later withdrew as well. The three remaining candidates were DNC member and former MDP Executive Director Gus Bickford, former LG nominee Steve Kerrigan, and Suffolk Sheriff Steve Tompkins. On the first ballot Kerrigan led with Bickford second and Tompkins third. For the second ballot Tompkins endorsed Bickford, which seems to have put the latter over the top by a margin of just a few votes. Gus was my choice for Chair since he has the right experience and skills IMO to be the Chair. Since the party Chair is automatically a DNC member, Gus resigned his elected DNC seat tonight thus creating a vacancy for a man who is interested.
The rules for 2017 delegate selection were also adopted. The main substantive change from previous years is that we will allow same day registration, including party switching. We also will allow pre-registered youth who will be 18 by the 2018 state primary to participate. The party switching part concerns me a bit, but I was assured that the grounds for challenge based on public support of or contribution to a non-Democrat in a partisan race in recent years still holds.
I’d like to add as an aside that I am starting to resent the calls to tear the party limb from limb following this election, especially here in MA. I have received messages even from fellow DSC members which sound like they want to blow the place up. Well, quite frankly, the MASSACHUSETTS Democratic Party did just fine last week, thank you very much. Our margin for Hillary tied for third place among the 51 states. We sent many volunteers to NH to help secure victories for Clinton and Hassan there. We maintained our overwhelming control of state government (though seeing Republicans go unopposed will always make me cringe). Our challenged US House members easily defended their seats thus maintaining the nation’s largest single-party federal delegation. We defeated question 2, a position endorsed in August by the DSC. Even nationally, I have no doubt DNC members did everything they could to elect Clinton and federal legislators. There was a lot that nobody saw coming and I don’t think the circular firing squad we are so good at is really appropriate. Besides, Clinton DID get the most votes!
stomv says
This is for the local caucuses? Does this mean that a person can come in, hand in a vote reg form to the Democratic Party, participate, and the Democratic Party will submit it to the town or city clerk?
Also…
This is true. But the fact remains that not everyone who is a Democrat is aligned with everyone else who is a Democrat. It’s not just about more (easily quantified), but better (eye of the beholder).
kdriscoll says
Good morning and thanks for the update from the meeting last night. Are the rule changes binding or do they have to be approved at another level before they are official?
Christopher says
…on all towns and wards in the conduct of their 2017 caucuses. They are official as of last night and I’m sure they will be posted in due time and trainings will be conducted as in previous years.
sco says
Yes, that is the intention of the change.
Pablo says
I don’t think we are going to need to worry about an influx of strangers to an issues convention. 2018, however, is another kettle of fish. If there is a highly contested caucus, it is going to be very difficult for large towns (think Arlington, Brookline, and maybe Framingham*) where delegates are selected at large, as opposed to ward caucuses in cities.
*Framingham is considering a change to a city form of government.
sco says
Watertown elects our delegates at large as well. Why would this be more difficult than currently? From my perspective, this makes it easier since we have to spend less time adjudicating people who aren’t on ‘the list’.
Pablo says
We have had hundreds of folks show up for caucuses in Arlington. We do well to look up attendees electronically, then to sign them in. An added complication of registering folks not on the list could stress our ability to run a caucus.
sco says
Under these rules if someone’s not on the list, you give them a form or direct them to https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ovr/
Currently, I spend more time arguing with people who SWEAR they were registered and the list must be wrong or they just moved to town and didn’t know or they registered unenrolled in 1990 to protest Silber and forgot about it since they still always vote in D primary…. Being able to say “OK, just do X and we can move on” is much easier than dealing with everyone’s special snowflake circumstances.
Christopher says
For a general election the standard is simply wins vs. losses. For me it’s a very simple mantra – BETTER Dems in the primaries; MORE Dems in the general.
jconway says
1) Getting our disagreement out of the way-the Mass Dems are NOT Fine
We have discussed this repeatedly here. The Speaker supported Question 2, as did the majority of his caucus. Term limits were abolished. New revenues are not being considered. The goal of the party should be enacting progressive policies, not resting on the laurels of single party control. It’s such laurel resting that led to last weeks lost.
2) How can I get more involved in the state party?
One thing I admire about you has been your consistent determination to get involved and be a DSC member and take your duties seriously. It’s really a model for those of us who are political junkies, and a lot of my friends my age want to get involved with this but the process seems complex and byzantine even to me. I am not going back to a third party, the Democratic Party is the last best hope for working families in Donald Trump’s America. But it has to be more bold, especially here. Let’s disagree within the same house, and let me join you!
3) Who is Gus? How come I hadn’t heard of him? Why did you select him? What does he intend to do?
These posts smack of inside baseball, even though that is not the intent, for those of us who are active campaigners and BMG members, and even Progressive Mass members who have no idea who some of these players are or why they are important.
Kerrigan has posted here and laid out his vision in the past, as did John Walsh. I have no idea who this person is and had a hard time googling them off this mornings Master List. Since you voted for him-feel free to fill us in. And feel free to invite him here to share his vision for the party. It can’t just be resting on the laurels of being MA, we have to be a model for the country of what a unified progressive government can do.
paulsimmons says
A brief bio from the Globe:
jconway says
And I bet it’s the first a lot of folks have here. That isn’t to say he won’t do a good job, it is to say his background as a consultant and money man for the party has to also be built upon to include real outreach to the grassroots. Also, I saw no mention of recruiting more diverse candidates which should be a top priority of the next chair. I welcome him to come here, discuss his vision, and take questions.
seamusromney says
I don’t go around criticizing the UIP’s picks as too insidery. Even when when you guys nominate Fresolo.
jconway says
Have been since Nov 10th since the UIP doesn’t exist anymore. I’ve moved on and so should you.
jconway says
I’m a progressive first. The UIP was an attempt to get more progressives elected to legislative office without having to secure the blessings of DeLeo and party leadership. I’ll never understand why so many here didn’t give it a chance or viewed it as a threat.
For a variety of reasons it was unsuccessful. Lack of funds, lack of interest in state government, and being drowned out by the presidential cycle. It was a tremendous year of personal growth and challenge for me so I have zero regrets. In the era of Trump, third parties are not going to be viable, and our founder said as much in Commonwealth.
This is one of three states that the Democratic Party still has a supermajority in a legislative chamber. The Democrats lost seats, even in 2016, even here. The Cape and Worcester County are trending Republican. Maybe it’s time the Democratic Party returns to its roots as a people powered rather than Wall a street powered movement. Maybe that’s how we beat Trump. It’s the only option we have left and I am going to fight to make it more representative. You should welcome me as an ally instead of act like an asshole.
JimC says
n/t
Christopher says
…I’m more than willing to be the father to you as Prodigal Son, but if there were any races this year with both a UIP and a Dem on the ballot you could be challenged in the event you are elected convention delegate. I won’t tell if you won’t and it’s not automatic. You would have the chance to defend yourself if it came to that and in an off year committees are going to just be happy to have delegates I suspect. Even in 2018 if you show yourself willing to work for Dems over the next year there’s a good chance you will be forgiven.
Christopher says
…which is all I meant in this context.
As for getting involved, attend your local caucus, which I’m sure someone (very possibly yours truly) will post when that information is available. This year also watch for platform hearings around the state, which again, there is a good chance I will be the one to post here.
Party chair is by definition a bit insidery, though it would be a civics utopia if such people had as much name recognition as Governor on the state level or President on the national level. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think your age is showing a bit since Gus was ED in the 1990s, when I first got involved and got to know him. Gus was also instrumental in first advocating for, then helping to set up, a national voter file for the DNC. He has staffed numerous campaigns as well.
jconway says
I’m actually fascinated by how this works and would love to know more. I’ll apologize for being snarky about the efficacy of the DSC earlier this year. I do admire your dedication and feel that it might be a good place for me to invest some time in the next year or two.
doubleman says
I’m not sure I would read into the party dominance to conclude sure signs of party health. There are many signs that the Democratic party in MA is not as strong as you claim. It doesn’t hold the most powerful office in the Commonwealth, and I’m not sure at this point many would say that the chances to change that are incredibly bright. The legislature is full of representatives who have been there a long time and are not that responsive or creative to problems facing the state. The most powerful Democrat in the state is too powerful, corrupt, and surrounded by sycophants.
Is the party strong and dynamic or is it merely entrenched and running against a party that is completely hapless and disorganized. Are we getting the progressive outcomes we should expect from this kind of Democratic dominance? I think we can do a lot better and I don’t think those in the party should be so resistant to change that might make the party more modern and responsive to the voters.
(But, I live in VT now so it’s not my party anymore)
johntmay says
You know, the male laborers who all voted for Trump?
Median incomes increased by a paltry 2 percent — nearly half the national rate — from $69,223 in 2014 to $70,628 last year.
Men in the state, however, had income gains that were barely a fraction of those of male workers across the country, Between 2007 and 2015, earnings of men in Massachusetts budged by less than 1 percent
There’s your answer and why so many parts of Massachusetts are turning Red.
paulsimmons says
From the Boston Globe:
I don’t think that Charlie Baker received any lasting damage from Question 2. If I’m correct, and if Baker can keep his Tea Party crazies in line (while keeping his current white-shoe Republican support), he will be a shoo-in for reelection in 2018.
jconway says
And frankly the lesson from Question 2 is not that there is an anti-Baker coalition, but that we can win progressive change via the amendment process. Which we should do with progressive taxation and also with better legislative candidates, since our entire leadership was either pro Charter or agnostic on the question, barring a few shining stars.
Christopher says
…but I tend not to complain too loudly when we, you know, WIN!
jconway says
I think it’s hard to isolate MA in a vacuum when many of the issues that prevent Democratic governorships are endemic at the national level as well.
sco says
Sure doesn’t feel like it. We may have executed the strategy effectively, but we did not win.
Christopher says
Given the gut-punch that was the presidential election I don’t feel like we won either, but I thought it was worth pushing back on the rending of garments and the sense that all is lost.
sco says
We can pat ourselves on the back for moral victories while we’re in the camps.
Christopher says
…and there’s always room for improvement, but again just want to keep things in perspective.
Pablo says
When I heard about this vote, I thought Bickford’s was providing free breakfast at the Democratic State Convention. Finally, getting value for the $75 delegate fee!
That said, I really don’t think the party is doing all that well. Charlie Baker shouldn’t be the governor, and we certainly shouldn’t have given him a free pass for the past two years. Our Democratic legislature should be fierce in its opposition where necessary, rather than rolling over at every opportunity.
One of the things I heard our new chairman say is there would certainly be a primary in 2018, and we would need to come together with a very short timeframe between the primary and the general election. Hello!?! It is nice that he is recognizing the problem of the late primary on our chances of electing a governor, so why not get the legislature to move the primary date back to June? And while we’re at it, there is sure to be an important presidential primary in 2020. Can we find a way to move our presidential primary date to one that will give Massachusetts some influence in the process? This year, we were a couple of days after South Carolina, on the same day as a bunch of Southern states – including Texas.
I’ll forgo the Bickford’s breakfast if Gus can get us back in the game.
stomv says
Engaging college students should be part of the Democratic Party’s vision. Massachusetts has loads of ’em; let’s engage them in the primary by holding our primaries when they’re in school.
merrimackguy says
It’s a total pro-incumbent device.
sco says
I know Steve Kerrrigan was on board with an earlier primary. I think there will be more pressure to move to an earlier primary now that we’re starting to get locked in to federal primaries that hover around Labor Day due to the newish absentee & overseas ballot requirements.
Christopher says
…I don’t think Bickford’s is in business anymore. At least the locations I knew are now all something else.
Christopher says
…that wasn’t on the ballot this time and I was reacting to the reaction of others regarding THIS election. I’m not at all convinced the timing of the primary is detrimental. There are too many variables and we certainly have been successful on that timetable. If anything it would seem a late primary gives challengers MORE time to make themselves known to the voters. Also we have to consider timing of convention and caucuses for statewide races (and yes, I favor keeping both) and not push this back into the previous year.
merrimackguy says
Money tend to hold back in a contested primary, and then you have less than two months to raise the cash for the general, which is the time when you’re supposed to be focused on the voters. Also that late cash isn’t as effective as having it earlier because you can’t make good decisions without knowing how much you have to work with.
Of course this doesn’t affect those that ran in the prior election with no opposition and have a big war chest, or have access to a big donor base.
sabutai says
In a presidential year, one state house seat switched parties. The Barnstable 2nd went from blue to red.
Mind you, there were many close elections the other way, but they were in the Southeast and not metro Boston, so the party didn’t care.
Question 2? Labor won that fight, knowing it couldn’t expect the Democratic Party to stand by its side. So we didn’t wait.
Seriously, what is the last tough election the Mass. Dems actually won? At least the national party got Virginia.
Christopher says
…pushing on question 2. Mass Dems are fortunate to have it pretty easy relative to the rest of the country. I’d say getting Elizabeth Warren required actual effort, but again just looking at overall results this year.
sabutai says
There were people also active in Dem circles knee-deep in Question 2. But the party as a party sat it out pretty much — our speaker and most recent governor sided with Wall Street.
Warren did require some effort, and hindsight is 20/20 I know. But to use hockey-speak, when’s the last time you saw a Dem win at any level and say “wow, how did s/he pull that off?” No, at its best, the MDP doesn’t foul things up constantly.
Christopher says
For once I can vouch the party followed up with its stated position. I received communications from the state party on question 2. The local campaign office had no on 2 material available. I’m just fine living in a state where nobody’s ever surprised when a Dem wins. I would call that a plus for us and a sign how entrenched we are.
centralmassdad says
Because Democratic wins in this state are almost entirely by default. I’m not sure what these wins are worth though. What do they achieve?
Our Democratic super-majority clashed bitterly with our last Democratic governor, and gets along swimmingly with our present Republican governor.
To the extent that party label is a “brand” that, in theory, helps a voter identify something of the qualities of the candidate, our local Democratic Party brand is
Pablo says
!