It’s another Saturday, so for those who tune in, welcome to the weekly diary discussing the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic Campaign. If you’ve missed out, you can catch up anytime: Just visit our group or follow Nuts & Bolts Guide.
For the last few years, this series has covered how campaigns work, how the party works, and how activism efforts can be put to use in the election of more and better Democratic elected officials. While this week was originally scheduled to be a follow-up on voter rights, with the DNC coming off of its annual winter meeting, I’m instead taking this week to answer many of the questions I receive daily about what the party does; discuss how our primaries and caucuses will be governed; and tackle some of the myths already circulating regarding the process by which we will select a Democratic presidential candidate.
Ready to learn more about what happened at the meeting and how our process for 2020 will function?
The 2020 campaign
Before we begin, I think it is important that we clear the air about some of the rumors and myths that circulate on the internet, and, at times, even in diaries here on Daily Kos. Specifically, I’m referring to concerns about how the DNC will interact with candidates, along with rumors about the convention and delegate process.
To start, let’s again talk about superdelegates.
Over the last few years, this subject has become a part of election lore. But in 2018, the Democratic Party adopted new guidance from the Unity Reform Commission (URC), which was created in response to the necessity for what the DNC called “a review of our Party’s nominating process in order to ensure that inclusivity is upheld in all things that we do,” and which made permanent changes in how superdelegates work. In order to explain this, and to address the concerns, I want to lay out the claims I have seen and where we stand:
- “Federal elected officials are endorsing candidates!”
- “XYZ candidate will have all the endorsements!”
- “This is a foot on the scale!”
- “Party officers are backing XYZ!”
Okay: In order to understand where we are, we have to look at the proposals and where we ended up. In the Unity Reform Commission, Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution had advocated a multi-tiered approach, as did the members who were chosen by Hillary Clinton. Sanders’ original proposal was this: Superdelegates of state organizations would be bound to the returns of their state, but federally elected superdelegates would remain unpledged. In this scenario, unpledged superdelegates could declare for any candidate they chose, and their votes would be counted.
This would leave a set group of superdelegates who could weigh in with votes however they wanted, while binding state party chairs, vice chairs, and others. This solution met with opposition on both sides.
In the end, the rules and bylaws committee worked to adopt another solution, the Reeves-Bonin solution, which was originally offered at the 2016 convention. This solution was then modified with qualifying items, thanks to the work of members to improve and shape it into something workable. As it stands, what people think of as superdelegates do not have a vote in the first round of the convention. Should a candidate receive the prerequisite delegates to “clinch” without superdelegates, at a point where superdelegates could not influence the outcome, the superdelegates are released.
This means that superdelegates cannot be reported by the media or others as having an impact on the outcome (they represent no active votes), which will likely cause the primary or caucus season to go slightly longer—which is good for states that go later in the calendar—and it will free up superdelegates, especially federal superdelegates, in their advocacy.
In other words: Federally elected superdelegates have the free-speech right to endorse a candidate, a right that cannot be infringed by the party, but now they can do so openly, loudly, without altering the delegate total of a candidate. This proposal was broadly endorsed by Our Revolution, Hillary Clinton, campaign advocates, and others as a compromise that would make sure the public would know that superdelegates did not influence the outcome with a perceived edge in delegates, and that we would free up the federal elected and governors to utilize their free speech right to advocate for a candidate, knowing that they have one vote—the same as all other citizens.
Just as the party cannot control if a celebrity endorses a candidate or not, this solution protects the process, while allowing the public to hear from those who know the candidates best.
Being a Democratic candidate and serving as a Democrat
One question that has also been raised is about a proposal that was included, requiring a candidate running for the Democratic nominee to agree to run and serve as a Democratic elected.
I have received questions about when this process takes place and how this process takes place, and what are the penalties should someone not follow this process.
First, let’s understand that running for the Democratic nominee in many states requires filling out forms in those states indicating you are a Democratic candidate running for the Democratic nomination. Second, within our party, a series of agreements, including access to data and resources, have to be completed by a campaign.
In order to gain access to Democratic data, and the “perks” of sorts of running as a Democratic candidate—access to the debate stage and delegates—documentation to this effect would likely be signed. Some have asked: “Do they have to turn it in the moment they declare?” While I have not checked with Party Affairs, such a process is not really meaningful; the assumption is that such agreement would need to be in place before a campaign begins use of Democratic data software or, should they do something else, before they start acquiring delegates. But there is plenty of time for candidates to explore, even announce they are running, and drop out before we get to the Iowa caucus. In other words, there is plenty of time.
The question regarding penalties is simple: Per my understanding, candidates who refused to agree to these terms could lose, or in fact never acquire, delegates needed for the convention to win the nomination.
What is the role of party officers in the process?
Tom Perez referred to the goal of presenting voters with a party that has “clean hands” and offers no favoritism as the North Star of our party. As a result, we’re going to see a lot of changes. We will have far fewer caucuses, with states like Idaho and Nebraska adopting their primary as a means of selecting delegates.
We’ll also have a new process for the states that do provide caucuses, allowing for new methods and better handling, which gives access to those who are poor, disabled, or struggle with the time it takes to participate. All of these are great changes.
The party is also committed to making sure that those seen as administrators of the process work hard to be neutral. This means that your state chairs, district chairs, and those who set up a caucus site especially should work diligently to be seen as a neutral party; while they can privately do whatever they wish, and the party should not suppress anyone’s free speech right, their role is very different from, say, a federal elected official.
The advocacy of a federal elected official or governor is not seen as altering the makeup of a caucus site, as an example. Meanwhile, a county chair, district chair, or state party chair strongly advocating a position for a candidate can be seen as manipulating the process directly to benefit a candidate.
It is important—no matter whom you back in the 2020 election—that we have a process where all voters, who are backing any candidate, feel welcome within our caucus sites.
With these rules of the road in mind, when you read conspiracy theories about the ways the party is working to do ... well, anything ... remember that all of the candidates have accepted these rules, others had input, and some helped shape the discussion and solutions.
We are all in this together. If you have questions, ASK. Rather than buy conspiracies, be armed with actual information. There are a lot of people willing to help, and there is nothing at all wrong with asking.