Dear Fellow Democrats and Members of the State Committee,
I am writing to announce that I will be seeking the position of Chair of our State Democratic party on November 12, 2020.
Though the chair’s race is extremely important because it will determine the shape and direction of the Democratic Party for the next four years, we must, as Democrats, keep our essential focus on electing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, flipping the Senate, and helping our excellent down-ballot candidates to win. The general election is today.
If we defeat Trump and block his attempt to steal the election, an entirely new period will open up in the history of this state – allowing to us make progress on many of the dreams that have been attacked or stalled.
Most of us want the party to be more energized, more inclusive, more effective, and more inspiring. We want to draw in younger people, to open up wider discussions and participation, to learn from the innovations of other state parties throughout the country, and to return Massachusetts to its traditional role as a leading progressive state in our nation.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party is a complex, sometimes turbulent group of skilled, passionate, and committed people. I respect those who have worked for decades to build the Party and to elect Democrats. But many share my view that the party could do so much more. We are not living up to our potential.
The world has changed dramatically in the last four years – and especially in the last nine months. The combination of the destructive and corrupt leadership by Donald Trump and the brutal impact of the coronavirus has brought to the surface how many of our institutions are failing us.
As James Baldwin said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”
We must face the reality that over the last four years many of our most painful problems – racial injustice, inaccessible health care, broken eductaion, and climate change – have gotten worse.
Voters want hope and action. Communities of color want hope and action. Young people want hope and action. But they do not associate our party with the attributes.
As a result, many recently energized citizens are forming new organizations exploding with political energy, rather than bringing that energy into our party. We have not benefited from this surge of engagement and passion.
Here in Massachusetts, we should be facing our hard truths, inspiring and mobilizing our citizens, restoring unity and hope, and taking decisive moves forward.
So, given all of this, why am I running?
People from across the state began asking me to consider running for chair immediately after the 2018 gubernatorial election. I declined, saying it was too early to think about it.
Now we are all suffering from whiplash and exhaustion from an endless cascade of economic, medical, political, and moral nightmares – and the nearly total failure of our Federal government to address them. The needless deaths of so many people – some killed by the police or vigilantes such as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, others sentenced to death by the president’s shocking recklessness in denying the severity of COVID-19 and playing politics with life-saving equipment.
A few weeks ago, a group of our colleagues held a meeting and informed me they wanted me to run. Not only was I honored, I was also surprised. This invitation prompted me to more serious and prayerful reflection. Reflecting on the tremendous challenges – and opportunities – that we have as a party and as a nation, I felt increasing confidence that I could help us to come together, share ideas, design a just and sustainable future, and then work with all of our party to achieve it.
I am ready, willing, and eager to make sure that we expand the diversity of our leadership and elect a Democratic governor in 2022.
I love our Democratic party, warts and all. I was proud to be the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor more than 20 years ago. I am committed to helping us do better to live out our party’s values and mission.
In the days ahead, I will describe some of the experiences and skills that I would bring to the position. I have devoted my entire life to fighting for economic and racial justice, starting with deep involvement in the battle against racism and apartheid in both South Africa and the United States. I was one of the earliest leaders on climate change, organizing the first major public meeting in Massachusetts on the need for action all the way back in April 1992.
You may know less about my successful work to build international coalitions among people from radically different backgrounds and perspectives. These coalitions – which are thriving to this day – worked to bring prosperity to those to whom it has been denied.
I also created and led a national coalition devoted to creating a more democratic economy with new jobs, businesses, and forms of investment. More locally, I have been involved in the life and politics of my home city of Somerville for more than 30 years, where Anne and I raised our three children, all of whom attended Somerville public schools.
Over the coming weeks, I will be calling each of you individually to share more about my goals and vision for our party. If you would like to reach out to me to ask questions or to offer to help, please write to me at rkmassie@comcast.net or call me at 617-669-4016.
Though it is customary for candidates to race ahead and try to lock up as many supporters as they can before others have been heard, this is a poor way to choose the best candidate for a position that will determine the future of our state party until 2024.
I am asking you to exercise good and careful judgment by waiting to hear from every candidate before you make a commitment.
I also hope that the party will swiftly create a public process – such as a candidate’s forum – in which the candidates can present their ideas and qualifications, answer questions, and allow you to make a fully informed choice.
So – whether you are new to the state committee or have served for decades (or somewhere in between) – thank you for your energy, commitment, and service.
I humbly ask for your support. Please join me in this journey to lead our party to new heights – together.
I look forward to our conversations! And I would be honored to earn your vote.
With respect and gratitude,
Bob Massie
This is wonderful news! Bob Massie is an intellectual powerhouse with an extraordinary depth and breadth of experience. He’s been on the right side of issues I care about all along. I would love to see him as Chair.
It’s no secret that party membership is dwarfed by the numbers registered as Unenrolled. I think Bob could energize the party and bring in new members of all ages but particularly young people. A lot of them are doing their organizing outside the party these days. Why is that? We need them now more than ever.
We’re looking at a golden opportunity to shape the party’s future here. I wish I were on the DSC and could vote for him.
Here’s a recent and timely piece that Bob did for WBUR about the Presidential Election.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/10/08/trump-election-day-nov-3-vote-suppression-bob-massie
Bob Massie is right. I no longer associate the Democratic party with “hope and action.” I am a single mom with a teenage boy who does not see much hope for his future, in all honesty. But one thing that would give me hope is if Bob were to be elected as chair of the Democratic state party. .
There will still will be issues with state party politics regardless who is chair, but I do feel that Bob will put us back on the right track and make choices that are in alignment with my values.
I believe he will help the party become one associated with “hope and action” once again.
And I believe he will get things done – things that positively affect the lives of working people in this state such as myself.
Bob Massie is the perfect person to lead Massachusetts Dems into the future at such a critical time. Bob has been a warrior for corporate accountability, social justice, and environmental protection his entire life…from fighting against apartheid in South Africa in his youth to leading two of the most successful environmental programs in his adulthood. Bob will bring a solid moral compass to the job, developed over a lifetime, at a moment in history when just such leadership is needed. As a member of the Arlington Democratic Town Committee I wholeheartedly support Bob Massie for Chair of the Massachusetts Dems.
If you can’t beat Jay Gonzalez, how are you going to help the party’s nominee beat Charlie Baker?
When the diarist commented s/he referred to Bob in the 3rd person, so apparently s/he just posted Bob’s statement without further comment. This would clarify my confusion as I could have sworn Bob himself posted here under the handle bmass.
If he can’t beat Jay Gonzalez, who lost to Baker 2-1, how can he help beat Baker? It’s still a valid question. Ditto Mike Lake who’s also a two time statewide loser.
I like and respect them both, but they are just looking like perennial also rans chasing after different jobs. They should see if they can win a school committee or city council race first.
Who’s running for chair next, Leland Cheung? Chris Gabrielle? Give it a break.
Who cares?
The choice of party Chairman is about as important as the race for Governor’s Council (or whatever that was).
It appears to me that the Massachusetts State Democratic Party is nothing more than an immensely complicated and barely functional mechanism for selecting names for the only election that matters in the state — the statewide Democratic Primary.
I think we still elect a “Register of Deeds” for each of fourteen counties, each of which is itself a complete joke, as well as the “Secretary of the Commonwealth”. None of the functions of those offices should be remotely political. The same is true of the auditor and treasurer. Does anybody even KNOW what the Governor’s Council does?
It’s no wonder that so few people bother to vote.
It’s important, though perhaps it calls for a different set of skills in a state like ours, i.e. plumber (think John Walsh) not poet.
I do not understand the slam at the SOS, a pretty important constitutional office!
Galvin did an outstanding job this cycle, he’s got my vote in 22’ barring a catastrophe and I’m a longtime critic.
GC is silly and should be replaced by a Joint Committee. I was happy to see Helina Fontes give Terry Kennedy a real challenge though.
I’m not criticizing Mr. Galvin, I’m criticizing the process that put him there. I agree that he did a great job this cycle. I think this should be an appointed, rather than elected position — although I’m not sure who should make the appointment. Perhaps handle it like a judiciary appointment?
I don’t think the office does anything that should be political.
LOL, the “the process that put him there” is the Massachusetts Constitution. Ya it’s old and clearly we have many remnants of days gone by in it (like GC or various county roles that should be professionalized or are duplicative like the Sheriffs job), but it is very hard to change.
You seem to enjoy being cranky, but maybe that’s because you don’t know what is really at the heart of the problem.
I guess I am indeed feeling very cranky.
This was without doubt the most important election of my life. It was the first time my newly-naturalized wife voted.
The ballot was chock full of choices with people I’ve never heard of for offices I’ve never heard of. There were exactly four items for which our votes had any relevance at all: Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, Ed Markey vs this year’s random Republican, Q1, and Q2.
Our votes for the national choices were completely meaningless. While I was happy to vote for both Joe Biden and Ed Markey, the outcome of both was never in question.
Here it is the end of Friday, and there is still no decision about who won the election — even though Joe Biden has several million more popular votes than Donald Trump.
I think America has made itself a laughingstock of the world. We have shredded whatever was left of our credibility about anything involving democracy, human rights, and basic decency.
Yes, I am indeed cranky this evening.
Judicial appointments, although I agree a legislative committee would be less redundant and more effective.
Jeesh. Sounds like job security for political operatives to me. 🙂
Yeah it’s gotta go. Along with electing the officials in charge of the election.
I like both elections officials directly accountable to the people rather than an appointing authority, though I do no like that they go through a partisan nomination process. I still prefer a body whose agenda is set by the Governor independently of legislative horse-trading responsible for judicial confirmations. IMO the MA way is superior to the federal way.
I think the phrase “accountable to the people” is completely meaningless in this context. How many voters even know what the “Governor’s Council” does, never mind any of the candidates on the ballot?
How many decades has it been since MA has had a strong enough GOP presence in the legislature to make “the federal way” even remotely competitive? If the governor had to submit each judicial nominee to the state senate, then at least the voters would know who the governor was nominating.
I think that in practice the current process is more opaque than any cigar-filled room ever was. I think the federal process would be a major improvement over what we do now.
I also think the state SoS should be nominated and confirmed in the same way. That, along with the Auditor and Treasurer, should be a completely non-partisan office.
So we improve the transparency, not dump the office. Right now we do have a Governor of one party and a Senate of another. We saw under Deval Patrick that having the legislature and Corner Office in the hands of the same party does not guarantee cooperation. At least with the GC, the Governor sets the agenda and can get a vote. The GC would be within their rights to reject the nominee, but there would be no risk of a Merrick Garland situation. There’s no inherent reason why submitting it to one body would get more press than the other. In fact judicial nominations at the state level HAVE been in the news a couple of times in recent weeks.
BTW, I used “accountable to the people” above with reference to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, an office which gets plenty of press, albeit at least in part because the incumbent knows how to generate it. I believe the majority of states directly elect that office for good reason. Being accountable to someone other than the people risks at least the temptation to serve that master instead.
I can’t think of anything the SoS does (at the state level) that has a partisan basis. Can you give me an example?
So far as I know, the office does corporate registrations and filings and similar things.
Perhaps you might provide an example of a policy that an appointed SoS might put in place that would be worse than the current practice. I don’t mean that current practices are bad, I mean that I don’t see them as particularly partisan.
As the No on 2 vote demonstrates, MA voters are not ready for modest reforms, let alone, more radical ones. In NH the legislator elects the SoS which has made for some strange bedfellows in recent years as NH primary mandarin SoS Gardner, a Democrat, was saved by the NH Republican delegation in their house.
So voter education and robust primaries if how we get better officials. Galvin was much better this cycle since the Zakim challenge two years ended his complacency and made him a late comer to online resources, early voting, auto registering 18 year olds, and possibly implementing RCV. I also think he realizes this is the last job in government he’ll ever have.
I know I’m displaying my ignorance about how state government works, but please bear with me — I think I’m at least as informed as most MA voters, and so I think my questions are at least somewhat representative.
I really just don’t know what you refer to when you cite “NH primary mandarin SoS Gardner”. I know that Mr. Zakim challenged Mr. Galvin two years ago. I’m not disagreeing with your commentary, I’m saying instead that it elaborates the political aspects of the position.
I’m asking a different question. Regardless of who holds the office, what are some examples of actual policy decisions that the SoS is responsible for?
At the state level, I have the sense that our judiciary is reasonably good at deciding the issues before them based on law rather than partisan politics. Until the GOP began packing the federal courts, the same was true at the federal level.,
Some states elect their judges. In those states, the same arguments are put forward in support of the practice that I hear regarding the SoS and similar offices here. It appears to me that our approach for judges works better.
What are some specific policy decisions where having an appointed, rather than elected, SoS would result in worse state government for MA?
They can interpret state elections laws in manners that impact what votes are accepted or not. For example, several communities had different local ballot questions or other issues that impacted ballots sent to people. They could advice the communities in ways that would have made voters lives hard or easy and that advice could be impacted by partisan reasons. (Which I have not seen happen in the case of Galvin.)
This seems exactly analogous to the discussions about whether judges should be appointed or elected.
I think the evidence is fairly clear that requiring judges to be periodically re-elected results in HIGHLY partisan outcomes.
I suppose that having elections where nobody knows anything at all about the people or the office is a way to moot the question. So far as I can tell, these offices are still appointed.
They’re just appointed in ways that are understood by about 17 people statewide.
You don’t think that the SoS overseeing elections can make any decisions that would be viewed as partisan? Just on the face of it, it is self-evident that is possible.
Oh, I agree that the SoS overseeing elections can certainly be political.
What I don’t see is how the current process avoids that.
Off the top of my head…change the constitution and have voters elected an independent commission, with seats designated for a Dem, GOP, unenrolled and a roving position for third party representation. Major vote rules.
But all I think of is the the Federal election Commission (which has appointed members) that has been toothless and feeble because the partisan funding.
I think that voter participation in that process is completely meaningless.
When was the last time that there was a contested seat for the Governors Council?
The primary contest between Mr. Zakim and Mr. Galvin was the first contested primary for that position in a dozen years.
Do we think Mr. Zakim would have handled the 2020 election any differently?
I think this whole thing is circus with unfunny clowns.
Which is evidence Galvin does his job well in the current context. He’s the chief elections officer too, which is the part I’d prefer to be both directly elected and non-partisan.
Agreed. Seems a little odd: Mass system is opaque and should be reformed to be like the federal system. Also: the federal system is completely broken and we must make radical changes!
What’s “odd” about it?
The MA system is opaque and baroque, so much so that most voters don’t have the slightest clue about who they are voting for are what their office is responsible for.
The federal system is utterly broken in totally different ways. Until Mitch McConnell and the GOP began to intentionally (and, I suspect, corruptly) sabotage the judicial nomination process, the federal judicial appointment process worked pretty well.
My impression is that the lower-level courts made reasonable decisions and the Supreme Court, until the death of Mr. Scalia, was reasonably well-balanced.
The things that are broken at the federal level have nothing to do with the things that are broken at the state level. Fortunately, we in MA have almost no Trumpists in position of leadership.
There is nothing unusual about more than one thing being broken at a time. There is also nothing unusual about realizing that more than one thing must be fixed at the same time.
Well that makes no sense…our system should be reformed like the federal system that is broken as well??????
https://www.gazettenet.com/Democrat-investigation-finds-party-chair-interfered-in-1st-Congressional-race-37177026
Hoo boy, time for a change!
I’m reminded of the old joke that frequently makes the rounds in Episcopal parishes regarding the eternal parish politics that always rage — “The reason passions are so high is that the stakes are so low.”
I don’t doubt that at least some of the reported exchanges happened. None of this strikes me as being worth the time that’s already been spent on it.
Really? If true…you have no problem with the State party helping one Democratic campaign pull a dirty trick on another democratic campaign, just before a primary? I just assumed you where more appalled by bad political behavior when apparently you not.
Of course I’m appalled by bad political behavior. I haven’t been convinced that anything here reaches that threshold.
Mr. Morse never had a chance. He did not lose his bid because of this episode.
Even the threshold it reached and has been confirmed, disturbs me. Once the Young Dems contacted the Party, the correct–and ONLY–response should have been, “we don’t want anything to do with this”, not “oh talk to the former longtime Counsel of the party who can advise you on what to do next”. I got problems with that.
And so what if Morse had no chance. What if you decoded you had enough and decided to run for state Rep. You probably wouldn’t have a chance either. Does that make it right for the Democratic party to put their thumb on the scale and undermine your campaign?
Your suggestion would likely have prompted howls of protest that the party was ignoring allegations of this nature and we’d be debating that on this thread instead. Nobody who should not have in any way participated in the primary within the meaning of the relatively new bylaw prohibition.
I would frankly rather see the party have MORE influence on candidates, even if it occasionally did the wrong thing, then have it play completely hands-off.
I think that if the state organization is going to have any influence on state politics then I see little reason for it to exist.
“Of course I’m appalled by bad political behavior. I haven’t been convinced that anything here reaches that threshold.”
What does this even mean? What in the world is the “threshold” for bad behavior? Are you claiming it’s good behavior?
This state committee’s actions were problematic enough that they felt compelled to investigate– so they crossed that threshold.
It may be something to consider, since there is a contested election for party chair. Of course the smear of Morse will have to be weighed in the context of the giant, monumental issues that usually decide the choice of party chair.
By the way, McGovern never had a chance against Nixon.
For me it would have to be if the party itself engaged in dirty tricks to undermine Morse. It is not bad to try to avoid a primary. It is not bad to advise college students on how to proceed. Staff are not allowed to publicly support or oppose a candidate in a contested primary and that did not happen here.
Three questions, three answers.
It means that some misdeeds are worse than others. A moving violation for driving with an expired inspection sticker is different from negligent homicide. Stealing a paperclip is different from embezzling two hundred million dollars.
My threshold is something along the lines of what Christopher is valiantly trying to articulate. It is something akin to the threshold for calling defensive pass interference in the NFL — if a defender makes contact with the receiver, it must be more than “incidental” contact.
My threshold is that the offense must either make a difference or must be egregious (grabbing a facemask will draw always draw a flag if seen by an official). I don’t see either standard met with this episode.
Of course not. There is a rather large middle ground between “bad” and “good” behavior.
Perhaps if the state party had actual and legitimate ways to influence Democratic Party candidates and elected officials, then silliness like this would be less likely.
Sure, except for the part where that is not at all what happened.
Wow! We’ve been asked (not sure why) not to circulate the actual report (which as a DSC member I HAVE seen), but suffice to say that from the very first sentence the linked article summarizes it about as accurately as Bill Barr did the Mueller Report. In most cases Jacques did not conclude wrongdoing, and in the couple cases she did tweak party leadership a bit I would argue those were judgment calls without an objective correct answer. She did also make recommendations for preventing a similar situation in the future, which I do agree with.
Why won’t the party publish the report?
Your comparison to the Mueller report sounds fair. The right answer was to publish the Mueller report before offering any commentary about it.
Like I said above I’m not sure why. The report is not at all inflammatory or even that embarrassing unless you’re inclined to see something nefarious in discussing press strategy. There had been petitions circulated calling for the removal of certain leaders which I think is way out of line, but does show there is interest in this outside the DSC. My only guess is a desire to not expose college students to unnecessary publicity, but I suppose names could be redacted. Jacques’ charge was to investigate the roles of the Chair, Executive Director, and Counsel all three of whom emerge from this only mildly tweaked. She was not charged with investigating College Democrats, though she did speak to a few leaders thereof, nor did she comment on anyone’s motives.
To the point on hand: we need someone with a strategic political mind and give a staff and an army of activists the tactics to implement the plan. Gus has a back ground that fits that mold, but I’ve lost serious trust in his chairmanship based on the Morse events of last summer. But Lake and Massie have got to make the case they grasp the operational aspects of the job.
JConway has a point about their track record overseeing their own campaign. But that does negate their abilities to lead the party. But Bob’s email sounds like a policy pitch and Lake was (in my mind) more a policy than a political guy. The MA Dem Chair is not a policy job, it’s a political job. Can we have a fourth candidate throw their hat in the ring?
What do you think the state organization should actually DO? I’m not being argumentative, I’m genuinely curious.
Any ideas about what it’s “vision” might be? A few of its “mission” statements for any given season (an organization can pursue multiple missions in parallel)? Any “goals”?
I gather from Christopher’s commentary that he sees the purpose of the organization as keeping the “Democratic” affiliation on as many elected positions as possible.
I’m just not sure what purpose the institutional Massachusetts Democratic Party is supposed to do.
Yes, the key role of any partisan committee is to elect that party’s ticket within the jurisdiction of that committee. This is true for Democrats and Republicans, as well as for national, state, and local committees. For the vast majority of citizens this operates in the background and does not make headlines, but it is exactly the reason those two parties dominate our politics while those without this infrastructure struggle to break through. Both candidates challenging Gus for the chairmanship have advocated stronger connections between the platform and elected officials.
I appreciate the response.
I’m wondering what pogo has to say about this. I ask because pogo has been fairly harsh on long-term incumbents over the past few months. I wonder what role he sees for the institutional party.
I don’t think the State Party Chair (or national chair) should have MUCH impact on the mission or policies of the party. (They certainly have a role in implementing the “goals”).
Candidates / elected leaders primarily drive the “vision” and the policy agenda is frankly set by the primary voters and activists who candidates MUST listen to. Sure, policy agenda of the party is shaped by our platform, which of course is shaped by the party activists / state committee.
I don’t see how a party chair SHOULD drive policy / platform issues. As an absurd example, should the party chair be the driving force for the state party change to its platform position on reproductive rights? Or should they be the one to determine we are the party of “law and order” and if you don’t like that, find another party.
The purpose of the “institutional Massachusetts Democratic Party” (and by extension the Party Chair) is to facilitate the values and agenda of the party, as defined by our elected leaders and activists (who shape the platform).
And while I understand why you say I’ve been fairly harsh on long-term incumbents lately, I see it more as me longer accepting the “insanity” of our political system. As I’ve repeated Einstein’s words countless times here (and certainly in the last few months) “when you keep doing the same thing over and over again (like electing the same people using the same rules and conditions) and expect a different outcome, that is the definition of insanity”. I’m just trying to get my sanity back and stop enabling this never-ending cycle of insanity.
And the next party chair is not going to brake this insane cycle. Nor will it be the politicians…because by definition none of them can be leaders. They all have to get 50% plus 1 to get elected and therefore their “Overton Window” is very narrow.
It is you and I that have all the (diffuse) power to impact policy. We are the people that they ultimately have to listen to. And frankly that’s who I’ve been critical of in the last few months. While it may seem like I oppose Ed Markey (ok, maybe because I said, “I oppose Ed Markey”, that gave you that impression!) it’s the voters and activists that expect a 44 year incumbent to bring about the change they want, that I’m most critical of.
There is a reason I choose the handle “Pogo”.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
I’d like to clarify what I mean by the vocabulary I use.
I use “vision” to mean “A statement about the world we exist to create”. A vision statement is not about us, it is about the world. A vision statement for an international non-profit might be “We envision a world without hunger, disease or poverty”.
I use “mission” to mean “The work we do to make some aspect of our vision concrete”. A mission of the above organization might “We will vaccinate every African against HIV by the end of the decade.”
I use “goal” to mean “A measurable milestone of progress towards one or more missions.” A goal of the above mission might be “The delivery of 2 million doses to Namibia during 2015.”
The vision of any organization is long-lasting and changes infrequently. Missions are very dynamic and reflect whatever is happening in the surrounding landscape at any given moment.
I have always envisioned a world where every adult has the final say on what happens to his or her body. I have always envisioned a world where every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have always believed that as an American (resident, not citizen) I may not be deprived of those rights except by due process of law.
The Democratic Party has always been a bastion of support for that vision. In case after case and issue after issue, the Democratic Party (at least nationally) has ALWAYS taken the position that was most consistent with the above statement.
So my answer to your “absurd” examples is YES. I believe the party chair SHOULD relentlessly remind every Massachusetts Democrat of our party’s vision about reproductive rights and “law and order”.
The Massachusetts Party should NEVER have supported the Hyde Amendment. No Massachusetts Democrat should EVER support restrictions on contraceptives. No Massachusetts Democrat should EVER support the wide range of abuses covered by the rubric of “law and order”.
Private SWAT teams should NOT be able enforce no-knock warrants anywhere in this state. Police should NOT be able to use facial-recognition technology to identify people in a public gathering. The government should NOT have access to “back-door” portals in an encryption scheme. And so on and so forth.
I do think that our state party would be stronger if we somehow adopted an explicit vision statement (working out how to do that is above my pay-grade). I think every “mission” should be accompanied by an explicit mission statement that explains the aspects of the party vision it advances and should also be accompanied by explicit goals by which progress on that mission will be measured. I think the generation and approval of those mission statements lies at the heart of what the Party should and could do on an ongoing basis.
I think that if THAT became the culture of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, then I think the party would have a basis on which to evaluate and provide ongoing feedback to its leadership. I think that same culture provides a strong and stable framework for choosing to replace leadership when that leadership is ineffective.
Every successful organization I’ve been a part of for the past fifty years does this. What I’m describing is “Organizational Development 101”. The Massachusetts Democratic Party is no more able to ignore these basics than any other failing organization.
Do you still beat your wife?
?
He’s making a reference to the venerable example of a “gotcha” question.
I don’t understand the context of the comment either.
I figured that was the reference and like you fail to understand the context.
The Democratic State Committee Affirmative Action Outreach Subcommittee is sponsoring this event:
Chair Candidate Forum
Monday November 9th at 7:00 pm
Moderated by Leverett Wing and Representative Liz Miranda
bit.ly/MDChairForum
Read Bob Massie’s solid plans for moving the party forward:
https://mcusercontent.com/b75ea8e2943b1bf5a1f397b67/files/4da51613-a40f-4a21-b2da-deee4b12239b/Bob_Massie_Building_Our_Future_Together_November_2020.01.pdf
This thread has generated more activity than anything related to the actual election, and still no answer to my first set of questions.
How can Bob Massie beat Charlie Baker when he couldn’t even beat Jay Gonzalez, who lost to Baker by almost 30 points? Why should we change party chairs to appease a primary challenger who lost badly to an incumbent who got easily re-elected in the fall? Shouldn’t the goal of any party be to win elections and make sure it’s candidates win? So far I see a two time loser running to avenge another loser? How is any of that related to beating Baker?
Mr. Bickford was re-elected yesterday, so this discussion is moot.
I don’t see anybody who can beat Charlie Baker. I don’t see anybody who acts like they even want to beat Charlie Baker.
What I see is a lengthy discussion of which molecules will strike the upper surface of the teapot containing the few remaining registered Democrats in Massachusetts.
It’s clear enough that BMG has no stomach for or interest in the “actual election” — in part because it’s already been beat to death. A nearly universal behavior of groups under external stress or tension is to turn to passionate exchanges about the vagaries of the weather or the prospects of various sports teams, and I see something similar happening here at BMG at the moment.
At the national level, it appears to me that Donald Trump and his criminal conspirators are intentionally and explicitly breaking our nation into jagged pieces — our system of governance has shown no ability to prevent or impede the resulting destruction. As has been the case for the past four years, the primary beneficiary of this behavior is Vladimir Putin.
As a micro-example, Mr. Trump has been threatening to fire the Director of the CIA (Gina Haspel) because she refuses to reveal the sources of the Russia investigation. Virtually every professional who has seen that material says that its release will be VERY damaging to Donald Trump and his family — its publication could not possibly advance Mr. Trump’s political present or future.
What the publication of that material would do, however, is endanger the very lives of the Russian sources that provided the material. It would set back our intelligence capabilities in Russia for decades.
None of us knows how any of this will turn out. The GOP is, so far, behaving exactly as numerous sources including Paul Krugman and yours truly have been saying it would do for months.
Against that backdrop, it doesn’t surprise me that our exchanges here turn to passionate debates involving three men who are literally unknown to pretty much any Massachusetts residents or voters (ok, a few people have heard of Bob Massie).
My grown children used to love going to Bickford’s when they were toddlers in car seats. My most memorable takeaway from this whole debate has been that the creator of that chain has been the chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party since 2016. At least the pancakes were good at the long-gone Nashua NH location, on DW Highway.
Heh — I’ve been unable to find support from web sources connecting Gus Bickford to the “Bickford’s Pancake House” chain. Perhaps even that takeaway is suspect. 🙂