BHL (and others) snag NCC Democratic Party “Endorsement”
Via BHL’s FB:
Bethany Hall-Long
6 mins ·I am truly honored to have received the New Castle County Democratic Party Executive Committee Recommendation for Endorsement in my race for Lt. Governor. For years, I have stood firmly rooted in Democratic values and principles. As a long-term RD Vice Chair and Democratic committee member, I greatly admire the work and responsibilities our party leaders have. Although not easy, their work is incredibly important. As I continue my run for Lt. Governor, I look forward to working to ensure that all Delawareans have access to higher paying jobs, better healthcare, and an economy that works for everyone, regardless of means or age. Thank you to the NCC Democratic Party Executive Committee for believing in my vision for a stronger, healthier Delaware.
NCC (excluding Wilmington) endorsed the following candidates:
Tom Gordon (…Tom Gordon?)
Penrose Hollins
These guys were “Recommended for endorsement” (only the State committee can actually endorse statewide candidates):
Bryan Townsend
Bethany Hall-Long
Trinidad Navarro
Mr. Navarro has no relevant insurance knowledge or experience and has no idea on how to go about solving the insurance issues facing our state.
Mr. Navarro only knows that there are problems but he has no solutions. He would have you to elect him and then he will try to find out the solutions later.
This will lead to 4 more years of the same unresolved insurance problems and higher rates for all Delawareans.
Mr. Gallagher – If you were not a candidate, which of the two remaining candidates would you support?
More with the endorsements before any voter gets to a polling place. I still think that this is completely corrupt. Completely.
I get your point, but not sure I completely agree Cassandra. Remember, this is a party primary. I dont think its corrupt to allow the local committee people who actually volunteer for the party, attend events, and host activities to have the ability to recommend which candidates that party should endorse. The party doesn’t put any money behind the endorsement, so its essentially a simple vote of confidence from local committee people. Isn’t that the grassroots stuff people want?
@DK: I appreciate the endorsements, because if the party endorses them, I know they’ll be forelock-tugging automatons in the let’s-pretend-to-be-Democrats of Delaware, and I should direct my vote elsewhere.
You can’t endorse Tom Gordon and not be corrupt.
FWIW, the endorsement of Gordon in my RD was the thinnest margin of victory this cycle.
I am very much opposed the party endorsements. The point of a primary is to let voters decide which of the qualified candidates running they prefer. Why should a group of party activists, representative of no one except themselves, put their finger on the scale? Why do they think voters want their opinion? Why do they think the person a majority of them prefer should get special advantages?
It’s not just that they are recommending someone; a party endorsement can mean cutting other candidates off from party resources. Take the case of Don Peterson for example. Because the 14RD endorsed Pete, Don is not allowed to use Votebuilder and is not even allowed to speak at a committee meeting.
An endorsement really doesn’t do anything positive, but it does create hard feelings among Democrats. In the case of the 14RD it split the committee and half the people quit.
They endorsed Townsend too.
But that’s different I forgot.
Valentine,
They earned their endorsement votes by going to meetings and doing the drudgery party shit you don’t want to do.
If you don’t like the endorsed, don;t vote for them. If you don’t like the way the club is run, get to a meeting.
Why would the endorsement of Townsend be any different? And why are you assuming I am not involved in the party?
“Take the case of Don Peterson for example. Because the 14RD endorsed Pete, Don is not allowed to use Votebuilder and is not even allowed to speak at a committee meeting.”
That is some bullshit.
It sure is.
“FWIW, the endorsement of Gordon in my RD was the thinnest margin of victory this cycle.”
You can’t say he hasn’t learned. He got convicted the first time for trying to change his 5-2 majority into a 7-0 mandate. The lesson: Why pay for votes you don’t need?
Is there any better evidence of a divided party than a perceived need to endorse in the primary?
I the past I know that getting endorsed meant that you get free access to votebuilder. Not getting endorsed meant that you had to pay for it. I cannot say for sure what the deal is now.
An organization’s endorsement is way of telling people who are aligned with that organization who it endorses, as should be followed by a “why”. It makes no sense to me that it is ok for the Sierra Club, the NRA and the AFL-CIO, for example, to tell its members who they support, but not for a political party to do so. This does not stop other candidates to compete and, as we have seen, often still win.
As to the Insurance Commissioner recommendation to endorse, if by qualifications we mean experience in the field, we are left only with people who work for the industry or people who have worked as insurance regulators. Why is someone who has sold insurance more qualified than someone who is an insurance consumer? What is needed is someone consumer oriented, with integrity and the ability to bring in honest people with expertise to advise the commissioner. We had that with Matt Denn. We do not have that now. If I did not believe Trinidad Navarro possessed the intelligence and integrity and consumer orientation needed, not only would I not be supporting him, but I would be running myself.
As to the 14th, let me one more time correct the record. The 14th endorsed the incumbent 17-0 with one abstention. The abstention was the gentleman who a month later decided to run, as is his right. One committee person not present later resigned over the endorsement. Other resignations came a few months later because of conflicts of interest in non-partisan groups they were going to head up or for personal family health reasons. The Vote Builder is a data base that belongs to the party and is available for leasing to Democratic candidates until there is an endorsement or a loss in the primary. There are other databases available, including one from the Department of Elections.
I understand endorsements are controversial, but it is strange to me that people are asked to volunteer their time working for a political party, which includes building relationships with voters, but are castigated if they wish to advise those voters who they support.
I would not have voted the same way as the NCC Democratic Committee did- I disagree with most of their choices, but I totally respect the process they utilized as well as their decision and recommendations.
“It makes no sense to me that it is ok for the Sierra Club, the NRA and the AFL-CIO, for example, to tell its members who they support, but not for a political party to do so.”
An inability to see the difference is what makes you a hack.
The party used to simply pick the candidates. They hold primaries because, theoretically, they want the voters to decide. If you have to endorse in a primary, it’s because you don’t trust the voters to decide.
That makes “Democratic” an unintentionally ironic name for the party.
I’m with Cassandra. I hate these endorsements ahead of allowing the voters to do this. Hopefully this will be corrected with Rep. Holden’s bill to move state primaries to April.
If it were just a matter of an org advising members who they think is best — or who has put in the most hours doing party work — that is one thing. That is like the Sierra Club etc.
(However, most groups evaluate candidates on the issues the group represents. Party endorsements do not appear to be about who best represents Democratic values.)
The problem is that the endorsement can lead to disadvantaging a candidate — cutting off access to important tools or money or speaking opportunities.
Whether the 14RD endorsed almost unanimously or not is not relevant to what I am arguing.
Anonymous-better a hack with backbone than someone who throws mud while hiding who he or she is.
never mind.
Mud? You’re free at any time to prove you’re not a hack. Another sign of hackdom: Your inability to respond without knowing the identity of the person criticizing you. Your candidate must have learned that in his NCCoPD days. Either you’re stupid or you think I am.
This is about you, not my criticism of you. You come here as a Democratic Party regular, you’ll have to take your lumps from those of us who can identify a barnyard by its smell.
On to the issue(s) you don’t want to discuss:
“Why is someone who has sold insurance more qualified than someone who is an insurance consumer?”
In the first instance, the person must have shown some ability in the field to have earned a living in it. This is what we mean by “experience.” For example, a candidate who has held elective office previously is considered experienced in the political arena.
In the second instance, while it’s possible for a consumer to know as much as a professional in a given field, it’s far less likely. To understand the absurdity of your statement, substitute any other occupation, to wit:
Why is a lawyer more qualified to be a judge than a defendant? Why is an automotive engineer more qualified to run a car company than a person licensed to drive? Why is a hospital administrator more qualified to run a hospital than a patient? And so on.
“What is needed is someone consumer oriented, with integrity and the ability to bring in honest people with expertise to advise the commissioner. We had that with Matt Denn.”
Agreed. But in comparing Mr. Navarro to Mr. Denn, you are asking us to trust that during a long tenure as the public relations director for the county police, an administrative-office position in which he had to conceal as much as he revealed, and as county sheriff, he has somehow developed the attributes you mention. I’m not saying he didn’t bring them to the jobs he has performed, but I would say the onus is on the person averring these qualities to illustrate them by acts performed in office.
Votebuilder isn’t a public resource. It’s a system maintained and administered by the State Party, it’s not a right to have access to it.
@liberalgeek- Though I do not believe he’s qualified for the position I would support Sheriff Navarro. I would rather take the chance on someone without any relevant credentials after the last eight years of Commissioner Stewart.
That being said, I would put my forty years of experience working in the insurance industry and fighting for my customers up against Sheriff Navarro or Commissioner Stewart’s resume any day. That is why I have been successful in my business.
The next Insurance Commissioner is going to face a multitude of challenges that require esoteric knowledge and a decent amount of cooperation from the legislature and state government to solve. I ran against Commissioner Stewart in 2012 because I knew I could do better and I’m running against her again because I still know I can do better.
Mr. Crane knows my credentials and continues to downplay them. He did that in 2012 and he continues to do so today.
I would appreciate it if he showed a little more respect for someone he knows is actually qualified to be Insurance Commissioner . After all, he got the party endorsement in 2012 and that made little difference in the final results.
I am not saying people have a right to VB. I just believe that the Democrats should stand for a process that is open and allows new people to compete. It should not stand for cronyism and power-mongering. Democrats should respect the voting process that allows the registered Dems at large to choose the nominee. They should not put their hand on the scale and try to block people they don’t like or who are “outsiders.”
I have learned — much to my chagrin — that many Democrats do not share those values. They just want to shore up their own power. I reject that and will continue to argue for democratic process in the Democratic party.
but are castigated if they wish to advise those voters who they support.
This isn’t what happens. I advise people on who I support all of the time. My advice doesn’t come with access to Votebuilder, volunteers and other organizational support. This is about the party putting its thumb on the scale for someone, rather than just let candidates make their appeal to Party members who need to vote in a primary.
Endorsements are really nice pat on the back for the candidates. However the real work begins now for those candidates. These endorsements do not guarantee a candidate more money or sway the people within the community to vote for them. Unfortunately, the history has proven not all endorsed candidates win the primaries. This happened 8 years ago with John Carney (The endorsed candidate for Governor) losing to Jack Markell. Very clever Jack Markell converted many registered Republicans to switch their registration to Democrat. This is occurring within the races of Lt. Governor and especially in the City of Wilmington for the Mayor’s race. Purzycki & Ciro Poppiti leading the charge in their respectful races.
BTW: Ken Boulden: The Clerk of Peace did also received an endorsement too at NCC.
OK Mr. Gallagher, let’s put up or shut up: what’s your take on Highmark Delaware relative to health insurance in our State, and what should be done about it?
It’s one thing to tell us about fighting for clients, but what would you do to roll back the monopoly that KWS allowed to come into existence?
@Steve Newton, The Highmark monopoly is certainly an issue, but the underlying problem is health care prices. Christiana Care and Bayhealth have virtually no competition and can charge whatever they want for health care. Regulating price is an attractive temporary option, but I believe our best bet and a long-term solution is to increase competition in our health care market. While the office of Insurance Commissioner doesn’t have the power to entice a charity indigent care hospital into the State or partner with a University to run an educational hospital, I would work to encourage state government to do anything to increase competition, or at the very least control prices. Similarly, I would work to attract more competition for Highmark by working with the legislature and insurance companies to bring in other health insurance companies to compete with Highmark.
BTW, I had attempted to contact you regarding this to get your take on this issue a couple of months back. Call me if you have time to discuss this further.
This is silly. If I volunteer for my party, I cannot reccomend who should be our candidate until the voters choose first? That makes no sense, and really doesn’t sound democratic, nor does is allow voters, activists, or community people the opportunity to feel invested in their party. As a candidate, you should not only be fighting for the support of the registered democrats, but you should want the support of the people who actually do the work. To totally disregard those people, as many of you have, is disrespectful to the work that those people do. Everyone of these candidates reach out to those committee members to ask for them to door knock in 100 degree weather and make phone calls, however all of you think they should just shut up and wait until the voters decide. Most times the voters choose someone different, and these activists and worker bees fold right in line. However, to take away their opportunity to be vocal on behalf of their committees is not right. I think we should care more about them than some candidate whose feelings got hurt.
Its not like the endorsment provides anything to the candidate, other than bragging rights. There is also no rule on deldems.org that says that candidates can’t address the their committees after an endorsement of another candidate. That seems to just be a rule that some people in the 14th have enacted.
The fact that Mr. Gallagher would come on here just to blast his primary opponent seems just plain disrespectful and uncalled for. Matt Denn said himself when he ran for the office he had no previous experience, so he surrounded himself with people who did.
Is it just Mitch Crane who says non-endorsed candidates are not allowed to speak to RD committees?
furthermore… The votebuilder system that everyone complains gets taken away from challengers, is only valuable because of the data that is uploaded year after year by party volunteers and committee people. To say that they should not have a say in who uses that data after they’ve made hours of phone calls and knocked doors… is also not right. If a candidate doesn’t have the support of the workers, they should not benifit from the fruits of their labor.
On the issue of Highmark BCBSD, Mr. Gallagher is correct that it would help if the DOI worked to bring additional health insurance companies into Delaware. We have actually lost many companies in the health insurance market in the last 7 years. While additional competition helps, new companies would have a difficult time underpricing Highmark because of the unfair advantage given to Highmark.
With the exception of Highmark, all insurance companies are For Profit. That means they pay the IRS and the State of Delaware taxes on the profit made. Highmark Delaware is “Not for Profit”-it pays no income tax to anyone. In addition, the vast bulk of the millions of dollars brought in by the Dept of Insurance is from Premium Taxes. Companies pay taxes on the premiums sold. That rate starts at 2% for the first $10 million dollars in premiums and then is reduced as the premium amount increases. Highmark Delaware PAYS NO PREMIUMS TAXES! The combination of the unfair advantage Highmark has in not paying income taxes and its savings of millions of dollars in premium taxes it does not pay, makes it nearly impossible for a for-profit company to compete with it. The lost tax income also denies Delawareans many services that could be paid for with that money.
The Blues were blessed with not-for- profit status throughout America as a way to have quality, affordable health insurance and to set a standard that for-profits had to deal with. The allowance of the establishment of monopolies under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield banner has defeated that original purpose.
No-the Highmark deal cannot be easily undone, but I do believe Highmark Delaware should be stripped of its non-profit status, be then made to may income and premium taxes and then we can attract new companies to Delaware.
Maybe Valentine,
As far as I know, you only need to be a registered democrat in that district to participate in a meeting. Also, there should always be an opportunity for comment in which a person should be allowed to say whatever he or she wants, whether they are running for office or not.
Why don’t you take all this crap to a Democratic Party blog somewhere?
If the party was small-d democratic, it would let the voters decide. It does so only after “putting its thumb on the scales,” as Cassandra wrote, illustrating that it is not small-d democratic at all.
All the rest is people making arguments that help their own position, and I suspect they would argue the opposite if the opposite helped their own position. Take it outside.
To Paul Gallagher: Karen Weldin Stewart gave you a job in the IC’s office after the 2012 campaign, in which you helped to divide up the anti-KWS vote.
You’re still there, which you likely wouldn’t be if KWS didn’t want you there.
Why should anyone believe that you’re not playing the same game this year?
Me? I call complete and total bullshit on you and your campaign.
El Som- Paul Gallagher does not work for the Insurance Commissioner and has not. His close friend, Paul Reynolds, is Karen’s Chief of Staff. Mr. Gallagher is, I am told, godfather to Mr. Reynold’s children.
Whether or not he asked for one or was offered one is a matter of conjecture. He had a legal right to ask for a job to get out or stay in, offering him a job to get out or stay in, however, is illegal.
@El Som, I do not and never have worked for the Insurance Department. I think you should at least do the bare minimum of research before you throw accusations of that kind of weight around. While Paul Reynolds is a close friend, it would be beyond absurd to put the amount of work a statewide campaign takes so that theoretically my friend’s boss could keep her job, a job I don’t even believe she deserves to keep (this is my second time running against her after all). I don’t need a job in the Insurance Department, I’m running because I believe I’m the best candidate.
Well, that’s a terrible mistake on my part and contrary to information that I had relied upon. My sincere apologies.
That’s interesting, because when Mr. Gallagher had a very loud and very public exchange with KWS at a recent candidates GOTV/victory party, I do believe the phrase “you owe me,” and “you didn’t offer me a job, or even a thank you…that’s why I’m running against you,” were heard by all of us in the general area. Maybe my hearing was off, but it sure seemed pretty loud and clear.
I wouldn’t apologize so quickly, El Som.
This is what Mr. Gallagher says he’ll do on the Highmark issue:
“By the end of my first month as Insurance Commissioner, I will have reached out to the legislature to form a legislative committee to investigate big solutions for a big problem.” More at http://www.paulfordelaware.com/new-page/
This is such a pressing and important issue that he’s going to take a month to send a letter to ask the GA to set up a task force to take months to study an issue?
Now that’s decisive action and leadership. Vote Gallagher!
A Task Force to investigate solutions means that he has no ideas on how to fix this problem. You’d still need some larger study I imagine at least as a consensus building exercise, but if you are asking people to hire you to fix some problems you should be able to discuss some directions for solutions.
It’s threads like this one that convince me that Insurance Commissioner should be an appointive, not an elective, office.
I was thinking the same thing. Knowing that this stuff is going to allow KWS skate through again with 30% is sickening.
As I see it, the endorsement process has the same flaws (and benefits) that any election does. People have to show up.
In my RD, we were contacted by about a dozen candidates before our endorsement meeting, asking for a chance to speak. We also ran a candidate forum for our representative race. So, of potential Congressional Candidates, we saw none. Of potential Insurance Commissioners, 2 of 3. Of potential lt gov candidates, 4 of however many there are. No peep from the candidate for state senate that includes most of the district. And so on.
If we felt we had a candidate to endorse, we endorsed (or recommended endorsement, if that was the case.) If we didn’t, we didn’t endorse in that race.
But here’s where it gets tricky. In the NCC endorsement process, all the races had a finding. So, if half the committees in a certain race didn’t endorse, they only counted the votes of the other half. In some races, there would be 20 votes, in others ten. So, failing to endorse didn’t mean (as many probably assumed) “let it go to primary.” It meant “you folks decide.” In effect, we didn’t show up.
This is something we will know, next time. But everyone should know, it pays to show up.
@dem19703:
Gallagher being on the official payroll would be, oh I don’t know….let’s call it untoward.
“Why don’t you take all this crap to a Democratic Party blog somewhere?”
WTF, anonymous? This thread is a thread about an internal process of one piece of the Delaware Democratic Party. Discussions about the process are perfectly on-topic here. If you don’t have any interest in it, you can scroll on by.
Brooke is right about how that went from a voting process standpoint, but certainly it was an option of everyone voting that they could have simply voted no for all candidates. In all cases, I think the vote would have carried anyway.
@LG: You people are stuck in amber until you realize that gumming you up with process is how political parties maintain control over the actual voters.
Until YOU learn to scroll on by, you’re helping them.
That is on topic, but telling people that you don’t want to read the gory details is not.
But everyone should know, it pays to show up.
Yes. But for a primary, the showing up that the party ought to be enabling is that for the primary. Picking someone before the rest of the party gets to vote defeats the purpose of a party primary.
My own criticism is not that someone got endorsed that I wouldn’t choose, it is that the party is doing any choosing before anyone else gets a vote. It’s worse than Superdelegates, really.
“My own criticism is not that someone got endorsed that I wouldn’t choose, it is that the party is doing any choosing before anyone else gets a vote.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you were arguing anything but good government. But there are a lot of Democratic Party apparatchiks who show up for these discussions, and they might give people the wrong impression about the connections between this blog and the party itself.
Party regulars come here because you have an audience that they can’t earn themselves.
I always entertain myself and laugh at my jokes
@LG: Notice that your own advice would apply — if you don’t like the complaint, scroll on by. It’s called irony.
I entertain myself, too. 😉
I wonder if it would be considered less of an issue or challenge to the primary vote if it was a straw poll.
Let me also dispel another thing in this thread. Candidates are welcome at RD meeting at pretty much any time. There is no ban of non-endorsed candidates that I have ever heard of anywhere.
Fun fact: John Carney wasn’t recommended for endorsement because he still hasn’t filed.
If a straw poll didn’t come with a party-assist (Votebuilder, volunteers, the ability to claim a party endorsement), then I wouldn’t mind this so much, but then what would be the point?
There are no volunteers that come with an endorsement.
We have already established that claiming the party endorsement is a dubious distinction.
I’m still not clear on what the impact on VoteBuilder access is. Not sure whether it means no access or pay-for-access.
Other than that, the endorsement means about as much as the DelawareLiberal endorsements, except that the Democratic Party endorsements are made by people that actually donate a couple of evenings per month to vetting the candidates in person.
So what’s the point? To let the people who are vetting at the RD location get their say in before voters? If it is dubious, then why continue doing it?
It’s not dubious to the people vetting. It’s apparently not dubious to the candidates that are advertising their minor victories. But it is dubious in its influence on the general.
So if it has no impact in the general, is anyone actually putting a thumb on the scale?
Exclusive access to votebuilder is putting your thumb on the scale. Or making it free to one and making the rest pay (through the nose).
And I get it isn’t dubious to the people advertising their minor victory. But I still don’t get why the party — before anyone votes in a primary — gets to choose who has priority access to stuff like votebuilder.
And I *am* just talking about endorsements before the primary. Once you get to the general, you actually have the endorsement of the party, because the party’s voters have spoken.
And of course, once the primary voting is done, they can endorse KWS as the winner of the primary. Because that’s the sort of thing that happens when the only measurement of whether a candidate has legs is on primary day.
The fact that not all incumbents win endorsements flies in the face of this being some insidery bullshit. These people spent their time and energy listening, questioning and even debating the candidates. They state their preference, the preference gets announced and suddenly these people are some sort of monolith hellbent on subverting the will of the people.
Yes, except I am not saying this is insidery or whatever other bullshit you are trying to lay this off on, I do not get the point of having a primary when the RDs are working on stating their own preference before that primary. The D party really should have bigger priorities here . Official party apparatus endorsing before anyone in their party votes is a waste of energy that could be spent in building exercises that might make stuff like coordinated campaigns actually work well.
I don’t much care that these people spent their time listening, questioning and debating candidates. They aren’t the only Democrats doing that, but they are the only people announcing an official party endorsement. Without the rest of their party finishing a primary.
No, PDD will endorse people. The Sierra Club will endorse. Lots of organizations will endorse. Those endorsements will mean that the person possesses the values that their members or political boards find in line with theirs. In some cases, it will come with benefits (mailing list access, fundraising, a voters guide, etc.).
These are no different, except that this happens to be a cross-section of the actual people that will be voting in September for these candidates. As someone stated above, the value in votebuilder is the data that has been entered by volunteers through the years. Those volunteers are part of this group that votes on which candidates best represent their values and interests.
If you or anonymous don’t find anything particularly useful in that, so be it. Some RDs choose not to participate. For some RDs, it’s the culmination of a 6 month long process. Personally, I don’t like to see that work shit on because you think they should keep their mouths shut until the rest of the state gets to have a say.
PDDs, Sierra Club, etc are not the Democratic Party deciding a primary for a General Election candidate. Do you really think I don’t get the difference? And none of these come with access to Votebuilder — a party tool.
Those endorsements will mean that the person possesses the values that their members or political boards find in line with theirs.
And? Are they making sure that these candidates are closely aligned with a Party platform? I doubt it, because how does Tom Gordon and values get mentioned in the same breath?
Those volunteers are part of this group that votes on which candidates best represent their values and interests.
And there are volunteers who have been working on that data who are not part of this endorsement process. Why are they left out then? And again, why are their values and interests more important than those who are just as committed (if not more) but aren’t part of this group? The people who helped with Votebuilder data, the people who write checks, who host meet and greets, who phone bank, who do all of the grunt work and yet are not a part of the group who gets to decide if a candidate reflects their values and interests. A decision on who reflects your values and interests is what every Democratic primary voter does — I still haven’t heard why an endorsement committee’s are so much more important to be able to unlock the keys to at least Votebuilder.
*they should keep their mouths shut until their entire Party gets to have a say.*
Fixed that for you.
I’m the endorsed candidate in Utah!
cassandra,
( But I still don’t get why the party — before anyone votes in a primary — gets to choose who has priority access to stuff like votebuilder.
And I *am* just talking about endorsements before the primary. Once you get to the general, you actually have the endorsement of the party, because the party’s voters have spoken.)
You are 100% right. In the 25th I and others (regardless of our personal feelings towards individuals) tried to muster a vote of no endorsement in contested primary races. We failed so we nominated multiple candidates effectively neutralizing all of them. Unfortunately the needs of the dem. party elite to anoint a successorship to all offices allows those in leadership at the upper party level to play the results. Our RD’s neutral position apparently is disregarded in the calculation and a majority of the RD’s who choose to endorse is the success measurement.
Representative John Kowalko
I’m not arguing they shouldn’t do it. They can do whatever they want. I’m pointing out what making endorsements implies, no matter who benefits from it.
IIRC, the party not so long ago did not endorse primary candidates. If that’s the case, what was wrong with the former system? Why did the party change policy if nothing was wrong with the old way?
So screw it. Let the local members of the party quit these “elite” volunteer positions, which only require an email or a vist to Party Headquarters to aquire, and wait for John Kowalko, and these super special democratic voters to go raise money and volunteer for these candidates.
To expect a party volunteer to work for a candidate just because the voters like them, is just as bad as expecting the voters to accept my endorsement just because of who I like. If I am putting in the work, I want a say… and I want it early. Nobody has to listen, but to say my committee can’t endorse after two or four years of work isnt fair.
If the voters pick the other person, I typically fall in line as I did in 2008 when my candidate lost the primary for Governor. But if Im told that my opinion doesnt matter, then fine, do this work yourself John Kowalko. Have you ever uploaded 3 months worth of canvass data into votebuilder for free on a saturday for a district that you don’t even live in, for some house candidate who couldn’t pick you out of a lineup? I doubt it. Those people exist, and even though you and Cassandra may not see them in the newspaper, they matter.
I should get to choose which candidate in my district has access to the data the party collects. It is not their right to have it. The only thing they have a right to is voterfile data, not votebuilder data which party volunteers have compiled.
A simple solution would be for a candidate to buy their own software, get their own volunteers, and use their own data. But the dirty secret is, other than the delegation, brian townsend, and Eugene Young…. most candidates dont have their own volunteers. If labor doesn’t show up, its them and their spouse. Hopefully, they have a lot of children. And if they do have volunteers, they are all over the age of 85 and cant knock doors.
I say the committee people should just quit. Let the voters decide……. volunteer……. raise money….. do the work….. etc.
I also think Superdelegates make sense. Because these are the people who actually have to hold the nominee’s water and spin their bullshit. They also help them campaign in their state. In some situations they even have to turn over their staffs to help the nominee. These are the people who actually raise money for the party… not just themselves. They are more connected to the presidential nominee than anyone. Governors, members of congress,… they can lose seats to republicans just because of how bad the party’s nominee is…. see the Republicans now. I bet they wish they had superdelegates who didnt have to accept Trump just because 1/3 of their voters chose him. Now these politicians have to support a racist at the convention, just because thats how their state voted?
This is a republic not a democracy. You elect your officials to make all types on important decisions on your behalf in congress, but they can’t support whom they want for the head of the party? Just seems overly populous, just for the sake of sounding like a cusader for the people.
Endorsed candidates do not receive free access to votebuilder.
Those people exist, and even though you and Cassandra may not see them in the newspaper, they matter.
I *am* one of those people. And I do not do it to earn any entitlements, either.
“Let me also dispel another thing in this thread. Candidates are welcome at RD meeting at pretty much any time. There is no ban of non-endorsed candidates that I have ever heard of anywhere.”
Candidates may be able to attend a meeting any time. My point is that non-endorsed candidates are not allowed to speak, as in give their campaign talks, at RD meetings. At least that is what happened in the 14RD. After Pete was endorsed, Don asked if he could come speak to the committee about his campaign, and he was told absolutely not.
If I remember it correctly, endorsed candidates had to pay for Votebuilder and others did not have access at all. Given the numbers of non endorsed candidates who win, it doesn’t seem to matter much.
We were told that we, as a committee, when we had a primary in our RD, could vote to endorse (with full benefits) not to endorse (in which case all candidates would still have access to vote builder) or to endorse BUT leave all candidates access to vote builder…in effect to keep the “prestige”, whatever it might be, of an endorsement, but leave a level playing field for the primary.
However, no such fancy option existed in the NCC meeting.
Here’s what may have happened, there.
Candidate Bob runs against Candidate Ray, for a county-wide office. There are 20 committees in their district, plus 5 officials with a vote (not true numbers, just for easy math).
Before the “election for endorsement” the tally stands at 7 committees endorsed Bob, 7 committes endorsed Ray, 3 committees didn’t realize today was the day they needed their endorsement in, 3 committes endorsed, but didn’t send a rep.
Someone makes and seconds a motion: I vote we endorse Ray.
Roll call. Yes, no, absent, no, no, absent, yes, yes, absent, yes, no, absent, no, yes, yes, no, absent, absent, no, yes. The executive committee, all five of them, make the decision…unless they abstain.
Now, the three committees who endorsed, but no rep, didn’t get counted. The three committees who got the date wrong didn’t get counted. The people who voted in a room with three people each got 1/3 of a vote, while the people who voted in a room with 20 people each got 1/20th. The people who voted for Bob in the committee meetings didn’t get counted…so, just like any election, where you vote counts as well as what you vote.
But the next vote is Candidate Mutt, and Candidate Jeff. This was a tough one. In addition to the “date wrong” committees, and the “no rep” committees, 8 of the remaining committees voted not to endorse.
So, made and seconded: I vote to endorse Jeff.
Roll call.yes, no, abstain, absent, abstain, abstain, absent, no, yes, yes, absent, abstain absent, absent, absent, abstain, abstain,abstain, yes, abstain
Unless the officers vote to overturn it, jeff is endorsed…by winning 4 committees who show up.
I would support a rule change that statewide offices, for example, would have to win at least a majority of the committees to be endorsed. But no one has asked me,
Jason330: “If you don’t like the way the club is run, get to a meeting.”
DK: “As far as I know, you only need to be a registered democrat in that district to participate in a meeting.”
It’s not that simple. Just forget about the candidates for a minute. There are many RD committees that encourage democratic voter participation at meetings and welcome new faces.
Unfortunately, several others create hurdles that make it very difficult to volunteer or join. You have to be a party insider, or know one, to even get a seat at the table (but make sure you know the right insider). Then, don’t think a seat comes with a say. It doesn’t. District committees approve membership by a majority vote. A Democrat has to effectively campaign for membership. And, that’s only if the officers even allow a vote to take place.
So, the truth is: RD endorsements are decided by a very small group of party insiders who are allowed to have a vote. They are not decided by all those activists, volunteers and voters you mentioned. We don’t get a say until the primary.