Building the Party
I am a Democrat. I am a progressive Democrat, but I am a Democrat. And being a Democrat means I care about the Democratic Party. I care about building out the Democratic Party. Electing more and better Democrats across the land. Recruiting more and better candidates. Taking over state legislatures and Governorships. One of the reasons I am very resistant to a Bernie Sanders campaign is that he is not a Democrat. He does not care about the party or party building. In order for Bernie Sanders to win my vote in the primary he would first have to personally register as a Democrat in Vermont. I’m serious. Until he does that, I am not even considering voting for him, no matter how much I might agree with him.
One of the negatives of the Obama Presidency has been the massive losses the Democratic Party suffered at the state and local level in 2010 and 2014. It is not necessarily President Obama’s fault personally, as the same thing happened to President Clinton. Both Presidents came into office in economic downturn with an ambitious reform agenda and majorities in both Houses of Congress that allowed them to enact much of their plans. Benefits from the reforms do not come immediately (i.e. within 18 months), and thus voters more disposed to support the President are discouraged and stay home in the midterms, while angry conservatives who are eager to vote against the President’s party turn out in droves.
One of the reasons I am currently leaning towards supporting Hillary is that she and her campaign are attempting to build the party back up again, like Obama did in his first run for the Presidency:
Hillary Clinton had a message to relay in private meetings with state and local Democrats during her highly-choreographed swings through Iowa and New Hampshire this month: let me help you.
The implication? She’ll fix the party infrastructure that withered under President Barack Obama.
The Democratic front-runner has stressed the importance of bolstering — and in the case of Iowa, rebuilding — the state parties from the ground up, as they received scant national attention since 2008. Some Democrats even pin the blame on the president himself.
Clinton’s pitch is especially resonant in Iowa, where her team is already encouraging rural Democrats to run for their school boards and county commissions. It’s not just a standard exercise in party-building: Team Clinton is betting that the organizing and goodwill generated by this outreach will pay dividends when it comes time to flip the switch on her own caucus and primary machines.
“What typically happens is when a president comes in, the national [party] committee becomes a presidential re-elect, and that hollows out the local parties,” says former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, who ran for president in 2004. The result, as outlined in the party’s February midterm autopsy report, has been sweeping losses for Democrats at every level during the Obama era, from statehouses to the U.S. House and Senate.
That has to change. The DNC must always build the party from the bottom up. We must always follow the Howard Dean 50 State Strategy. The DNC must never divert from that mission to support the incumbent President as a vehicle for his or her reelect. Instead, the President should have his or her own Campaign Committee that remains active nationwide throughout their Presidency. The DNC need not be co-opted.
Sanders is more of a Democrat than anybody you have voted for.
Well said. I particularly note your comment about ‘building the party from the bottom up”. Nowhere is that more true than in the First State. Classic “top down” opertion…….
It is an important point. If the President is a Democrat, that person is the leader of the Democratic Party. Obama absolutely SUCKED in that role because he never took it seriously. All the mid-term election results prove that beyond a doubt.
“I am not even considering voting for him, no matter how much I might agree with him.”
This should tell you everything you need to know about how unserious this view is.
The idea that we have to bifurcate is so incredibly dumb. The notion that an individual has to basically accept A or B to have any political clout is very, very sad. I understand what the “system” is. What the “game” is. The idea that we have to play the same game over and over and over and over again is kind of childish.
In parliamentary systems one has actual choices – workers parties, economic parties, democratic socialists, conservative parties, and on and on. But you advocate supporting the party line no matter how much you disagree with them. It’s mindless and lazy.
Lawrence O”Donnell, who I generally think is an empty-headed clown with no novel ideas whatever – made a great comment in the documentary film about Ralph Nader. To paraphrase it: No Democratic politician will ever bend to valid criticism unless you prove to her or him you won’t vote for them.
What you’re advocating is the opposite. I’m part of the machine and I’ll eat whatever the machine shoves down my gullet. It’s really ridiculous.
I don’t know who I’ll vote for in a general election between (always ‘between’ never ‘amongst’) Democrat v Republican, but arguments like this push me right toward any third party on the ballot.
So unless you’re on the team, fuck you… seems like a poor plan.
Some good points there DG, but you miss (intentionally or accidentally) DD’s point. We don’t live in a Parliamentary system, so if the leader of the slightly less shitty party doesn’t build that party, he/she cedes power to the shittiest of the two parties.
I think we have plenty of close at hand evidence of what a bad idea that is.
No, what is a poor plan is “fuck the team, I am too important to be on any team. My ideas are too important.”
We don’t live in a parliamentary system. To make any arguments along those lines, or with respect to preferential voting, is to engage in fantasy. We live in a winner take all presidential system, with really only allows for 2-3 parties at most, and those parties usually contain within themselves coalitions. So if you are serious about your principles and policies getting enacted, then you have to be serious about winning elections. If you are serious about winning elections, then you have to be serious about party building.
Jinx, Jason. We just posted exactly the same thing.
So, I guess I should’ve voted for Sean Barney instead of the Green Party candidate.
If we acquiesce to the same people who routinely keep progressives at arms length *cough Carper Carney cough*, then we vote for our own irrelevance. Until Hillary can convince me that she has jettisoned the corporate elements from the Clinton Universe, the same elements that Bill so wholeheartedly embraced and continues to embrace, there’s no way I can vote for her in a primary.
Typical response. We need to take it how it is. A or B. Otherwise it’s a fantasy.
This is the story you tell yourself to make it OK. It’s a big feedback loop. If we don’t tow the company line we won’t win elections. Then none of our policies will be enacted… it’s beautifully self-fulfilled!
Boring, lazy and uncreative.
Oh and just for the record, the point I made about the Parliamentary system was an example of a system with broader representative groups and parties. I am aware we don’t live in a Parliamentary system. I am also aware of the weaknesses of coalition governments… but that wasn’t the point of the example.
@DD go for that “Head in the sand” vote. Yep, I’m voting along party lines, no matter what their position is.
It’s depressing coming to this website and reading the views of so-called Liberals.
Ah, liberals and progressives can only vote for Bernie Sanders, according to June. I love it. And if you vote for or support Hillary, then you are not a liberal or progressive. And Bernie Sanders’ supporters wonder why they are mocked.
I love Bernie Sanders, but I have a dilemma. Will Bernie not win because there’s no beating Hillary, or will he not win because we’re constantly told he won’t beat Hillary. And yes, I’m still wary of the whole Nader fiasco.
And I probably need to get over that because (despite the results) that’s how our democracy should work. Oh, but the consequences!
Here’s who I have the biggest problem with: Our useless press, who must create a horse race. God forbid, any (Yes, I know there are a few good ones) of them actually do in depth journalism and educate the public. But I guess if they did then they couldn’t write all those articles on how uninformed the public is.
NOW, Hillary is sorry. Now that Bernie’s numbers are up.
NOW, you’ll see Hillary doing the talk show circuit. Dam spell check, circus.
Again, WE need a leader to pull this Country back together again. Hillary can’t lead!
@Pandora — If you are asking specifically about the election, I think Sanders can beat Hillary in some states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, where the Democratic electorate is predominately white and progressive. As you will see in today’s Open Thread with some new poll numbers though, Sanders will be hard pressed to win anywhere else. Indeed, nationally, he has fallen to third place between Biden.
So can he win an election? Sure.
Can he win the nomination? Unlikely but possible. I actually think you would need at least a strong Biden candidacy to do it if Hillary is in the race. If Hillary dies or drops out for some reason, then Sanders would need a weak Biden candidacy to win.
Can he win the general election? I tend to say no. I just do not see how the press does not destroy him. I don’t care if he has a movement.
Are Sanders supporters mocked? I am unaware of it. Not that I’d care either way.
I never said a liberal or progressive can’t vote for HRC. I’ve taken issue with your reasons, because they are terrible reasons. The entire phony “electability” rationale is a self-fulfilling circle. Trying to guess who can get what vote then tailoring your vote to that.
DG, I think you are seeing a little of your own zealousness reflected back at you.
My take – when liberals squabble over doctrine and dogma, conservatives (D’s and R’s) win. Tom Caper loves this thread. John Carney loves this thread. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove love this thread.
I think you misunderstand me. It isn’t a purity test. I am not squabbling over dogma.
Like I said, I think liberal and progressive people can vote for HRC. I don’t think the “electability” argument is a real thing. I think it’s entirely made up. I think DD’s entire rationale is based on a phony premise.
@Anonymous
“NOW, Hillary is sorry. Now that Bernie’s numbers are up.”
*sigh* This is a made up outrage, but why don’t you explain the email situation to us. I also don’t think her sorta apology has as much to do with Sanders as it does with stopping the story – especially since most of us seem incapable of reading more than 140 characters and the press has an interest in the horse race.
“NOW, you’ll see Hillary doing the talk show circuit. Dam spell check, circus.”
What is your point? That she shouldn’t go on talk shows? If I was on her team I would advise her to lay low while the GOP keeps acting nuts. The most I’d have her say is, “Please proceed, GOP.”
“Again, WE need a leader to pull this Country back together again. Hillary can’t lead!”
Wow, that’s a vague comment. Care to elaborate? You may not like Hillary, but to somehow claim she lacks leadership skills is ridiculous.
Here, here!!! Well said indeed, jc
Emails: She just apologized, for not having a separate email for her personal emails. Then her people made a decision; what was personal or not and deleted them before they were turned over.
Hillary can’t answer the tough questions, she is going to get about anything. But, if your a voter, you need to know where she stands.
Where has she lead? We’ve had a puppet for 8 years, we don’t need another one!
Anonymous… As usual, totally fucking incoherent.
DG back at you!
You got me.