There were state Democratic Party conventions in America yesterday, including Missouri.
Yesterday in Washington:
June 18, 2016 7:22 PM
Call for Democratic unity draws boos from Sanders supporters at state conventionThe sole U.S. senator to endorse Bernie Sanders for president urged Democrats to unite behind Hillary Clinton at Washington’s Democratic convention Saturday, drawing boos from a crowd filled mainly with Sanders supporters.
A smaller number of Clinton supporters at the state convention cheered when U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, called Clinton the Democratic presidential nominee and urged Washington delegates to support her.
“We have to come together,” Merkley said while delivering the keynote address at the state convention on Saturday.
“To advance the goals that so resonated with Bernie Sanders’ campaign, we need Hillary Clinton to win this election.”
The crowd erupted at Merkley’s statement, with boos competing with cheers and applause….
….The delegation also passed a resolution endorsing Sanders for the presidency, causing the room to break into applause and shouts of, “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!”
Another proposed resolution to endorse both Clinton and Sanders failed….
I have attended Missouri Democratic Party state conventions since 1996, as a county delegate, as a Congressional level national delegate in 2000, as a county delegate and media in 2008 and 2016, and as media in 2012. I was a Bill Clinton county delegate in 1996, an Al Gore delegate in 2000, I supported Howard Dean in 2004 – and since his vote in Missouri didn’t reach 15% I wasn’t a county delegate, and I was a county delegate for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016.
In Sedalia, Missouri, at the state Democratic Party convention, delegate and alternate registration started at 8:00 a.m. and continued through 11:00 a.m. After that process any slots for absent delegates were filled by alternates for the respective Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders caucuses. Delegates were seated on the floor after noon.
There were not a lot of representatives from the media covering the convention.
The Hillary Clinton caucus had 321 delegates show up. The Bernie Sanders caucus had 453 delegates show up. Showing up is half the battle. Hold that thought.
At the Missouri Democratic Party state convention in Sedalia – June 18, 2016.
After the opening of the convention there was a motion from the Bernie Sanders caucus to replace the convention chair. There was a flurry of points of order. The convention chair explained that under the rules the state committee chair is the convention chair. That cannot be changed.
Roy Temple, Chair of the Missouri Democratic State Committee and chair of the state convention.
Bear in mind that the allocation of delegates to the national convention was determined by the vote in the March primary. That allocation does not change.
Before the convention started we were aware that eighty-eight individuals had filed the paperwork to run as at-large delegates for Hillary Clinton (eight available national delegate slots) to be elected by the Hillary Clinton caucus at the state convention. Twenty-one individuals were on the list of potential candidates running as Bernie Sanders at-large delegates (seven available national delegate slots) to be elected by the Bernie Sanders caucus at the state convention. We were curious about the differences in numbers.
At the point where the state convention was addressing the approval of the convention rules individuals in the Bernie Sanders caucus raised points of order. One individual from the Bernie Sanders caucus made a motion to open nominations for national delegate slots from the floor. In the discussion, the chair ruled the motion out of order, addressing the question of why only twenty-one individuals in the Bernie Sanders caucus were eligible to run for those national delegate slots. The explanation was that Bernie Sanders’ national campaign exercised their right under the rules, which are published and easily accessible, to strike names from the list. The Missouri Democratic Party did not have any say in those decisions. The chair of the convention also pointed out, in answer to the inquiry, that a failure to follow the approved delegate selection plan, overriding the right of a campaign to vet their delegates, could result in the unseating of the entire state delegation.
We understood from various sources that the number of individuals removed from the list of at-large delegate candidates by the Sanders campaign was over seventy. It turns out those sources were correct.
We explicitly asked a representative on the convention credentials committee if the Hillary Clinton national campaign exercised its right to remove any individuals from the list of those who filed as a candidate for at-large delegate. The answer was an emphatic, “No”.
In attending and covering Missouri Democratic Party state conventions since 1996 I had not encountered such a large number of at-large delegate candidates being removed by a campaign.
This morning we addressed an inquiry to the media contact for Bernie Sanders’ national campaign:
….At the [Missouri Democratic Party state] convention it was reported that the Bernie Sanders campaign exercised its right to strike names of individuals from the list of candidates to be on the ballot to be elected by the Sanders caucus as at-large national delegates (7 positions). That right is stated in the rules which are published and readily accessible. Twenty-one individuals were on the ballot as candidates for those slots. I understand that a significantly larger number of individuals who filed to run as national delegates for Bernie Sanders were struck from the list. Over seventy. Is this correct?
It is my understanding that all or most of those who were removed from the list were county/ward level delegates who had signed a Form B (pledging support to Bernie Sanders) and had submitted the forms to run as at-large delegates at the state convention. If they were county/ward level delegates for Bernie Sanders they would also be delegates for Bernie Sanders at the state convention.
Why were those individuals removed from the list of at-large delegate candidates? Why so many? Were there criteria for doing so from the Bernie Sanders national campaign? If so, what were they?….
We received a prompt reply from the same representative of Bernie Sanders’ national campaign:
….Missouri, like every state party, has diversity targets that each campaign is obligated to help meet. The review process helped us accomplish this.
There are three types of pledged delegates: For the district level slots, we always allow all of our supporters run on equal footing. There also are slots are reserved for elected officials and party leaders. The at-large delegates are reserved for helping meet the goal of having a diverse delegation.
Altogether, we received more than 100 applicants for the seven at-large delegate spots. We approved 21 names — three times the amount that we can send to the Convention. Our 21 approved names included a diverse group of applicants from all parts of Missouri. The list was winnowed after consultation with our state staff and volunteer leaders in the state, to ensure that the seven at-large delegates selected would help diversify the delegate slate….
Apparently there were some concerns that leaving candidacy for at-large delegate open to everyone would provide different results.
A point of order from the Bernie Sanders caucus.
There were points of order raised by the Bernie Sanders caucus during the consideration of the state convention rules. Ultimately a voice vote was taken, the chair ruling that the rules were approved. A point of order was raised by a member of the Bernie Sanders caucus contesting the convention chair’s interpretation of the ayes and nays. The chair then asked for the ayes to stand, then the nays to stand. A majority from both caucuses stood for the ayes. This took time. Hold that thought.
Another point of order from the Bernie Sanders caucus.
The caucuses then divided (the Hillary Clinton caucus moving to another hall) to hear speeches from the candidates for the at-large delegates for their respective presidential candidates. After that considerable amount of time the voting for those delegate slots took place in the main hall.
The nominating committee slate of ten Electors (the actual individuals who get to vote for president in Jefferson City in December if the Democratic party candidate triumphs in November) was approved by acclamation.
At this point the convention had been going on into the early evening. The stream of delegates from both caucuses leaving the convention early accelerated, with a larger number leaving the Hillary Clinton caucus. Hold that thought.
The nominating committee report for Missouri’s four Democratic National Committee slots, with four names provided by the committee, was open for nominations from the floor. An individual in the Bernie Sanders caucus nominated a slate of candidates from their caucus. An individual in the Hillary Clinton caucus nominated one additional individual. The person nominated spoke to withdraw that nomination. The entire convention voted among the eight candidates to fill the four positions on the DNC.
As the convention waited for the results of the DNC member election and after the resolution committee report was approved by acclamation, an individual from the Bernie Sanders caucus asked to be recognized by the chair. She walked to the front and proposed a motion, reading a condemnation of Hillary Clinton.
An final attempt from a member of the Bernie Sanders caucus at a resolution to condemn Hillary Clinton.
A number of state convention delegates, including several in the Bernie Sanders caucus, booed the motion. The motion was ruled out of order by the chair.
The Bernie Sanders slate for the four DNC positions was elected. They bought the t-shirt, attended the rallies, showed up, and remained for the duration in sufficient numbers.
Now that they’ve caught that particular car they’re going to have to figure out how to drive it.
A long time ago, from TBogg:
Your Mumia sweatshirt won’t get you into heaven anymore (February 25, 2008)
Pingback: Running for at-large delegate to the DNC | Show Me Progress
I was one of those Bernie delegates… thanks for doing this write-up, it’s a great summary and a tiny glimpse of how we’re seen by the other side, so thank you for posting it.
You’re welcome.
Fascinating. There is no “other side.” You’re either a Democrat or you’re not. And since this was a Democratic Party convention and everyone there signed a Form B, they’re all Democrats. Supporting other candidates? Sure. But that part has been over for a long time.
You might note that the report of the Resolutions Committee was adopted by acclamation. Delegates from all over the room have been working on and toward those goals for decades. There is no “other side.” People might quibble about unpledged PLEO delegates (look it up), but that’s not going to change as long as there are open primaries in some states. You want open primaries? You’re going to get unpledged PLEO delegates. You don’t want unpledged PLEO delegates? Get rid of caucuses and open primaries. It’s that simple.
A question: For what purpose was the motion put forward to replace the convention chair? To waste time?
For what purpose was the motion proposed to nominate at-large delegates from the floor? The Sanders campaign (national) reduced the number eligible from “over 100” to twenty-one. The state party had nothing to do with their decision. The Clinton campaign (national) approved their entire list of eighty-eight. Which is more inclusive? Just asking.
You do understand that all of the standing committees had roughly equal representation from supporters of both presidential campaigns, right?
I found it interesting that one individual prefaced his remarks with “I’m not a politician.” Do you understand how ludicrous that sounded? You’re at a political convention, you were elected a county/ward level delegate, you’re running for the DNC and you don’t consider yourself a politician? If you’re not, then who the hell is?
And for what purpose did the Sanders delegate walk to the front of the convention, take the microphone and propose a resolution condemning Hillary Clinton? Were you embarrassed by that? You should have been.
Did any Clinton delegates propose a motion from the floor that all Democratic Party presidential candidates release the last thirty years of their complete income tax returns before they can participate in the process? Someone could have. No one did because to do so at the time would serve no useful purpose.
The Bernie Sanders caucus organized to get people to the convention. Good for you all. The Hillary Clinton caucus was disciplined. Good for them. There is a difference.
So, if Hillary Clinton is the party’s nominee and if she wins the general election do you think that base that showed up for Bernie Sanders on Saturday will be there in 2018, 2020, and 2024? The odds are pretty good for the first part, I bet even you are not particular convinced about the latter.
If I were organizing the 2020 Missouri Democratic party state convention agenda I’d put the DNC election first on the agenda. You want to bet on the outcome then?
I was the elected chair of the Sanders Caucus. So let me touch on a couple of points.
There was some time wasted early. The biggest problem was the audio in the venue. That actually got the most interruptions from the floor. Many of the organizers on the Sanders side were frustrated by some of that early action. As well as the individual who wanted to condemn Sec. Clinton toward the end. We, through organization and solidarity, had the upper hand to begin with. We wanted to get on with business. But every delegate is duly elected and gets their say.
As for sides and the DNC member election. There clearly were sides coming into this Convention. It was establishment verses new voices in the Party. The standing committees were assigned to be even between the candidates’ delegates, just as the vote in the State went. But a member who was purportedly a Sanders supporter voted with the Clinton camp and had caucused with them before. That member blocked any Sanders supporters from the slate coming out of the nominating committee. Because of that lack of cooperation it was determined that all DNC member positions would go to Sanders supporters if we had the numbers, we did. We tried for unity, but it is not going to be unity on terms set by the establishment. If you want our votes you must listen to our voices.
Yes I do expect these same people to show up in 2018, 2020 and beyond. It is the old guard Democrats that think it is about the White House only, they didn’t show up in 2010 and 2012. The Clinton delegation seemed to think this Convention was about electing the President. That is done at the ballot box and we firmly believe that the will of the People rules supreme (translate your State flag). The supporters of Bernie Sanders were there to give a future to the Missouri Democratic Party. A Party in trouble with, until Saturday, no direction to get out of it. We have held the White House and lost the battle. We are going after changing Jefferson City and Congress. We are activating Progressives around Missouri. We are serious about this being a Political Revolution. It has been pent-up for a while, it is Occupy in the political arena.
On the issue of super delegates or unpledged PLEOs , they must be dissolved. They have shown the can not function as a check valve. Each of their votes this year is worth 9000 citizen’s votes. They all came out early to give a head start to the establishment candidate. There is nothing Progressive about protecting the Status Quo. Election reform is the number one issue for most of us. We will continue to fight for open elections. Closed primaries and Party insiders are the main reasons Independents are about to become the majority of the electorate. We can change that and grow our Party.
We can drive just fine. And we are making all stops and keeping plenty of open seats for anyone who wants to join us.
I would like to thank Roy Temple and the staff of the MDP for all the work they put in getting this Convention together. They worked very hard for months. This may be seen in the future as the beginning of reinvigorating the Democratic Party in Missouri.
Still, no one responding here so far has answered these questions:
For what purpose was the motion put forward to replace the convention chair?
For what purpose was the motion proposed to nominate at-large delegates from the floor?
The biggest problem early on was the sound system? Seriously? Hell yes, it was irritating, but the biggest problem? At that point I was sitting in the back of the venue. The only time I couldn’t understand anyone was the speaker for the invocation. I understood enough of that portion even with the problem.
So, as to the motion to open nominations from the floor – could you explain why? Did the Bernie Sanders campaign or its representatives in Missouri explain why they struck over seventy people from their at-large delegate candidate list to the Bernie Sanders caucus and the individuals struck before convention proceedings started? If not, that’s a significant organizational problem. If the explanation was indeed communicated and some in the caucus still proceeded with their motion and discussion, then that’s a significant discipline problem within the caucus. Which was it?
You thanked Roy Temple and the MDP staff for their work at the convention. That’s a nice gesture. What was with the motion to replace him as chair of the convention?
Driving fine? I’m not impressed by the show some put on in Sedalia on Saturday.
Your tale of woe about the nominating committee decision, with a Sanders representative voting with the “establishment” sounds like so much junior high school lunch table talk. Sometimes nominating committees just nominate people who they think will do a better job. I hope you appreciate the irony of Doug Brooks working diligently to get the DNC to allow a rules change to facilitate the inclusion of people in the process which quite probably cost him his position on the DNC. If he hadn’t succeeded we wouldn’t be having this discussion. See how that “not junior high school” stuff works?
You do realize that every time you label people who have worked long and hard for Democratic Party candidates over several election cycles as “establishment” you royally piss them off.
Uh, you do realize that selecting the Electors, the national delegates, and the DNC member election at the state convention has to do with presidential and national party politics, right? The state organizing takes place by first running people for ward/precinct committee. The filing deadline passed in March. Then there are legislative, state senate, congressional district, state party committee organizing meetings which start after the primary in August. If you all didn’t have folks file it’s going to be difficult at best to take over the state party. If you all did file, then, welcome to the process.
Apparently you believe that there’s a vast well of political “independents” in this country and in Missouri. I suggest you do a little homework on that subject.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but are you seriously excluding anyone who’s not on your bandwagon from calling or defining themselves as a progressive?
If “independents” want their own party they can form it. Otherwise, they can register and unregister as a Democrat as they see fit. But, as far as I’m concerned, in states where people register by party (Missouri is not one of those places), if someone wants to vote in a Democratic Party primary they can register as Democrat to do so.
It’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote for HRC. #NeverHillary
Heh. I’m reasonably certain when you get your ballot with her name on it in November you’ll be able to exercise your choice. Is this a great country, or what!?
You say there is no other side, but the tone of your respond very much sounds like you do view Bernie Sanders supporters as Other. Your reply is far more condescending than your original piece.
Show me your progress by sitting quiet and “disciplined” and I’ll show you progress by being organized. One can be disciplined without being organized, but one cannot be organized without being disciplined.
I know a number of Bernie Sanders supporters, some of who have been involved in party politics for a long time. They’re disciplined and organized.
You mistake cheering for organizing. Sure, it makes you feel good, but it ain’t organizing.
You mistake criticism for exclusion. If you really were the “other” you wouldn’t have been there.
I personally know of two Hillary Clinton delegates from my county who made sure Bernie Sanders delegates made it to the convention, one who turned back to pick up someone who had a break down on the highway. How is that considering someone an “other?”
I’ll repeat some of my questions:
For what purpose was the motion put forward to replace the convention chair?
For what purpose was the motion proposed to nominate at-large delegates from the floor?
And for what purpose did the Sanders delegate walk to the front of the convention, take the microphone and propose a resolution condemning Hillary Clinton? Were you embarrassed by that?
I don’t know the purpose of trying to replace the chair. It may have been because the At-Large Candidates were cut from 100 to 21 without explanation. No one knee who did the cutting. Many assumed incorrectly it was done by the State Party.
The reason Bernie delegates wanted to nominate from the floor was those unexpected and unexplained cuts.
And many Bernie delegates (I speak for myself and those around me) were angry with the stupid statement made by the lady at the end. We were looking for unity. Her remarks were not just out o order, they were completely inappropriate. I was not embarrassed, I was angry.
Unfortunately, if your explanation is indeed the case, that shows us all that problems in organization can cause even greater problems. Look, I’ve been a national delegate (in 2000) – I actually read the easily accessible rules. You can’t miss the candidate’s campaign delegate vetting rule. There’s actually a good reason for this – no candidate wants anyone with associations antithetical to the party representing them as a delegate.
If they had read the rules – and that was easy to do, they wouldn’t have stewed about the state party nor would they have made the motion. That misplaced anger is indicative of the environment we’re currently in, don’t you think?
I had read elsewhere in a comment that something like this winnowing of the delegate candidate list also occurred in Virginia. I don’t have a direct source on that, so take it with a grain of salt.
Pingback: At the Democratic Party state convention | Show Me Progress
The implication from your article is that these three instances of motions from the floor by Bernie delegates were orchestrated for the purpose of delaying the convention process. Your comments further confirm your implication. These motions from the floor were made by individual delegates. This was not an organized conspiracy, as you imply. Most Bernie delegates were surprised by at least two of the motions. On the third, I don’t know who was asking for nominations from the floor for At Large, but it sounded to me like they wanted to try everything they could think of to run and they needed to hear the explanation for why they wouldn’t be allowed to run from the MDP. I thought Roy Temple did a good job of explaining the reasons and the potential outcome if nominations were to be taken from the floor. I appreciated his patience and his thorough consideration and response to their motions.
The motions came from individuals in the caucus. They delayed the convention. For what? If, as someone wrote me, this wasn’t your (collective) first rodeo, and given the subject matter of each of the motions, what other result would anyone expect?
I repeat, not explaining the action of the Bernie Sanders national campaign in so radically paring down their caucus at-large delegate candidate list to the individuals directly affected and the caucus as a whole was a failure of organization. Allowing the blame to be transferred to the state party for a decision by the campaign is just plain wrong – it played to an already established narrative that the “establishment” was obstructing the one true way. I ascribe the whole mess to incompetence (in the lack of appropriate follow through) on the part of the national campaign and inexperience and a lack of actually reading the easily accessible delegate selection plan on the part of the people who were upset that they were cut. It was the job of the Bernie Sanders national campaign and their representatives in the state to do the explaining – they made the decision.
The motions came from delegates within the caucus. That they were what they were speaks of a lack of discipline within the caucus. It only takes one person. Your caucus had at least three.
There were no such motions from the Hillary Clinton caucus – I wrote earlier about one that would have been equally inflammatory. Yet, no one rose to make it. You can ascribe indifference as a motive for not doing so. That would be an error on your part.
People make mistakes all the time, the difference in graciousness is in acknowledging that the mistakes were made and the damage they caused.
Michael, I thought all the resolutions proposed by the resolutions committee passed unanimously. So how about that resolution about each accepting one another and forgiving differences and short falls? I’m just trying to reassure you that there was no conspiracy to delay proceedings.
I never buy conspiracy theories, the vagaries of the human experience account for enough. The end result of all the sturm und drang was that things took longer and people left the convention before the end because they had long drives, they were tired, whatever. We were late to a wedding reception, but the folks there were good Democrats, so they understood.
You sir, are a piece of work. I made one of the motions from the floor that you speak of. In fact I am pictured in your article making it. I motioned to reconsider the votes on the rules and agenda because the back half of the room couldn’t understand anything Roy Temple was saying. Not to delay anything, but because the votes happened and the back of the room didn’t even know what we were Yay-ing or Nay-ing about. We have a right to be able to hear clearly. There is nothing controversial about that, I would think. I was ignored, just as nearly every other motion proposed from the Sanders floor was.
And I will say what no one here has had the guts to. I applaud the woman who spoke at the end. She only spoke the truth, it may have been out of place or out of time, but it is no less true. Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation, and you are most likely to get a Trump presidency with Clinton as the candidate. WAKE UP! If you cared about the party none of you would be burying your heads in the sand.
The collision between the DNC and the Clinton campaign – which we know to be fact because of, you guessed it, hacked and leaked emails – and the rampant voter suppression and election fraud should infuriate you, a proclaimed democrat. Again, bury your head in the sand, and pretend that the concocted results are valid and the voice of the people.
I have been a democrat my entire adult life, and I am one of the rare few who vote in every election, and you are all to eager to alienate me and those like me. I would caution you to watch your vitriol towards Sanders supporters, or you will find your party very small and unelectable. I am not alone, there are millions of us tried and true dems that are done with the march to the right, the embrace of neoliberalism at the expense of real progressive values, and yes the rampant pay to play money corruption that we have criticized the Republicans for, for so long.
Your dismissive and rude treatment of us individually and as a whole will come back to bite you, and you won’t have anyone to blame but yourself.
You get Hoynes.
Hi Michael. You know me. Jaelithe, from MOMocrats, and I was an Obama delegate in ’08. Show Me Progress writers and I talked a fair bit back in ’08 when we covered events together. I was a Sanders delegate for CD-1 this year. As far as I know, the person who made a motion to replace the chair was acting against the wishes of the majority of the Sanders caucus. We’d actually had a pre-convention meeting in the morning where tactics had been discussed and voted on. Challenging the chair was not one of them. I was very surprised by that motion and I think the vast majority of other delegates who had attended the morning meeting were as well. There was no general plan to draw convention proceedings out or make things take forever. We had spent weeks organizing extensively, trying to make sure our delegates would show up in force so that we would have a voice in the state platform, and on Saturday morning we felt confident we would have a majority on the floor, so there would have been no point really in staging any deliberately dilatory tactics. We were in fact worried that if the process took too long, we might lose some of our own delegates, too.
In fact we’d made a plan as a group, at our morning meeting, to push hard ONLY on a few very specific and very important goals, including trying to get some floor nominations for DNC seats elected, and pushing to have at least a few of our resolutions passed. (The climate change resolution was mine, by the way. There was no mention of climate change in the proposed party platform before that. I thought correcting that omission was important. I know many on Team Hillary would agree. But none of the Hillary delegates proposed such a resolution. Propose a good one next time, and I’ll be sure to vote for it no matter which caucus I’m in.)
A few people in the Sanders caucus chose not to follow the plan of the majority of the caucus and decided to be disruptive in ways that many other delegates in both caucuses found frustrating or disappointing. But, well, insurgent campaigns attract insurgents, democracy is messy by nature, and the only way to bring new people into the political process (which must continuously happen for democracy to succeed) is to bring new people– who might not understand much yet about the political process– into the political process. It’s true that some of the Sanders delegates who interrupted proceedings were inexperienced at this sort of thing and did not know how to raise objections or ask for clarifications effectively under the rules. I think delegates should have the right to have sincere objections to the process heard, though. even if they don’t fully understand proper parliamentary procedure. If the party wants to make the process run more smoothly next time (which I hope they do), they could offer more education and outreach to new delegates and alternates. There was very little of that offered this year. At many of the township and ward meetings statewide, delegates weren’t even given a copy of the delegate handbook, or told when and where the state convention would be held. And many delegates were inadvertently left out of mass informational emails sent by the party afterward. The state party didn’t even have the agenda for the convention printed until the day of the convention itself! Many new delegates I spoke with this year felt very confused about the process and WANTED to be informed, but did not know where to get the information they were seeking. If we want to talk about improving organization, we might want to start with a look at our state party.
As for the issue with At-Large Delegates– in my opinion it’s true that the Sanders campaign made some missteps in handling speaking to their Missouri delegation about that choice. A very short and somewhat confusing email was the only initial official communication sent to the delegates cut from the list. Clarification came afterward, and many Sanders delegates had tried to spread the word to others before the convention that the choice to cut the list had been the campaign’s choice and not the state party’s. But a small, vocal group of people clearly did not get the memo. The majority of the Sanders caucus was aware that the decision was made by the campaign and not the party, which is why it was members of the Sanders caucus who moved to end the discussion on the AL list issue. The same issue over AL-delegates had already come up during our pre-convention meeting and caucus leaders did attempt to address it there. Apparently some remained unconvinced, despite having attended that meeting, and some missed the meeting– and were also left off of state party and/or campaign email lists, etc.– probably simply did not know who had cut the list or why. Some of the Sanders delegates who were opposed to the AL list being cut actually wound up walking out of the convention early over the issue– which could have lost the caucus its majority. So you see, it wasn’t just a problem for the convention– it was a problem for the Sanders caucus more than anyone else! But I am not sure what else the leaders of our caucus (by whom I mean delegates who wound up in leadership roles, not Sanders staff members) could have done beyond what they did do to try to resolve the issue– which they definitely did NOT want derailing the convention. .
Sound really was a major problem for many people in both caucuses. What you could hear depended a lot on where you were sitting. It wasn’t actually the worst in the back of the room. There were whole zones in the middle where a combination of echoing caused by the natural room acoustics and delays between different speakers made it very hard to hear what Roy Temple was saying. Where I was sitting at first, in the back of CD-1 which was roughly in the middle of the room, it was nearly impossible to hear clearly. I moved up just a few rows and suddenly could hear everything much more clearly. The complaints about sound were not a delaying tactic. The sound problem was 100% a legitimate issue, and the points of privilege raised about it were totally valid, and frankly I wish the chair had taken the complaints about sound more seriously from the beginning, because then the issue could have been resolved more quickly and we could have gotten on with serious convention business.
At the end of the day, though, as you said, more Sanders delegates showed up, and more of them stayed until the end. The caucus contained many new, inexperienced members. It did not move in lock-step. But it STILL out-organized, out-planned and out-voted the largely establishment, largely experienced Clinton caucus.
Hold that thought.
A question for you: Do you truly believe that some, most, all of the Clinton caucus had issues with most of the resolutions? The individuals I was sitting with had no problems with most, if not all of the resolutions. Many have been working on the ground for years to implement those policies, including some who were in or currently are in the General Assembly.
The only item I had an issue with was the open primary/unpledged PLEO business. As long as there are open primaries/caucuses in states the Democratic Party would be insane to drop the unpledged PLEO delegates. Get rid of caucuses and open primaries – I’ll be the first in line to advocate for ending the unpledged PLEOs. The reality is that unpledged PLEO or not, those individuals holding those elected offices would be easily elected as delegates in their states (and some commonwealths) if they chose to do so.
“I didn’t know” is a really poor excuse when the delegate selection plan and basic schedule has been easily accessible since practically forever.
The two of us have communicated in the past about the delegate selection process – it ain’t rocket surgery. You know that. I know that.
Again, do you understand how much it pisses off people who have worked on the ground in campaigns and advocated for many of the same public policy issues you support when you label them “establishment” as if it’s some sort of freakin’ disease?
From your description it appears that the Bernie Sanders caucus spent a lot of time organizing to win votes, not so much in promoting the political comity on the way to policy many profess to venerate.
No, I don’t believe that most of the Clinton caucus opposed most of the resolutions– and I’m honestly not sure why you asked me that question, since I did not say that I believed that. However, I do KNOW that, before the convention, certain members of the Clinton caucus tried to block certain of the resolutions that wound up getting passed by acclimation, including mine– from ever reaching the floor for a vote. In fact the only way members of the Sanders caucus on the resolution committee could even get my resolution to the floor was to let state party members reword it: my original resolution would have stated unequivocally that the MDP supports setting a goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050; Clinton supporters and state party leaders would only let it pass committee if that goal got amended to “2050 or as soon as is practicable.” They also reworded parts of my resolution that strongly urged the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies to eventually replace fossil fuels in the state, because, as I was told, “this state runs on coal.” (Yeah, I knew that, thanks. That’s kind of the problem.) Other resolutions were watered down in similar ways. And yes, I know that compromise is part of the process, and I’m glad that we were able to achieve consensus and get some good things passed. But understand that the pushback from some corners to us even presenting these resolutions on the floor was fierce. Even though we were confident that many Clinton supporters would agree with many of our resolutions, because of the feedback we got from party leadership and Clinton caucus members on the standing committees in the run-up to the convention, we had reason to be concerned that someone in the Clinton caucus might mount opposition to our resolutions from the floor. Thankfully that did not happen and I’m glad it did not happen.
I don’t just believe that there are many very progressive people and many good dedicated public servants on the Clinton delegation side; I KNOW that there are; I am good friends with many of them. (In fact, I’m even personal friends with one of the DNC committee members on the official slate, who lost the vote– we’re both officers in the same local Democrats club– I’ll have to let the world wonder how I voted on that particular choice). But in Missouri the Clinton caucus ALSO happened to contain many of the more conservative members of the party– I think you know that a well as I do– and those people were the ones many Sanders delegates were there to try to wrest some control from. The way I see it, the fight for the soul of the party in Missouri is not just a Clinton v. Sanders fight; there are multiple ideological battlefronts going here at the same time. I would like to think that in most cases you and I are actually fighting on the same side.
I would have LOVED to see some of the more progressive members of the Clinton caucus stand up and present their own progressive resolutions for the state party platform. Like I said, if they had, I would have voted for them. Party unity goes both ways.
So, some people didn’t agree with your resolution. You didn’t get everything you wanted in your resolution, but you got most of it. Your resolution passed in the package with unanimous (I don’t recall hearing any dissent) acclamation. What’s the problem? You encountered resistance and overcame it with the approval of almost everyone in the building. I would think that the people who should be disappointed are the ones who initially obstructed your good work, not you.
Yes, yes, do tell me about party unity. [For instance, see the comment at 10:18 am.]
I wish there was a better word than establishment, and again no one is saying that all Hillary supporter are in the group. You have defended the super delegate system, that system is to ensure that people that have “established’ themselves as party leaders have extra voice in the outcome of the Presidential nomination. What other word would you use for it? But it is no more offensive than listening to people say they have been fighting for the same things as we have for years and we are all new comers.
We have real differences and a rigged election system is at the top of the list. Parties are great for letting people come together, but they have been used more to lock people out lately. That is one thing we are working to change. Along we the obscene amounts of money involved. And there are major Democratic players in this State who don’t want to limit money. We believe we can strengthen and grow our Party best, by weakening it’s grasp on the wheel of Government. There is a big anti-Party movement and we must listen to that or be destroyed by it.
There are many of us on the Bernie side who sit on Party committees at every level. Except until the national Convention is over, the DNC. And yes many more are on the ballots for Committee Person and even more filing empty Committee person seats. We are about growing the Party. Do you know of one person running for State Rep doing so because they were inspired to do so by Hillary Clinton?
Rigged election system? How so?
You seem to believe that unpledged PLEO delegates in Missouri are somehow not answerable to those who elected them. We can disagree on this and the implementation of it. That’s fine.
I don’t like open primaries – if you’re going to help make the decision about the nominee for the party than you should actually be a member of the party. That’s a little difficult in Missouri because we don’t register to vote by party.
You might note in the third paragraph of the post there’s a hole in my resume for my participation as a county level delegate to the state convention (in 2012). Since Missouri allows crossover voting and there was an uncontested presidential primary on the Democratic Party side can you guess what I did? If you’re offended by that, consider this in politics: if your opponent is drowning, throw the bastard an anvil. I threw the bastards an anvil. Do you consider that republicans would contemplate doing the same thing in similar circumstances? You bet. The Democratic Party rules at the time didn’t allow me to participate in the delegate selection process because of my self sacrifice on behalf of the party.
Hmmm. I know a lot of people who are in the General Assembly, who were in the General Assembly, and who are currently running for the General Assembly because they believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party and all of the people we try to represent. It’s not supposed to be a cult of personality.
Rigged is not just about unpeldged delegates. It is Campaign finance, it is gerrymandering, it is voter suppression. In Missouri to get on the ballot as a partisan candidate you have to pay a small amount to the Party, but as an Independent you have to collect signatures which is costly. For a State wide office it is 10,000 signatures, try to get that many for $200 which is the Party price.
If you feel Primaries should be closed, then, do you support the Primaries being paid for by the Party? They are not. Closed Primaries disenfranchise 48% of voters who now consider themselves Independent. But they have to pay for the Primaries.
Being a Democrat doesn’t mean you have to believe in the Party controlling the system.
Campaign finance. You’re new around this here blog, aren’t you? Hint: there’s a category tag, “Campaign Finance”. Click on it. It might make you feel slightly better about the various insinuations about my establishmentarianism tendencies.
There are plenty of parties to choose from, with all kinds of ranges in ideology. Well, okay, libertarians are just republicans who want to blow dope. [That’s an old joke, don’t get too agitated about it.] Look at the data on self identified “Independents”. The reality is, they’re a tiny percentage of the electorate. They are either republicans or Democrats [voting that way consistently and almost exclusively as individuals] who, for one reason or another, can’t figure out how to check off next to the party name on their voter registration form (except in Missouri, we don’t register by party). Here’s the thing, in my opinion, if you want to participate in choosing the party’s nominees then join the party. Otherwise, form your own party, call it whatever, and join in the general election fray.
Elections disenfranchise nonregistered non-voters because they have to pay for them. Public schools disenfranchise people without children because they have to pay for them. Interstate highways disenfranchise bicyclists because they have to pay for them. Do you really want to engage in a public policy discussion using social media memes thought up by a junior high school dance decoration committee?
Everyone benefits from our election system, including the primaries. Even if they don’t directly participate, there is something to be said for an orderly transfer of or continuation of governance being good for everyone. Plus, they can still vote in the general election if they don’t want to act (join the party!) to vote in the primary. Nobody is stopping anyone from registering for a party and voting in that party primary. There is no disenfranchisement there.
Being a Democrat means you believe in Democrats controlling the Democratic Party. What’s really great about that is we let anyone in who says they’re a Democrat. That’s simple. If someone can’t handle that requirement they probably shouldn’t be trusted with sharp implements or dispensing their own medication. If they don’t like us on the day after the primary, that’s okay, they can join another party if they want.
I see that comment you refer to. I also remember pretty well the “Party Unity My Ass” PUMA movement of Clinton supporters from 2008 and its members’ loud public refusals to vote for Obama. Show me a candidate with no ride-or-die supporters in his or her camp, and I’m pretty sure you’ll be showing me a candidate with very little support. By focusing on a few inflexible people, members of Team Clinton ’16 keep missing opportunities to have useful discussions with those who are willing to come together and talk.
And how did that massive groundswell of opposition work out in 2008? Right.
Focusing on a few? Look, I didn’t prod the Hillary is the antichrist motion attempt at the convention, nor the defense of it in the comments here, nor the most recent shorter comment. They showed up here after the link to the original post was put up on a Bernie Sanders supporter’s social media page. Just for fun you should go read the comments over there and then come back and tell me again about inflexible people.
I’m flattered that you think I have some standing with “Team Clinton ’16”, whatever that is. I’m just someone from Missouri who voted for a candidate and participated in the process.
As for dialogue, you’re here aren’t you?
The fact that the PUMAs didn’t accomplish much in ’08 was precisely my point. Dead-enders with no Plan B generally don’t get much done. That was true of the Clinton PUMAs in ’08 and it will also be true of Sanders people who cannot shift focus to wins they can make. As I see it, the Camp Sanders wins at the Mo Dem convention were made by people who were able to shift focus from the presidential race to other issues. People who wrote resolutions, figured out where to submit them, got them in on time, and defended them before a committee. People who organized a team to call 1,000 delegates and alternates to remind them to show up, and found rooms and rides for people who lacked them. People who attended and held pre-convention meetings and dug up and sent out information about the convention that the party did not itself manage to distribute in a timely fashion. Etc. It was Sanders supporters who did all that, by the way, not Sanders campaign staff. The people who got those things accomplished weren’t taking campaign orders from above. They saw an opportunity to try to make party policy changes happen, even if their chosen candidate could not be the one to lead those changes, and they ran with it. They organized themselves. That just goes to show how much the Sanders campaign has NOT been a cult of personality. If you look at it that way you miss the big picture. A majority of registered Democrats under age 40 supported Sanders. His backers are not all fair-weather Dems or naive newcomers to politics. Some of them (like me) have been active members of the party for a decade or two. Some of them have extensive experience as political volunteers or activists; some are already elected politicians themselves. Sanders caught a progressive wave that was already rising. The Democratic party leadership would do well to also hitch a ride.
It’s been very interesting reading the comments on this thread.
The same as 2008, and yet, not the same as 2008. Because some are insiders, yet are not insiders.
And besides, in 2008, the Hillary Clinton caucus flipped the four DNC seats because the Obama controlled state party was mean in the nominating committee meetings or we would have settled for two. No scratch that. It didn’t happen.
I don’t recall any motions at the 2008 state convention made from the floor from the Hillary Clinton caucus that condemned Obama for forging his birth certificate, because, well, that’s Democracy and it gets messy and everyone is entitled to their individual voice. Do you?
And yet, Roy Temple and the MDP staff worked their tails off and did a really good job at the state convention, yet their complete disregard for transparency caused people to look for stuff.
Because, can I name ONE candidate for the General Assembly who was INSPIRED by Hillary Clinton to run for office?
“….I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I’ve had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.
In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the State Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.
Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009…”
Hillary Clinton said that on June 7, 2008.
It’s not 2008 now, is it? Definitely not.
The majority of Democratic voters under 40 supported Bernie Sanders? What percentage of the total electorate are they? Just asking.
“…. demographic projections of this November’s electorate, which account for population growth since 2012, calculate that the white share of the Democratic vote will tick down another percentage point, to 54 percent. The rest of the Democratic vote will be black (24 percent), Hispanic (15 percent), or belong to Asian or other races (7 percent)….”
“….Clinton has won or is favored to win almost every state where the turnout demographics strongly resemble those of Democrats as a whole….”
That was written by Nate Silver on April 15, 2016.
There were a few other things which weren’t in the resolutions:
Pondering what happened in the room where it happens… (June 22, 2016)
“….Do I think MODems are going to suddenly become horrible on LGBT rights?
No.
But a resolution would have sent a clear message to candidates, voters, and Missourians that MDP is all in on MONA and everyone else should be too.
Do I think MODems are going to stand up for abortion rights and demand the same of candidates who run under the party’s banner?
Um.
Some will, others won’t.
The party has a long way to go, and the lack of a resolution on abortion rights won’t help address a history littered with inconsistent and reluctant support for abortion rights.
Do I think MODems aren’t committed to protecting voting rights?
I’m pretty confident that Dems are committed to voting rights, particularly since the votes under attack are usually Dem votes.
But we’ve got a monster of a ballot measure coming up in November, and a resolution would have been a nice reminder to the press, voters, and Missourians that voting rights are under attack and Missouri Dems are the ones deep in the battle to protect them….”
The revolutionaries who show up get to pick the priorities.
Pingback: Meta: giving credit where credit is due | Show Me Progress
Pingback: Stuff happens | Show Me Progress
Pingback: Our top ten traffic posts for 2016 | Show Me Progress
Pingback: The political year in pictures – 2016 – part 1 | Show Me Progress
Pingback: полезные идиоты in 2016 | Show Me Progress
Pingback: A text from Bernie 2020 | Show Me Progress
Pingback: You now, your candidate is kind of okay, but too many of his true believers are real assholes | Show Me Progress
Pingback: Three down. Fifty-four or so to go. | Show Me Progress
Pingback: Bernie Sanders (I): out of the 2020 presidential race | Show Me Progress