In Phoenix yesterday, Democratic National Party members had a chance to discuss with candidates for Chair, Vice Chairs, Secretary and Treasurer, the future of the national party. While the main course may have been the candidate forums, for those in attendance the red meat was dominated by the same question: what now?
The race for DNC Chair presents many with two front-runner candidates: Rep. Keith Ellison and Secretary Tom Perez. The stage, however, offered 7 of the candidates, with two more who were not in attendance (and unlikely to have an impact on the final race). And that question — what do we do now — provided the undertone of every moderator and floor asked question.
Questions delved into process and procedure of the party, open budgeting, and party ideology. Also discussed at some length was the nature of the party altogether. Outsider candidates like Jehmu Green and Sally Boynton Brown brought forward a different perspective — and sometimes, in my opinion, confused the topic.
In a question regarding the primary process, Rep. Keith Ellison, Sec. Tom Perez and Raymond Buckley, who had a chance to discuss, brought up the UNITY commission and how the chair would work to fulfill that role. This resulted in an exchange that devolved into candidates talking about “unity”, either the song or the literal definition without addressing the currently in place structure, established at the 2016 Convention, to handle this process. In a text message received from another DNC Member I was told: “I think we just went way off script here.”
The question also garnered a response from Raymond Buckley, current chair of ASDC, who advocated that the DNC Chair must be seen as impartial, arguing that the DNC Chair must relinquish sole control over setting primary debate schedules. Buckley also called for ending DNC practices of joint fundraising, a subject closely attached to the Hillary Victory Fund effort of the past presidential election cycle.
Secretary Tom Perez noted that we needed to “a retool”, highlighting his background in negotiations, he argued that the party needs “a fighter with a track record.” Perez noted that Arizona was home of ongoing legal fights that he had engaged in as a result of voter suppression techniques. Sec. Perez argued: “That is what you need.”
Seeing that many in the room were divided between the two top candidates, Jehmu Greene argued that we “must not relitigate the primaries.” This feeling was backed up by State Party Chair Jaime Harrison, who argued: “I grew up in South Carolina. I’m not a Bernie Democrat or a Hillary Democrat. I’m a Democrat. Period.”
Christine Pelosi, California DNC Member, author of Campaign 2.0 and a candidate for Western Regional Leadership, used her question to note she would be proposing rule changes at the February meeting with two key points: eliminating fundraising from corporate interests into the DNC, and significantly limiting the issue of at-large DNC Members.
Pelosi noted that too often at-large DNC members reflect corporate interest or lobbyists, rather than the interest of the party. This sparked one of the more thoughtful policy driven debates of the day. Rep. Ellison began by addressing the fact that such a move couldn't be done unilaterally through the position of chair, saying it would need a debate of the membership. And while he would be a "yes" to proposals around removing corporate money, he also noted that the membership had to "be real" about the fact we would need to replace the funds lost, a difficult task.
Sec. Perez noted that such a practice would need study to see how the party could impliment such an approach. He also noted that too often these proposals circulate among members who have only a few minutes to read them, therefore they can’t make informed decisions. Note: I have asked Christine Pelosi for a copy of the proposal.
Chair Jaime Harrison noted that right now, more than 20 state parties are “broke, really broke” and as a result, in a meeting of ASDC, the Association of State Democratic Chairs, they asked the party for more money on a monthly basis. “We have to make sure our states have some way to pay the bills. They are the face of the party,” he told audience members afterward.
Chairman Buckley, however, noted that while at-large DNC members had been abused, the procedure actually had a point: “this is how we worked to establish diversity”, highlighting that the first lesbian DNC member was chosen at large, the first transgender DNC member was at large, and that this was the core purpose of the at large membership. “We complain about corporate members. But the chair only recommends members, it is up to the DNC Committee as a whole to vote on their approval, and no one ever votes NO. I am the ONLY member I know of who has ever stood up and voted NO on these members.”
Most encouraging: There were NO boos of any member on the stage.
Following the chair debate, the room emptied. Online participation also fell. Where more than 1,000 were watching the Youtube livestream during the Chair’s forum, less than 280 stayed tune through the vice chair debate, at one time dropping as low as 104 watching online.
With two candidates running for the Vice Chair post of Civic Engagement and Voter Registration, the topics focused on maintaining standards put in place by the former vice chair of that role, Donna Brazille, and finding programs that could help encourage future engagement. Karen Carter Peterson, Louisiana Democratic Party Chair and Melissa Fazli, Executive Board Member and Delegate for the California Democratic Party faced off to discuss how to increase voter outreach. Both candidates discussed their own styles, with Melissa Fazli highlighting her belief that a Gavin Newsome type policy is best for the national party, while Karen Carter Peterson was able to talk about growing the Louisiana state party and building connections inside the party.
The vice chair debate often highlighted different theories about how the party could move forward. Advocates argued their position highlighting their prior work and the ability to connect to millennials. Several candidates raised that we must work to find and recruit better candidates, putting that as a top target for the party. Other vice chair candidates put forward proposals involving Slack, or the conversion of Democrats.Org into an online blog portal, leading one DNC member to shoot me this text: "Do they want Democrats.Org to become DailyKos?" Enough to make me chortle just a little.
Because of a shortened time frame and a different set of goals, the Vice Chairs debate focused around maintaining programs that would function and finding programs that weren't working so well.
Michael Blake provided one of the few stand out moments of the at large vice chair debate, delivering his opening largely in spanish, the only candidate in any forum to do so on the day. Blake, who along with Representative Grace Meng, are seen as favorites to prevail in this race tried to put his stamp on why he should be considered.
Because of time constraints and the large number of candidates in the at large position, much of the discussion focused again on the same points with broad agreement across the stage.
End Thoughts
The Phoenix forum presented a view of a Democratic party that is moving to define how to move forward. Sally Boynton Brown noted that many members want to “punch you in the eye”, and several candidates definitely embraced throwing that punch.
Forum members believe that, if the race were held today, Sec. Perez would be the “leader in the clubhouse”, with Rep. Ellison close at his heels. The question members have now revolves around the other candidates who provide their own viewpoints. Will any of them break through to the membership?
Only time, and three more forums will tell.
I will be in Houston, Detroit and Baltimore for those forums, as well as Atlanta as a voting member. I will try to document those here, and if you have questions, PLEASE ask.
Thanks,