QOTD: Should Political Parties Endorse Candidates Before Primaries Are Held?

Filed in National by on June 25, 2012

This Question of the Day is inspired by the article in today’s NJ by Adam Taylor taking a look at some of the current complaints and issues about the Delaware Democratic Party’s endorsement process.

Last week, the NCCo Democratic Committee voted their endorsements for NCCo County Executive and NCCo Council President. They did this with three weeks left before candidates need to file and other timing issues. It also raises questions about the voting process itself — as in how does getting 10 out of 22 districts’ endorsement votes (not a majority) get you an endorsement? Rebecca Young explains:

The problem, county party Chairwoman Rebecca Young said, is that Delaware’s primary is on Sept. 11, less than two months before the general election.

“It’s very difficult, really,” Young said. “The filing deadline and the primary should be in the spring. But it’s not, so we live with this Rube Goldberg system.”

No doubt it its difficult, but why endorse when there is a primary at hand? While the candidate who gets the endorsement gets all of the Party support possible, the question is how does this benefit either voters or the process? It just looks as though the Party is trying to usurp the role of the voters and provide predigested winners. Part of the tell is here:

“To my mind, if the candidate is really serious, they would be filed and ready to roll long before now,” Young said. “If you’re an incumbent that’s one thing, but a challenger needs to be on the ground by March at the latest.”

Not to just pick on Rebecca, but this tells me that this is the Party deciding if you are “healthy” enough to run. It is a decision about how to spend Party resources, but not one about governing. We went through this in the Carney vs Markell race and a bunch of us didn’t think much of it then. Putting your thumb on the scale of decision-making process before voters make their decision basically looks as though the Party needs something to do during a Primary. Jack Markell’s win in 2008 should have sparked some soul searching about this endorsement process and as all of these endorsements get rolled out, I’m stunned that 4 years later that doesn’t seem to be any lessons learned here.

But that’s my opinion, and certainly not the opinion of this blog. What do you think?

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (76)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Idealist says:

    I do think it’s more difficult for the Party to stay neutral with the primary only 2 months before the general. Yet another reason to move our primaries earlier.

  2. Josh says:

    The endorsement of 10 of 22 committees doesn’t seem familiar. Last time there was no incumbent in the race for NCC President was 2004 and the party didn’t endorse. They endorsed Matt Denn for IC on the backing of a large majority of committees just as Chris Coons got the nod for exec that year. In 2006 it was a similar process for the Party Endorsement with Dennis Spivack, for Congress. Get in early, show an ability to raise money and garner support from the party committees. Of which I was a member until I joined the Army.

    The Party set up the endorsement process after the primary system started after the 1970 congressional primary between Shipley, and, Daniello. Which was a change from the convention process which choose the party candidate until the 1970.

    That said how many of the Mitch Crane, acolytes think that he shouldn’t have gotten the endorsement? It goes both ways.

  3. Another Mike says:

    At the least, they party should not endorse anyone until after the filing deadline has passed. Just because someone has not filed does not mean they are not laying the groundwork. People have valid reasons for filing when they do.

  4. liberalgeek says:

    I call bullshit.

    Tell you what, let’s take a look at the filed candidates list as of today:

    http://electionsncc.delaware.gov/candidates/2012/2012_filed.shtml

    On June 15th, Governor Markell was endorsed. Yet, I cannot see any evidence that he has even filed yet.

    I am all for endorsements. They can motivate supporters, no matter the outcome. I think that the party’s endorsement of John Carney was some of the fuel that drove Markell to victory. But I know several committees have been using “filed candidate status” to determine whether or not they can endorse.

    But I do concur that the primary calendar for Delaware is a crock. It needs to be aligned with the Presidential primary.

  5. liberalgeek says:

    Oh, and lest you think that this is simply an old list of candidates, the list does have the fact that Terry Schooley dropped out on 6/18 (and Matlusky withdrawing on 6/20). So even if Markell filed since the last update, he would have done so AFTER the endorsement on 15th.

  6. Painesme says:

    If 7 committees abstained from endorsing, that would mean taschner won 10/15 committees – a majority by my count.

  7. tobyz says:

    I believe the count was 15 out of 22 districts voted to endorse/ recommended to endorse. Once a candidate gets the majority of “endorsing” districts, the NCC Dem Committee can vote to endorse. That is definitely a majority. One thing that was incorrect in the article, however, was the statement that 7 districts did not endorse. To my knowledge, only 2 districts are not endorsing this year. The remaining 5 either have not endorsed yet, or did not have enough people to form a quorum for a vote. The City is most likely waiting because of the scope of the mayoral primary. Most, if not all of the candidates in that race are on committees themselves and makes for tense endorsement meetings.

    Besides the filing deadline issue and date of the primary, another problem with the process is the committees that choose not to endorse candidates at all. There is really no reason for these committees to exist if they are not endorsing anyone, other than to socialize with each other. The purpose of these committees is to help choose viable candidates for the Democratic Party. To do this they must endorse candidates. Not endorsing at all renders the committee virtually useless.

    As far as endorsing before the filing deadline, each individual committee can endorse/ recommend to endorse any candidate they choose, whether they have filed or not. There was nothing preventing non-filed candidates from visiting these committees ahead of filing and trying to gain their endorsements. Some committees did put self-imposed restrictions upon themselves to endorse only filed candidates. This, however, is up to each committee.

    The fact that 15 of 22 (20 really, if you don’t count the two useless committees) were organized enough to endorse is a miracle. If anyone has ever been involved in this process they know it’s like herding cats to get each committee person to move in a single direction, much less the Party. This no easy feat and much has to be said that all of these committees made such a definitive statement so, relatively, quickly. After all, Democrats are not known for swift and decisive action. This says a lot about the candidates who were endorsed, as well as those who were not.

  8. Valentine says:

    I do not think the Party should endorse, for the reasons stated in the article above. Let the people decide. Also the endorsement process is exclusionary and greatly favors the well-connected, old boys’ club types. It is a travesty that non-endorsed candidates might not be allowed access to Votebuilder. I would like to see the Party policy about endorsements changed.

  9. Geezer says:

    “It just looks as though the Party is trying to usurp the role of the voters and provide predigested winners.”

    Of course it is. Where would anyone get the idea that a political party, or more to the point the people running the parties, have no interest in the outcome of a primary? I don’t think you’d find people to run the party if that job gave them no power to pick the candidates, or at least to try to.

    As defenders of Chip Flowers and Karen Weldin Stewart have pointed out, endorsements of their primary opponents didn’t stop either from being elected, and of course Markell overcame the establishment’s hand-picked candidate in Carney.

    Maybe we should be looking at whether the party’s endorsement has any effect at all on what the voters think, and if it does, whether that effect is positive or negative.

    Or maybe better party leadership would have a better idea of whom voters will take a liking to.

  10. Linda says:

    I agree I do not think a party should endorse. IMO incumbents go unchallenged too often in our state. Any new challenger to any position should be welcomed without endorsements being thrown into the mix, it just seems to muddy the waters even further.

  11. tobyz says:

    “Maybe we should be looking at whether the party’s endorsement has any effect at all on what the voters think, and if it does, whether that effect is positive or negative.”

    It is not so much the effect on voters as how well the candidates use the resources provided from the endorsement. The validity of the endorsement really falls on the candidate. If they fall back on their laurels and think that it is easy sailing from now on because of the endorsement, they will surely get pounded. Those who use the tools and finances provided will have a greater advantage. The endorsement in name alone does not really hold much weight with the average voter. It’s just one more line on a campaign mail piece.

    “I agree I do not think a party should endorse. IMO incumbents go unchallenged too often in our state. Any new challenger to any position should be welcomed without endorsements being thrown into the mix.”

    Mitch Crane is a challenger and he received the endorsement, unanimously.

  12. Linda says:

    I went to one of Mitch Crane’s first meet and greets because I knew the issues and cared about what was going on. I fully support him. It is the “resources given” that I am questioning . . . not the candidates themselves.

  13. Valentine says:

    Of course party leaders have strong opinions and want to influence who gets elected. But if you are a party that stands for democracy and inclusiveness, and opposes elite rule and exclusivity, on principle, then you should not be making endorsements. Moreover, Democrats should not go along with the idea that it is OK for party elites to aggrandize themselves and shore up their own power, even if that is what many people in positions of power, even in the DP, try to do.

  14. Idealist says:

    There’s a strong argument to be made that non endorsed candidates should not lose VoteBuilder. However, if the Party wants to make its endorsement relevant, then it ought to offer its endorsed candidates resources to help them become the nominee. Otherwise, the endorsement has as much relevance as a straw poll.

  15. tobyz says:

    “And I also went to one of Mitch Crane’s his first fundraisers because I knew the issues and cared about what was going on. It had nothing to do with an endorsement by the party. It is the “resources given” that I am questioning . . . not the candidates themselves.”

    I was at several functions where Mitch Crane, as well as the other candidates, spoke. It was Crane’s message, ability to relay that message and his constant presence in the committee meetings that gained him the endorsement. I am guessing that he would have been endorsed whether he was filed or not. He “won” the endorsement over the others through his actions. The same opportunity is available to any candidate or challenger. In the same vein, an incumbent can easily lose the endorsement the same way.

    The resources are their for the winner. That is, the one who put forth the most effort and convinced the most committee members that they were the best choice. If the challengers do not go through the effort, of course the committees will go with the incumbent. It is a long and exhausting process and not reached easily. Consensus among 22 committees (in NCC alone) made up of 15-30 Dems each is difficult, if not almost impossible. If the candidates message is good and they are willing to do the footwork, they have a huge advantage against their opponent. The issue is that most challengers never go to committee meetings until endorsement time.

  16. tobyz says:

    “And I also went to one of Mitch Crane’s his first fundraisers because I knew the issues and cared about what was going on. It had nothing to do with an endorsement by the party. It is the “resources given” that I am questioning . . . not the candidates themselves.”

    I was at several functions where Mitch Crane, as well as the other candidates, spoke. It was Crane’s message, ability to relay that message and his constant presence in the committee meetings that gained him the endorsement. I am guessing that he would have been endorsed whether he was filed or not. He “won” the endorsement over the others through his actions. The same opportunity is available to any candidate or challenger. In the same vein, an incumbent can easily lose the endorsement the same way.

    The resources are their for the winner. That is, the one who put forth the most effort and convinced the most committee members that they were the best choice. If the challengers do not go through the effort, of course the committees will go with the incumbent. It is a long and exhausting process and not reached easily. Consensus among 22 committees (in NCC alone) made up of 15-30 Dems each is difficult, if not almost impossible. If the candidates message is good and they are willing to do the footwork, they have a huge advantage against their opponent. The issue is that most challengers never go to committee meetings until endorsement time. By then it is too late.

  17. tobyz says:

    “And I also went to one of Mitch Crane’s his first fundraisers because I knew the issues and cared about what was going on. It had nothing to do with an endorsement by the party. It is the “resources given” that I am questioning . . . not the candidates themselves.”

    I was at several functions where Mitch Crane, as well as the other candidates, spoke. It was Crane’s message, ability to relay that message and his constant presence in the committee meetings that gained him the endorsement. I am guessing that he would have been endorsed whether he was filed or not. He “won” the endorsement over the others through his actions. The same opportunity is available to any candidate or challenger. In the same vein, an incumbent can easily lose the endorsement the same way.

    The resources are there for the winner. That is, the one who put forth the most effort and convinced the most committee members that they were the best choice. If the challengers do not go through the effort, of course the committees will go with the incumbent. It is a long and exhausting process and not reached easily. Consensus among 22 committees (in NCC alone) made up of 15-30 Dems each is difficult, if not almost impossible. If the candidates message is good and they are willing to do the footwork, they have a huge advantage against their opponent. The issue is that most challengers never go to committee meetings until endorsement time. By then it is too late.

  18. tobyz says:

    Not sure why my comment is posted 3x. Can anyone delete a couple of the duplicates? I don’t need to get my point across that bad.

  19. Valentine says:

    “That is, the one who put forth the most effort and convinced the most committee members that they were the best choice. If the challengers do not go through the effort, of course the committees will go with the incumbent. It is a long and exhausting process and not reached easily.”

    That is another reason not to have endorsements. It is a huge waste of time and energy for candidates. They should be focusing on the voters, not kissing up to party insiders.

  20. Linda says:

    Mitch Crane is a wonderful candidate. I will not argue that point. Matt Denn did a remarkable job as IC as will Mitch.

    Clearly you make valid points as to the workings of the committees.

    What I am trying to say is that I am a voter and it seems to me that an unfair advantage is given to someone who gets an endorsement and gets “resources”. That is all.

  21. Geezer says:

    “if you are a party that stands for democracy and inclusiveness, and opposes elite rule and exclusivity, on principle…”

    Sorry, but I don’t know any political parties that fit your description.

  22. tobyz says:

    “That is another reason not to have endorsements. It is a huge waste of time and energy for candidates. They should be focusing on the voters, not kissing up to party insiders.”

    Oh, I completely agree that is a waste of time and energy, as well as the fact that their time would be better spent elsewhere. The issue is that the Party is like any entity that a candidate is looking to get funding from. It needs to be lobbied. The problem is that it is a huge, convoluted process that involves too many steps, especially for Countywide and Statewide offices.

    I also agree that having a primary in September is a little ridiculous, as well as advantages to the party that does not have one. A little over a month to raise funds for a general contest is absurd, particularly if the opponent had an entire year to work on it. Moving the primary up, and consequently the endorsements up, would be much better for everyone.

  23. Valentine says:

    Personally, I like to think about the principles at stake, rather than any particular person. I am not a pragmatist, who favors whatever works at any particular juncture. Instead, I stick to principles and then figure out what to do. So what happens in any individual candidate’s case is beside the point, for my thinking at least. Pragmatism can lead to a confusing morass.

  24. tobyz says:

    “Sorry, but I don’t know any political parties that fit your description.”

    You are right, for the most part. A party is an organization with an agenda/ platform. They want candidates who will further that platform. The endorsement process is a way of ensuring that this happens. If they were to give resources to just anyone there would be no reason for a political party to exist.

    This, however, leads to a completely different argument that is best left for another time.

  25. Valentine says:

    @Geezer – I think the Dems claim to stand for those things. The fact that they don’t actually, is why I am so critical of the Democratic Party. I favor trying to force the Dems to practice what they preach or ought to be preaching. We need a progressive uprising to force the party to the left.

  26. Idealist says:

    I wouldn’t describe the majority of Democratic Committee members as party insiders. They are voters and activists. I think it makes sense for candidates to reach out to these activists early as they hone their messages and build support.

    1 month out from the election and you haven’t yet won over a committee, probably a waste of your time.
    6 months out and you’re still introducing yourself to party activists, good use of your time.

  27. Valentine says:

    @Idealist — Well I guess it depends on how you define “party insider,” but RDs often operate as little cliques that support their friends.

  28. Idealist says:

    Fair point. But if as a candidate you’ve become “friends” with a majority of the RDs in your jurisdiction, then you have either been a Democratic activist yourself for at least a few cycles (which I always like to see from candidates I support) or you’re a damn good politician.

  29. tobyz says:

    “Well I guess it depends on how you define “party insider,” but RDs often operate as little cliques that support their friends.”

    Keep I’m mind, you are talking about an average of approximately 600 people voting in 22 RD’s. All of these are completely different areas and demographics. The fact that they agree on any candidates amounts to the closest thing to miracle that there is. And that is just NCC.

  30. Valentine says:

    I guess it depends on how much you trust the Democratic leadership, including committee people, vs. how much you think new voices are needed.

  31. JenL says:

    Endorsements hurt parties. They divide parties. The endorsement process has extended the election cycle to no one’s benefit. There is no value in filing in Jan or Feb for many offices. The filing requirement for an endorsement is a means by which incumbents scare off competition from people who are considering a run by making them come up with the money.

  32. Linda says:

    Very well said JenL . . . early filings are unnecessary.

  33. cassandra_m says:

    What would change — besides resource allocation — if the Party did NOT endorse before a primary? Serious question.

  34. Painesme says:

    “…it seems to me that an unfair advantage is given to someone who gets an endorsement and gets ‘resources’.”

    What is unfair about it? If a group of people organize in support of a candidate they like, is that unfair? I fail to see the difference here.

    I think it’s a little absurd to paint this monolithic image of “The Party”. Like Tobyz has been saying, the endorsing committees are hardly like-minded in many respects. “herding cats” is a great analogy; I think anyone who has been to one of these meetings would agree. An April primary I can get behind. An endorsing convention, even. But let’s not pretend that the DDP leadership is so omnipotent as to controlling the way these committees vote. Maybe the tinfoil hats can come off for a second?

  35. anon says:

    How often does the endorsed candidate win?

  36. tobyz says:

    @cassandra_m- Nothing, really. It is mainly about resources. Although, the endorsement process does help weed out some nuisance primaries. Many times, though, if someone wants to run for office it doesn’t matter how many people tell them they are crazy (Tom Gordon), or it is a bad idea (see previous parenthesis), or fourth time is not a charm (see two parenthesis ago). They will run anyway and the voters will ultimately tell them in the end.

    So, yeah, nothing really.

  37. Painesme says:

    Cassandra – more bruising primaries leaving candidates worse off for the general.

    JenL- You don’t think that struggling to raise a filing fee is an indicator of a weak campaign?

  38. tobyz says:

    “But let’s not pretend that the DDP leadership is so omnipotent as to controlling the way these committees vote. Maybe the tinfoil hats can come off for a second?”

    Absolutely. In fact, the opposite is true. With the committee structure in place now, it is a bottom up system. The leadership often has to go with what the committees decide.

    There are so many moving parts and so much diversity in between the committees that they simply would not listen to a directive from “above”. A lot of them feel omnipotent all on their own.

  39. liberalgeek says:

    more bruising primaries leaving candidates worse off for the general.

    Huh? Do you have an example to support that hypothesis? Because the counter of your argument goes like this: Obama, Coons, Navarro, Flowers, Markell. And that is just off of the top of my head in the last 4 years.

    All of them had a bruising primary and carried the general. Bad news, in a state where the Republicans keep purging themselves by half every 18 months, bruising primaries are going to be the norm. And they are wholly appropriate.

  40. Valentine says:

    There is often a disconnect between committee members and the general Democratic populace.

    As far as contentious primaries go, it would be better to get primaries over earlier, so candidates have less time to in-fight and more time to run against the other party.

  41. JenL says:

    It may not be that they are struggling to raise it. You have to decide and file well before the filing deadline to be considered for an endorsement. People can’t test the waters as easily as they used to be able to.

    The early endorsement deadline.

    The requirement that you have to have filed to be considered. etc.

    These are barriers. They may not be big barriers but they are barriers. Incumbents prefer it this way.

    Let’s be honest. This arose from the Carney-Markell race. The Decmocratic Party saw the possibility on the horizon and wanted to avoid the primary. The party’s endorsement process failed to accomplish that. Now it is still left in place. If Carney-Markell did not tell the Democratic Party to get rid of it I don’t know what will.

  42. Linda says:

    What is unfair about it?

    For example IMO: Look at the race of Taschner, Dunn, Bullock. Neither of these candidates seemed to have a large amount of funds available for their campaigns. An endorsement in this race is a significant advantage.

    Are they all good viable candidates . . . IDK . . . but keep them on equal footing and let us decide.

  43. John Manifold says:

    Actually, the Democratic rules didn’t permit endorsements in the 1970s and 1980s. Party folks changed the rules in 1990 to permit endorsements after a generation in which the party seemed to become less important than the candidates. That change, to permit endorsements, was uncontroversial.

    The ensuing change, about 15 years later, to permit parties to spend on behalf of endorsed candidates, was and remains hugely controversial.

  44. Painesme says:

    Linda – my comment was less on if there was an advantage to endorsements and more on why you would expect folks who are heavily involved in politics to sit on the sidelines in the name of “fairness”. It’s not like candidates are on an island by themselves. By your reasoning, and stop me if this is too straw-man, but to be truly fair, candidates should not be allowed to use any personal or professional connections to get volunteers or money either. Charges that endorsements are exclusive or unproductive, I can follow that logic. “Fairness” just seems a bizarre criticism.

  45. JPConnorJr says:

    Mr. Manifold’s comment goes to this “first time in history” crap that some have been spouting. The whole deal is 22 years old and the major portion is less than 10. John Daniello had his ass handed to him 42 years ago under the old convention system and he has whined like a stuck pig ever since. Sam Shipley is laughing somewhere!

  46. mediawatch says:

    He’s laughing in Naples, Fla., or Stone Harbor.

  47. Don’t forget how these committee can be stacked. I have a great deal of love and respect for the 23rd but it is shocking how the makeup of many DEM committees are packed with close associate of an incumbent or two.

    Remember, the best perk of being in office is the doling out of employment for family and crony alike.

    While attending the mid-county forum, Paul Clark not only had a table full of his county appointee payrollers but through out the room were DEM committee members whose direct family were county employees: wives and husbands, cousins and kids. Now that is not a distinct advantage for the outsider, so to speak.

  48. Linda says:

    @Painesme: I guess I am just old school and I think that belonging to the Democratic party means that taking a pre-primary position at the local level where candidates are personally known divides our party. I feel a party endorsement places the weight of our party behind a selected candidate and detracts from the core of the Democratic party’s philosophy of fairness and inclusiveness. IMO an endorsement relegates those not endorsed into a position of weakness, making their ability to attract donors more difficult. IMO this is not a reflection of what our party stands for. These are my thoughts. I am sure many disagree . . .

  49. JJ says:

    Possible Solution to this late primary problem:

    -End the General Assembly June 1 rather than June 30.

    -Hold a statewide primary the last Tuesday in June like many states are doing tomorrow– June 26th (Utah, NY, etc.)

    Gives candidates and parties some time to recover from negativity, no races while General Assembly is in session, and primary held before dead months of July- August. September 11th is just too late…..

  50. tobyz says:

    “While attending the mid-county forum, Paul Clark not only had a table full of his county appointee payrollers but through out the room were DEM committee members whose direct family were county employees: wives and husbands, cousins and kids. Now that is not a distinct advantage for the outsider, so to speak.”

    Really, Nancy? How do you know who is a county employee, family member, cousin, or kid of a county employee? You made a pretty blatantly unsubstantiated claim. I would like to see you prove it. And as @Painesme put it, take of your tinfoil hat when you do.

  51. Sammy the Bull says:

    You guys are funny. Some of you seem to understand the party process pretty well, but others seem to have absolutely no idea what “The Party” actually is. A collection of local committees. These aren’t all elites who are attempting to control the world by endorsing candidates.

    Many of these are the committee people who make the phone calls, knock the doors, drop the lit, and donate their time and energy to getting democrats elected. I think those devoted party members have a right to vote to endorse the candidate that they want to volunteer for. This doesn’t disenfranchise the everyday voter. They still have the right to overrule the endorsement with their vote on election day. This process simply decides how resources should be allocated. These are the people who make up some of those resources. The Everyday Democrat should have a voice; and yes, it should stand apart from the Election Day Democrat’s voice.

    Any democrat can join. Aside from 1 or 2 committees who are at capacity, there is no committee, that I’ve heard of, who is not accepting members. There is a process for changing the endorsement rules. Every off year the party has its convention where the party votes to approve the by-laws. When the time comes for any democrat to propose a change, nobody says a word. Then miraculously, the next year, you get all of these people complaining about how the rules need to change. Decisions are made by those who show up.

    The only problem I see here is the timing of our primary, other than that our committees should endorse. After all, I think the endorsement process helps the candidates. It gets them used to meeting with groups and fighting for their support before being hurled into the General Election. Win or lose, no candidate can say that the endorsement processes did not help them in some way.

  52. Sammy the Bull says:

    Its important to remember that these committee positions are not paid.They are volunteer positions. Any democrat can join.

  53. tobyz says:

    @Sammy the Bull- Agreed. Anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy and that candidates, much less those running for local office, can “stock” enough members on these committees to give them a favorable outcome has obviously not been to enough “Party” meetings. There is too much diversity and contrast in NCC alone to make that virtually impossible.

    You are also correct in the fact that “decisions are made by those who show up.” Dems have a huge participation problem in this country. Any refistered Dem can attend committee meetings. The problem is that it is hard to even get committee members to participate in the process, let alone “conspire” for a candidate.

  54. Valentine says:

    Maybe next year is the year to propose doing away with endorsements.

  55. Jim Westhoff says:

    We need to stop endorsing candidates before the primary. I can say that after living through the endorsement process as both a member of an RD, and as a candidate.

    The stated reason for the endorsement process is ludicrous. The much-hyped “resources” of the party are a myth. Yes, campaigns have access to VoteBuilder, but my campaign had to pay to use it. There is no reason why the party would say only one Democratic candidate in a particular race can use VoteBuilder.

    If a candidate pays the hefty filing fee, which goes to the party, then that candidate darn well paid for whatever resources the party has to share. For my race for state representative, the filing fee was more than $500, I think. That’s a lot of coin that goes directly the state party.

    However, it will be tough to convince the RDs that we need to make this change.

  56. Valentine says:

    I think there is support for overturning the policy, if we organize.

  57. JenL says:

    I am not saying there is a conspiracy. However, I believe it does more harm than good to a party and party unity.

  58. MJ says:

    Better change – make the state convention actually mean something. Set a minimum threshold that candidates need to reach in delegate votes to make the primary ballot. Those candidates who don’t meet the threshold are out unless they opt out of the process and petition their way on to the ballot.

  59. Roland D. LeBay says:

    Shit like this makes me glad I don’t belong to a political party.

  60. JP Connor says:

    MJ thats how it was in the 60’s and 70’s the number was 30% It made for great conventions committed committee folks and Delegats perhaps a return?
    It was the Only way to get on the ballot….. no petition.

  61. Another Mike says:

    “more bruising primaries leaving candidates worse off for the general”

    Boo fucking hoo. How many times have I read here and elsewhere that if you can’t afford the filing fee, you have no business running for office? Well, if you can’t withstand some body blows during the primary, you probably have no business going through what could be a much rougher general.

    I think primaries are good for the electorate and for the candidates. Too many times in Delaware candidates run with no competition and therefore have no reason to campaign or take a position on anything.

    If the primaries are too close to the general election, then work to change that. Attempting to get rid of primaries is not the answer.

  62. JP Connor Jr says:

    Josh is wrong about 1970. Shipley forced Daniello into a primary by going over the 30% threshold at the convention. That process continued for many more years after the 1970 event. Theaster of the Convention process was none other than Henry Topel.

  63. heragain says:

    This is my favorite quote. “Pragmatism can lead to a confusing morass.”

    Yeah, let’s stick with that and not elect any candidates.That’ll show ’em.

    I was doorknocking, this weekend. If there’s a primary, with say, 3 declared D candidates and 2 more that are still mulling, am I supposed to just stroll around the neighborhood with all FIVE of them, clutching their Vote-Builder paperwork? Do YOU want to answer the door that often, for EVERY Tom, Paul or Sherry that wants to run as a D, PLUS maybe a few optimistic R’s with their own stack of addresses. Or should I, as a “political insider” who volunteers my time once a month to sit in a meeting with people I would NOT socialize with, in order to give my district a crack at decent candidates, just say, no, tis is my guy, this is the only one I’ll introduce around.

    Do you know what it takes to get MY endorsement? It’s a lot harder than getting “the party’s” I assure you,

  64. socialistic ben says:

    “Well, if you can’t withstand some body blows during the primary, you probably have no business going through what could be a much rougher general.”

    the people with the thickest skin and who can throw the most devastating bombs dont make the best politicians. I think the past few years have taught us there is a wide gulf between a great candidate and a great office holder.
    maybe it’s time, as a nation…. in spite of our dear sweet media, that we dispense with this notion that elections are the latest reality TV show.

  65. MJ says:

    JP, back in Colorado, the process started with precinct caucuses. Then there were county assemblies where delegates to the state convention were selected. County assemblies selected candidates for the state house and senate along with any county offices. The threshold used to be 20% in Colorado but that was raised to 30%. A candidate can opt out of the convention route and petition their way on to the primary ballot; however, if they go the convention route and get less than 10% of delegate votes, they cannot petition on to the ballot.

  66. JenL says:

    On balance, do the benefits of endorsements outweigh the negatives to a party?

  67. I didn’t intend to imply that committees are stacked ‘intentionally’.

    It is a function of ‘what it is’.

    Active, helpful DEMs and their family members get the jobs. Active DEMs work committees. But then the conflict is that to keep the jobs, the incumbents gets the most juice. And there is the matter of promising jobs. Blago style. It happens.

  68. auntie dem says:

    What a great thread. Thank you Cassandra for kicking things off.

  69. Valentine says:

    @heragain: I don’t even know what you mean with this comment:

    “This is my favorite quote. ‘Pragmatism can lead to a confusing morass.’ Yeah, let’s stick with that and not elect any candidates.That’ll show ‘em.”

    I don’t understand why you think electing no candidates somehow follows from a critique of pragmatism. That makes no sense to me.

  70. Valentine says:

    For those of us who oppose endorsements because we want to open up the process and not have an old boys’ club atmosphere, moving to a caucus would only make things worse: more exclusionary and more insider machinations.

  71. SED says:

    Has anybody found it amazing the Delaware Democratic Party has endorsed few times now for many candidates and seems to back fire more often now. Markell, Flowers, KWS are just some examples. Does that say something maybe party leadership are bad evaluators of good candidates. Personally, this particular endorsement process probably was rushed too fast and you should have waited until filing deadline was over for the candidates. But I think the party insiders must have been bored or something and need to create some drama.

  72. liberalgeek says:

    One measure of the success of the endorsement process of the Delaware Democratic Party is that we hold all but one statewide elected offices, as well as majorities in the state House and Senate.

    For a political party, that is the only metric you need. The fact that the Democrats have been willing to eat their own (KWS for example) is a sign of health. The fact that Mitch Crane garnered the support of the rank and file committee members will give him a leg up in the general. Without the endorsement process, we would have very little indication of Crane’s strength or Weldin Stewart’s weakness. Plus, like heragain alluded, these are activists. They volunteer. They talk to their friends and families. And in some cases, they actually shape the campaign’s talking points, strategies and tactics.

    The problems that I see is the difficult process of evenly applying rules and communicating those rules to the committees.

  73. city democrat says:

    The only reality is that the filing deadline is too late!!. Increasingly even local offices (see Mayor) need to start earlier-see Kelley, Williams and Montgomery- Baker when he first announcced against incumbent Mayor Sills- started campaigning in April of the election year. FYI As for the endorsement process- the Democratic City Committee will be endorsing in July- Candidates statewide or locally need to pick up their game earlier to vet their ideas, campaigns, coalition build and raise funds. It is time for a change—

  74. JJ says:

    Will Wilmington city committee really endorse this Mayor’s race when Bill Montgomery’s wife is on Exec Committe/ officer of that group? Seems like a major conflict.

  75. John Manifold says:

    What’s the conflict?

    She’s loyal to the party, to the City and to her husband.

    Now if she were trying to get a deal on a bail bond …

  76. city democrat says:

    The City Executive Committee cannot endorse for ANY City based seat
    that has been around for over a decade (Offices include Mayor City Council President – all City Council members and City Treasurer- the local ward organizations may endorse any seat. i guess JJ is not a City Democrat – so this is a FYI