Discussion: State Level Dems Frustrated with DNC

TPM Article Topics
21

If you’re going to argue that Congress has the right to limit the Court’s jurisdiction on this basis:

III.2.3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That strikes me as a pretty weak reed. III.2.1 lays out the Court’s jurisdiction directly:

III.2.1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It seems to me that establishment of a uniform federal election law would be a “Controversy to which the United States” is a Party. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts as a result.

As to what makes me think that the Constitution reserves much election law to the states:

  1. The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the Federal Government to the States and the people.
  2. Article I, Section 2 provides that

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. (Emphasis added)

The Constitution explicitly allows the states to determine the qualifications of voters. Every time this has changed in the past it has required an amendment. (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 and Nineteenth Amendment in its entirety.) The Voting Rights Acts are specifically authorized by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I’m in sympathy with your goals, but I don’t think it’s as easy to accomplish as passing a new statute. If I were to argue for such a statute, I’d argue on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

2 Likes
22

Look to effectiveness rather then publicity and just fundraisers for working staff. Fund raisers are the waste disposal engineers of politics.

IF you even are a Democrat, then you show why the state political Party really needs work. You don’t understand what it takes to get people elected. Working staff isn’t going to “work” for you if you can’t pay them! You’re so invested with the BS about corporate money, Emmanuel, blah, blah, blah, that you can’t sort out what the real culprits are. The Democrats actually ran a decent slate of candidates across the country. We were sold out by idiots who insisted the purity test be adhered to and, consequently, cut the country’s throat.

2 Likes
23

Mary Hoeft raised upwards of $100,000 on her own, $2 and $10 at a time from people who live here in WI-7, to run against Sean Duffy and his several hundred thousand Wall St dollars.

The party, having determined that she had no chance, offered no help. And it quickly became a self fulfilling prophecy.

I’d be more impressed by the strategy had Democrats won more of the races where the party did think, in its wisdom, that they had a chance,

So yeah, in the face of fail, fail and more fail, I think the frustration is fully earned.

6 Likes
24

The fifty state strategy is always great when it comes to some ubiquitous idea of attracting Dems but when it comes to specifics (i.e. Sanders writing off southern Dems and PoC because they don’t know what the hell is going on!) then it gets pushed aside.

EDIT TO ADD: @fgs Maybe, just maybe, the voters didn’t like her. Maybe, just maybe, she really was a long shot and giving her money wasn’t the issue . IT WAS THE CANDIDATE.

25

That shows just how frustrated dems really are.

1 Like
26

But they need an organizing principle at the national level, that is responsive to the state level. Hand in glove.

1 Like
27

The 50 state project was closed down after the 2008 election when it was decided that enriching D.C. hacks was more important then electing candinates.
By 2012 election it had been dead and buried by the likes of scrum, rahm and penn ( all HRC syphocants).
So trying to blame the supporters of the 2012, and following, fiascos is wrong. But similar to how the thugs will blame the d’s for killing the ACA.
I also remember part of the crititism was that Dean was sending money to states such as texas, alabama etc ( old traitor states) instead of giving it to media consultants and lobby shops.

4 Likes
28

To elevate Democrats at the state level to Democrats at the Federal level, not to maintain their own state legislatures and own state Governorship. My comment was that a state party chair was blaming the President (who’s busy doing other things) for the problems he created by his own lack of leadership in his own state.

1 Like
29

Obama and the Clinton’s and their establishment anti-labor and anti-middle class policies MUST get the axe or the Democratic Party will become irrelevant.

Bernie would have won but Obama and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denied the will of the middle class.

Obama is DINO.
The Clinton’s are DINO’s.

Bring back the party of labor - including the white middle class.

2 Likes
30

I find it odd that many folks who are in favor of the 50 state strategy (and battering Hillary for failing it) also continue to praise Sanders. Remember, he was NEVER a Democrat. He spent his career NOT helping the party or other candidates. So a poor example of a 50-state strategy.

I LOVE the 50 state strategy. But we need leadership that can also balance a few tactical wins, too.

As becca says, we need a strong leader who can plan & react quickly!

4 Likes
31

This, so much. On top of that, Sanders explicitly wrote off half of the states in the primary because he and his supporters didn’t feel they counted (since they’re red states, where the majority of Dems are black). And these same people are also the loudest in proclaiming purity tests, denouncing even Hillary and other liberals as “anti-labor, anti-middle class”, which is likewise antithetical to a 50-state strategy that requires electing moderate to conservative Dems in conservative places.

4 Likes
32

As an aside, can anyone explain what the point of John Judis being here is? I can vaguely recall that one or two of his pieces weren’t either inane or insipid, but the overwhelming majority are just nonsense.

E.g., today’s piece that since Palm Beach was full of horribly racist and anti-Semitic people in the late 1950s (shocking!), Trump integrating Mar-a-Lago was a good thing. So I guess if Trump isn’t the literal embodiment of pure evil then…he’s not a racist at all? We should work with him? I don’t know, I have no idea what the point of that piece is.

4 Likes
33

I agree state level parties should be functional and the party needs to be firing on all cylinders.
My point is do not let the tail wag the dog. Establish policy then dispatch fundraisers to fund those policies. Do not let policies be put up for auction to the highest bidder because that makes the fundraisers job easier.
If one agrees with your idea that the d’s ran a decent slate, which I disagree with, then the campaign staff failed absymally. Plus recruiting has been r’s to run as d’s (i.e. florida senate and crist) plus retread blue dogs ( Bayh) is not my idea of a strong slate.
Fundraisers are necessary just as sanitation engineers otherwise we would all be hip deep in manure. But ship builders don’t design vessels with them in charge, arcitects don’t design buildings with sanitary engineers in charge. So why should the d’s run their party with fundraisers in charge?
An old adage is that money like manure is useful when spread around as fertilizer but stinks when allowed to pile up.
So spread the money around don’t just let it pile up in the coffers of folks like penn and scrum, who like the missionaries to Hawaii started out to do good and ended up doing right well ( for their bank accounts)

1 Like
34

As I recall, Josh wanted to bring in a “different point of view” or something like that. With the merits of having debates among various perspectives I don’t disagree. I’d be happy to disagree with pieces that nonetheless provoke my thoughts. It’s bringing in different “points of view” just for the sake of different points of view that I find pointless. Honestly (and I haven’t minced my words about how I feel about his addition) I have never been impressed by Judis’s pieces. I was quite surprised when Josh put him on the payroll.

2 Likes
35

I thought the ones doing the paying were the “johns”, while the ones being paid were the whores. Just sayin’

36

I haven’t supported the DNC for awhile. Their tone is demanding and disrespectful. And I might add not very effective. My money goes to my local candidates, and to several other states candidates. I also think we need to support journalists who actually do their job, but are to many times overlooked. I find many times they are magazines as they do in-depth reporting. We are going to have to educate the public about the importance of them contributing their small amounts to the people who want to represent them. It has become VERY easy to do this. Our party is not made up of people who can cut a check that will run a campaign, but if enough of us do we can empower the people who will serve us. We have to do more than just show up at the voting booth. The other side has the funds to pay for people to do the work. We don’t have that luxury. So we can sit here and whine about it, or we can roll up our sleeves and do something about it

2 Likes
37

None of this matters unless we vote in off year candidates. Period.

38

Off subject but pertinent
Splash page story
“GOP Nixes House Ethics Office In Time for Trump Era”
So goes the filibuster.
They probably figure that even with bent rules for voting etc. they only have 2 years to change everything ( including voting laws) and so it is pedal to the metal.
First step is to eliminate “legally” any possible instititional obstruction.
Second is now the house ethics committee is a partisan weapon.
They have no shame and less committment to their oath of office that I ever wanted to believe.

39

The Democrats are the party of the future. Always have been, always will be.

40

The existentialist question as of Jan 20 is there a future?

1 Like