Delaware Democratic Party: Is Anybody Home?
Coming up on my first year in Delaware, I’ve periodically visited the DelDems website and Facebook page. I’ve been looking for signs of life. I’ve called the Executive Director, who now appears to be gone, trying to get an appointment to learn what his going on, and come up with what we called in Texas, a dry hole. I’ve made fairly desperate attempts to contact Ward leadership to learn of meeting schedules and contacts. Nothing. Nada.
So, can anybody tell me what is going on, Democratic Party-wise? After working in Texas to breath life into our State Party there since about 2000, with local success in helping turn Houston Blue and but so much Blue statewide, you can only imagine how thrilled I was to move into a really Blue state here. I anticipated finding a vibrant, organizing and progressive and populist messaging Delaware Party. What I’ve found is pretty much nothing. And I’m wondering how Delaware turned Blue under these circumstances? Is there some genetic or innate Blueness I’ve just not figured out yet?
What appears to be happening is a tail wagging the dog; candidates and Dem officeholders driving the process, rather than a Party leading them, helping them, funding them, scolding stray dogs and speaking for the people telling leaders what we want and need from them. Now in Texas, what the tail wagging paradigm led to were elected leaders leading us into Republican Lite land, marching us off into oblivion and minority political status. Standing for nothing. No Party discipline, no Party organizing and money leaving Texas for far off places in search of better leadership for someone else, but not us.
I’m wondering if that is Delaware’s fate down the road? Is a dead DelDems web site and Facebook page conveying an underlying rot of apathy and absence of passion to improve our lot in life?
Tags: Featured
Yeah, we get it. You’re from Texas and you’re smarter than everyone else. Please shut up now before you embarrass yourself even more.
It might be your stunning personality that’s turning people off. Or your ignorance about Delaware – for starters, we don’t have wards here.
The executive director did leave in December for a job in Pa. Typically, people don’t spend a lot of time in that job – he lasted longer than most. I imagine they are soon to hire someone new who will do the nuts & bolts work going into this election. If you hadn’t noticed, we hold all but one statewide job and both houses of the GA, so there’s not really much to do.
Maybe also the problem is with your expectations and assumptions about what our politics were like. Is Delaware to blame because you don’t have a clue what you’re babbling about?
Great questions. I’ve asked them myself on occasion. When I first moved here ages ago, one of the first things I did was to call the DelDems office to see what I could volunteer to do. Never heard back, so I called again. Still haven’t heard back. My guess is that they don’t need to be interested in much outside of themselves.
From my perspective, the DE Democratic Party basically takes its ‘Blueness’ for granted. And we all know what happens when one ‘whistles by the graveyard.’
The DE GA used to be dominated by Rs for many decades. DE is also an odd outlier in that it was one of only 2 or 3 states that actually gained seats in their respective legislatures (Maryland and DE – I forget which ‘other’ state added Ds) during the 2010 mid-terms.
A lot of statewide Ds are actually an embarrassment; however, many don’t see this because they have gotten so used to the status quo. Moreover, these same folks don’t see any bench strength coming from the Rs (it’s almost impossible to field a ‘strong’ “R” candidate these days). So the Delaware Way is gaining more traction each day (one party rule is not the ideal way in which to govern).
That said, the pendulum will always swing the ‘other’ way over time — especially when idiots like Chip Flowers among others stay in power.
Btw, it looks like S.W. is a big fan of yours…LOL! See what I said about one party rule? The arrogance and snark runs deep.
I’ve had similar concerns with complacency. I fully expect with Erik R-S taking over as at least the temporary Director, we will see a change. Now, if only John Daniello would retire.
I thought the “Delaware Way” was the display of civility (burying the hatchet and all that after elections) and a general bipartisanship towards problem solving. The way it seems to be used here is as a if the Delaware Way was somewhat of a good ol’ boy network or cronyism or something similar. Can someone enlighten me as whether my definition is wrong or has the term been transformed over time to mean something else? Thanks.
The term, as I’ve understood it for years, refers to your “Latter” depiction above.
I think that the term can mean either of your definitions, Dave, and you’d have to hear it in context to know which one the speaker means.
There are, in fact, wards in the City of Wilmington. It seems odd to me, but they seem to have hung on to that odd term (and it is not synonymous with RDs).
That said, there are likely meetings held monthly by your ward or RD committee (maybe both). If you are a registered Democrat you should be welcome there. You will get some exposure to candidates, elected officials, etc. There are also monthly meetings of regional Dems (NCC, Kent, Sussex and City of Wilmington). I am not sure what requirements there are for attending those executive committee meetings.
This should give you a good start.
http://www.deldems.org/about/local-party
Thanks, Liberalgeek. Especially for correcting SussexWatch on the “Ward” vernacular. I was quite sure that was the term because several fellow city dwellers have made me aware of that; likely a vestige from the early days of city government as is the case in so many cities. I have been a regular recipient of my 2nd House District member, Stephanie Bolden’s newsletter and there have been no announcements of Dem. meetings in her District; nor on the party web site. My Ward, with party organization led by Councilperson Shabazz, sends out a newsletter at least every couple of weeks; again, that and contact with her staff indicate no party meetings, though the party rules require such meetings quarterly. I was able to attend a citywide Dem. election meeting prior to the state convention. Party rules, happily, require all such meetings to be open to Democrats. Your advice is both appreciated and helpful. As is also your positive approach.
Texas is a conservative state. This is why the Dem candidate for governor has forgotten about late-term abortions and is now a vociferous proponent of open carry sidearms.
I fail to see your point. Other than in Sussex, the Democrats dominate the political landscape. What ‘progressive’ agenda would you introduce that would assure future political hegemony without jeopardizing the current hegemony?
Crossing the line can often lead to diminishing returns; a radical agenda may appease the left but lose the center. Proposing an aggressive-progressive agenda might well be the only way the Dems could lose power.
PP. thanks for you insight. Sometimes we don’t like it, but It is always good to have an outside opinion. Hopefully there are things which can be changed to make us better. As for the difference in perspective, you came from Texas. As a Democrat, you have a war going on there. If someone calls up, there is always a desperate something needing to be done. We here are content with keeping the peace. We are not challenged by anyone. Calling up when nothing needs done, would give anyone in your position, the reaction you seem to have experienced.
The only place where the Ds are not complacent is Sussex, because being a D in Sussex is like being a truffle in the forest, the pigs are always rooting with their noses in any dirt they think they can find to dig you up and destroy you.
That said, Cass is correct, the Delaware Way is used to describe BOTH the civility of our politics as well as the back- door cronyism that is sometimes displayed.
I may be strongly castigated for this, but when one party has a strong hold in any state or area, they tend to become tone deaf…….especially at the top.
There is nothing like a hungry or sacred politician, they tend to listen AND pay attention because they are highly motivated to get a seat or keep the one they have….
Complacency and arrogance is usually their downfall…..right Tiny Tony?
Erick R-S has a little more life, caring, and reality in him than his predecessor – who had a tendency to look right over your head when you were speaking to him…..and it wasn’t a height issue either.
Liberalgeek, thanks for posting: http://www.deldems.org/about/local-party and you are correct!
ALL meetings held under the Delaware Democratic Party umbrella (Rep District, Subdivision, State Exec etc) are opened to any registered Democrat. The party calendar is updated with any information submitted, so even though it’s not perfect, it’s the best place to find out what’s happening.
We also encourage anyone who’s new to the Delaware Democratic Party to start at the most local level, where you can get involved the quickest by attending the local meeting and finding out what’s happening.
Erik Raser-Schramm PP looks to live in the city.
Hmmm……….maybe one or two of the city “wards” meets on any sort of regular basis. But, you are correct he should start local.
PP, I suggest you contact the President of City Council, Theopolis Gregory he is the Chair of the City Committee. I would also call your “ward” chair. Your ward corresponds to your city council district. They are listed on the deldems web site.
Also, Cassandra_M is correct. “The Delaware Way” can be good or bad, depends on your circumstance.
@Progressive_Populist I suppose since you state that you have tried to contact your ward chair, with no success, that you noticed the curious makeup of the City Committee. 5 of 8 ward chairs are the elected official representing that ward.
AGovernor: Have done much of the above; ie: contacted my “new” ward chair as i said in my blog…..months ago, H. Shabazz, councilperson who apparently replaced a resigned ward chair; now on her regular city council newsletter list and talked to her staffer who assured me I’d be notified of a party meeting…….oh, maybe 8 or 9 months ago. Nothing but city newsletter so far, though there are supposed to be quarterly meetings. Of course, regularly checking party web site and facebook page as well. Thanks for your suggestions. I don’t give up easily, but……looks pretty moribund to me. My greatest concern is preserving the progressive policy I really like statewide and not yielding to the crazies on the other side which is what happened in Texas in my political life down there. Tory Dems, appeasers (in the name of bi-partisanship and getting along !) and lites allowed the Republican takeover and now progressives are having to ferociously fight the teabaggers therein who’ve taken over and chased off the reasonable though still largely racist Texas Republicans.
The wards are “supposed” to have meetings, but in reality only one or two do. Why should they, the heads are elected officials what could there possibly be to discuss? They are all doing a great job for their constituents why break what ain’t broke?
LOL
Wards by City rule are to meet at least four times a year. Eric S- a good as he is in many ways- looks to be living the good life at a farm in lower New Castle County. He is the Vice Chair of County Democrats. The City Committee Executive meetings last year and previous years were open and were on the calendar of events – deldems website – There is a search committee to replace the Executive director for the Party
– who has left for another job in Pennsylvania- and have or are accepting resumes- Hope it helps- LOL
There may indeed be some complacency within the DelDems halls but I would posit that there is more concern for our volunteers and not burning people out during off-election years. Meeting for the sake of meeting and busy work is soon recognized as wasting time, and time is — as you know too well — one of our most precious resources. The organization performed well in 2012 and will start gearing up again in the next couple of months to take on 2014. In the meantime, folks are taking a breather. Headquarters staff is at a minimum to conserve money for when it is needed. There is a deliberate strategy here. It isn’t random, or lack of commitment. Although, I admit it might appear that way. Many of our volunteers are working on local races for our candidates. You might want to take this approach. Eventually these campaigns will gather under the Coordinated Campaign umbrella that drives the DelDems during election years. Again, there is a strategy.
Organizing in the off year is not busy work. People who are involved in politics for the love of it don’t have an aversion to diving deep. What we don’t like is to be dismissed after an election and then “revived” 16 months later. PP, you might consider taking a personal visit with a candidate — not necessarily an incumbent, in fact probably not due to the complacency factor — who you would like to work with, not necessarily in your district (or even your city) and start from there. You’ll probably be welcomed. My short time in Delaware has shown me that challengers are the harder workers than the incumbents, and also the less well funded and less well-heeled with experienced staff, friends who understand the process, and of course money. You bring the first and can help a candidate reach out to the second and the third of these. Laziness is the bane of the electeds. Go to the newbies.
Auntie Dem –
This may be *a* strategy, but it’s short sighted at best and there are far better ones out there. Right now, we work very hard for a few months every two years to elect Democrats but once they’re in office, whatever. There’s no cultivating of a volunteer base or strong Party identity, there’s no support for Democratic issues, there’s no building toward the future of any kind. The DNC abandoned that strategy a decade ago.
There’s lots to do in the off years. There’s two whole years of legislation to organize around. What’s the point of writing a platform if we don’t organize in order to support that agenda in the legislature? Why do we wonder that our elected officials end up being centrists at best and progressive reforms have significant Democratic defections? It’s been six years since the DDP added “non-partisan redistricting” to the platform, and the only word we’ve heard was the Democratic Speaker of the House openly opposing it. There’s no discernible relationship between the platform and any tangible actions from the party.
The last I heard, the 2012 platform committee had tabled discussion with no plans to resume. Which I guess is just as well, because if we aren’t going to grow our volunteer infrastructure and stay engaged to support our platform, then why have a platform at all.
We should move past the boom-bust cycle of political institutions and into the post-Dean era. The Party should be a leader on issues, not just used as a tool for incumbents to fray their expenses. The Party should cultivate candidates, not wait for them to pop up on their own. There are a lot of things that the DDP could do to further Democratic principles in the state. But as with most things, the status quo is profitable for some so we all lose out.
Some good comments here from PP, New In Town and PainesMe. It appears there is a group out here tired of the status quo and ready to work.
Are you listening DE Democratic Party? There are people out here who want to work! Who want to help develop candidates, develop a platform and do the work necessary to see that advances are made on the stated goals.
Party leadership, I suggest you take them up on their offer.
THIS:
And I would add that the party might also want to emulate the State and put Wilmington on something of s short leash until they are rowing in the same direction competently.
Delaware’s always been more candidate-driven than party-driven. While a local committee may not have much going on, each elected official (ok, the better elected officials) certainly has ways to get involved.
What does “the party should be a leader on issues” mean? What would that look like?
Putting Wilmington on a short leash? – you know better than that Cassandra – LOL-
perhaps having State political leadership viewing and empowering all the subdivisions and not being subservient to office holders- – do we put Mitch and Sussex Democrats for example on a short leash when Sussex leadership agrees to disagrees – that is democracy – and are as Will Rogers stated – I’m not a member of any party – I’m a Democrat-or something like that
I’m not talking about agreement, I’m talking about basic functionality for the City apparatus. And by functionality I mean actually doing the organizing work of a party and not just being the way station for a fair bit of self-dealing.
@Camptown Lady-
Texas is a conservative state. This is why the Dem candidate for governor has forgotten about late-term abortions and is now a vociferous proponent of open carry sidearms.
You realize that open carry is legal nearly everywhere in Delaware, right?
Texans do a great job of making themselves look like rednecks. You don’t need to pile on w/ uninformed bullshit.
Nuttingham –
I want there to be some sort of meaning behind the platform that we promote. Make endorsements based on it, provide political cover for Democratic legislators to enact some of it, and push them behind closed doors to actually write those bills. In a state where Democrats control the entire federal delegation, 4/5 statewide offices, both branches of the legislature, and a majority in 2/3 county governments there’s no reason that our minimum wage hike has to be a third of what Obama did unilaterally, and almost half of what the national labor conversation is about. There’s no reason why we can’t follow through on non-partisan redistricting. There’s no reason why we couldn’t have added sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination law in 2009. Or why we can’t have early voting. Or single-payer healthcare. Except that legislators constantly overestimate how conservative their districts are (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/broockman_skovron_asymmetric_misperceptions.pdf). Well, that and Pete Schwartzkopf likes being in control of redistricting.
In back to back sessions, the legislature failed to pass a sexual orientation non-discrimination clause, then passed civil unions while adamently assuring opponents that this was not a stepping stone to marriage, and then passed marriage equality. Mark Purpura is even on record as saying “Marriage will remain available only to opposite sex couples” in 2011. How did this happen? Because Equality Delaware was able to create a political environment that pushed and gave cover for legislators to do it.
If we want our platform to be anything more than words, we have to actually do something in the off years. That’s what it means to be a leader on issues.
Nuttingham, Painesme has well answered your question of what a functioning party would look like. Parties are a further expression of our democracy, empowering citizens, much as unions once did, to participate in shaping policy and picking leaders to implement them. This is why I used the allusion of “tail wagging the dog” in the beginning of this discussion. The dog here is an engaged party that advocates, educates, promulgates a point of view on governing and holds its leaders (party and elected) to results through party discussion and primaries. This does not undermine the “Delaware Way” which I find really civil behavior with the opposition and welcome, but gives citizens an opportunity at leverage they individually don’t have (unless rich !).
CityDem –
Wilmington City is not the huge concentration of voters that it used to be, certainly not worth the thousands of dollars that flood the streets every election day with minimal accountability and no discernable effect. It’s the smallest subdivision by far, and yet gets an equal voice. I wouldn’t be opposed to a little party restructuring.
Perhaps PainesMe mispeaks, but sexual orientation WAS added to Delaware’s non-discrimination law in 2009. What was not added was Gender Identity. Gender Identity was unfortunately not added until 2013.
The statements that were made that a civil union law would not lead to marriage were not made because of political manuevering, but because of the then-reality that a state specific civil union law would give the same benefits to Delaware same-sex couples as a Delaware marriage law would give The expectation was that there would be nothing to be gained by pushing for a marriage law in Delaware until there were changes in federal law. No one expected that the Defense of Marriage Act would be overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2013. When US Court of Appeals decisions made it obvious the Court would take up that law, and that it was possible, if not likely, that the law would be overturned, leaders of Equality Delaware and its allies then moved to introduce a marriage equality bill-as it was necessary to have that law enacted in time for the Supreme Court decision so that Delaware couples could avail themselves of the rights given to married couples under federal law-those rights would not extend to those engage in civil unions. As a matter of fact, the legislative priority for 2013 was the adding of gender identity to the non-discrimination law. Marriage was added only with the reality of the coming court decision
I state all this with first hand knowledge. I was president of the Barbara Gittings Delaware Stonewall Democrats when the anti-discrimination and cicil union laws were passed and I have been a board member of Equality Delaware since its inception. As a member of the Delaware Democratic Party State Executive Committee during all that time, I know that the Party leadership worked hard to enact all these laws.
Mitch – thanks for the correction! Misspoke on the 2009 bill.
I’m sure that Party leadership did work very hard to enact these laws… they just did it without engaging the rest of the party, which is my issue. How many house parties did they organize around civil unions? How many mailers did they send out? How many phone calls were placed by the Party? If it was a priority for Leadership, they didn’t make it very clear to their volunteers and other committee members.
As an aside and purely out of curiosity – when other states were already going for full marriage equality, why was there an expectation that there was nothing to be gained until DOMA was overturned?
PainesMe- We all mispeak from time to time. I will answer both your questions.
1. It was not publicized, but the State Democratic Party was heavily involved in all the LGBT legislation since the beginning of 2009. As a matter of fact, Chairman Daniello made the state party headquarters available for phone banking each time.
2. As to marriage equality, there was a debate. Just as there was a debate over whether or not to push for non-discrimination legislation that was trans-inclusive, there was a similar debate over a “marriage” bill or just civil unions. The argument was simply this: “do we fight for what we should have and get nothing, or do you fight for what you can get and achieve some progress for your constituents?” In a state with one governor, 21 senators and 41 representatives, we knew that in order to get anything passed, you need the governor and you need 11 senators and 21 representatives (you also need the leadership of both chambers to agree to bring the bill to the floor. We knew these 63 people very well.
When Governor Markell took office, we knew we had an advocate who would work to pass the all-inclusive non-discrimination bill. It was written to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accomodations, and insurance against LGBT people. We had Governor Markell on our side and we had 11 senators and 25 representatives. Unfortunately, an “incident” in Rehoboth Beach involving two alledgedly trans-gender individuals received such negative publicity on talk radio throughout the state, that a prime sponsor threatened to withdraw sponsorship of the bill unless the “T” was deleted. 5 “yes” votes threatened to change their votes also. There was heated debate, but, in the end we wanted a law passed-knowing that the opposition would predict the end of the world if discrimination against gays was prohibited. We knew that the world would not end and that enactment would show people that.
A similar debate occured over civil unions vs marriage. In 2011, the attitude of most Americans about same-sex marriage had not yet changed. No one knew it would change so quickly in much of the country. While a marriage equality law would have been wonderful, the same head count showed that we did NOT have what was needed-a governor, 11 senators and 21 representatives. Even progressive elected officials who support anti-discrimination laws for years made it clear they would not or could not support marriage equality-but they would support civil unions. It was the word marriage that was a problem. Mark Purpura wrote a bill that created civil unions by mirroring every single marriage right and obligation that existed in Delaware law. Though we would love to have had marriage in 2011, we were able to pass a law that gave same-sex couples the right to have every protection state law allowed married couples to have. The people who predicted doom and gloom did so again. The law passed and the world has not ended.
I believe that if we had not enacted civil unions in 2011, we would not have had the votes to pass marriage equality in 2013. Contrary to popular belief, the bill did not pass the House by a large margin, and the votes for passage in the Senate were not there until the final week. Senator Bushweller released a very strong public statement in support a week before the vote and Senators Hall-Long and Cloutier did not announce their votes before they cast them. Without those three votes, the bill would have been defeated. A few weeks later the Transgender Anti-DIscrimination vote passed-and by only 1 vote in the Senate.
Maybe that is a sign that you should fix things closer to your home and family that are broken instead of the government. It would be a lot more noble.
@SussexWatcher: you have this guy pegged correctly, but you are completely wrong on your conclusions on the mental health topic that set you on his path in the first place. You might want to talk to him about it some day.
What am I missing here?
Not much, you can carry on. Just someone venting because they have to deal with a legacy of crap and dead bodies ProgressivePopulist leaves in his wake in his quest for free speech and government improvement.