Updated
Objection 4: Drop it, there are bigger fish to fry
There are indeed big fish to fry. One of those fish is Barbara Comstock, the Republican this VA 10th committee is tasked with managing a good process to help them defeat. Damaging their credibility based on unfounded speculation harms their ability to fry that fish effectively. That is why this remains an important issue.
There are also numerous other committees in Virginia and around the country that are undertaking a similar task. We should be encouraging them to run a process similar to what this committee is doing. Kos asserting that good process is “garbage” does not help these committees act in a good way.
Trust has been fractured within the party at all levels. It is pretty clear that was part of the story of 2016. These committees should take the time to make important decisions in a deliberative and public manner as this committee is doing. To remove options before opening a public comment period would only undermine the trust building that needs to occur.
Well, this is garbage.
That is how David Nir opened the diary he posted on Thursday disparaging the VA 10th Congressional Committee, specifically the new Chair, Daily Kos Member since 2007, Zach Pruckowski. Here is his piece:
Bogus: Virginia Democrats consider eliminating primary in favor of a convention for key House race
To be honest, upon reading Nir’s post and checking out what little I could read of the original Politico post Nir lifted this from, I agreed with him. Then I read through the comments.
Zach was on the comment thread interacting with David and other commenters on the diary that evening. He pointed out several things I covered in detail in a post I did Friday:
Bogus: David Nir and KosElections owe us a clarification on what is happening in the Virginia 10th
I want to make clear at the outset. My objection to David Nir’s piece is not his stated preference for a state-run primary. If his post was simply stating that preference, I would be fine. Nir attacked the open transparent process this committee is running. That is my objection.
The committee held a public meeting last week on the options available by party rules, they have opened a public comment period and they will take a vote in November. That is nothing but good committee practice.
Nir asserted that this committee is contemplating doing “an end-run around democracy” and, further, he proposed a nefarious motive for them doing so. After the chair of the committee has made a public statement (posted at the end of this diary) clarifying the process they are considering and explaining his actions directly to David on the comments in his post, the article David wrote was reposted in the Kos Elections morning digest on Friday and reposted by Daily Kos on the front page on Friday. That is the core problem I have with the piece he wrote, one that Kos apparently stands by since they continue to recycle the post as written.
He is human, and capable of making a mistake. His refusal to update the post or amend its content to remove the accusatory language against this committee makes it clear he does not believe he made a mistake, despite many efforts by the chair of the committee to explain the open process he is running. The conclusion to be drawn here is that he believes the process this committee of elected volunteers is running is, in David’s words, garbage.
After several days of back and forth with people that feel what David did is just fine, I want to address some of their common objections they raise here:
Objection 1: It is ridiculous anyone would consider running this nomination through a convention process with so many candidates!
It may be ridiculous that this is an option when there are multiple candidates in the field. That does not change the fact that it is one of the options EVERY SINGLE congressional committee in Virginia is tasked to consider. Here is the rule from the Democratic Party of Virginia Party Plan published in 2015.
Section 6.8 Nomination of Candidates for House of Representatives:
It shall be the duty of each district committee to fix the time, place and method of nominating in its congressional district a Democratic candidate for the United States House of Representatives. Such nomination shall be made by primary, convention or caucus. Whenever a district committee determines that such nomination shall be by the primary method, the primary shall be held in conformity with the Party Plan of the Democratic Party and applicable Virginia election laws. Whenever such nomination is to be made by convention, the district committee shall fix the basis of representation for such convention,consistent with the requirements of Article 15, Section 15.1. LINK
What do you want this chairperson to do? Only present the state-run primary as the only option for the committee to vote on? What exactly is he supposed to do?
He presented the rule to the committee and led a discussion on the pros and cons of each option. They adjourned the meeting and opened up a two-month comment period for people within their district to weigh in. They have a planned vote in November.
If you wish to argue that the party rules should not allow for deciding a nominee in a convention when there are multiple candidates for a nomination, fine. I actually see merit in that point and would likely be in support of the state party amending their rules to reflect that preference. That has not been the case anyone has made. David Nir specifically stated the committee “might do an end-run around democracy” and he assigned a potential nefarious motive to their actions. This is the objection being raised here.
This committee is reviewing the party rules, debating the options in the rules, providing a lengthy public comment period and then will take a vote. That is what David Nir is calling “garbage”.
Objection 2: the only “democratic” option is to hold a state-run Primary.
That is clearly David’s position. I personally tend to agree, although there are some other considerations I will cover down further in the diary, considerations EVERY committee in Virginia ought to consider before casting their vote.
I have no problem with David, anyone for that matter, having an opinion about which process is preferable. I am going to repeat this often. My problem is that David has accused this committee of considering “an end-run around democracy” with the motive being to benefit a specific candidate. He has provided no evidence to support such a claim beyond a poorly sourced Politico story apparently. The sitting chair has thoroughly explained the transparent and open process his committee is following here and David still stands by the assertion they are acting with nefarious intent.
That committee held a public discussion on the party rule and weighed the pros and cons of the options listed in the rule. The accusation is basically that because they discussed a convention as an option (it is) they are seeking to undermine other candidates.
Let’s do a little thought experiment.
Please choose your favorite flavor ice cream from this list:
- Chocolate
- Vanilla
- Strawberry
Have you made a choice? How did you make the choice? I imagine you read the list and considered the options available and, relying on your experience and personal preference, made a choice.
Now, you may say this thought experiment is not relevant, we are discussing things far more complex and important than ice cream flavors. Guess what, you still read the list and made a judgment. It is how decision making and opinion formation occurs. All the committee has done to this point is to read the list.
Further, the committee is required to eventually make a choice from the DPVA list (one of which is the convention option) or we will not have anyone contesting this election.
And as far as what we are talking about being more complex and important. I agree 100%, that is why I am heartened to see this committee taking such a thoughtful and deliberative approach to coming to a decision.
Now, onto those “other considerations,” I mention above.
Here is my summary of what an open state-run primary is and some of its pros and cons.
Virginia is an open primary state. There is no party registration on Virginia's voting roles. This option means the election will be run by the commonwealth, making all of the familiar polling places available to voters. This is a huge positive for this option which is why I still lean toward this option personally.
That said, given that Virginia is an open primary state, that means Republicans can cast a ballot in our primary election. If Barbara Comstock faces a primary challenge, or if she is not in the race and there are other Republican involved in a primary there would be little risk of this potential having much impact on our primary. However, if there is not a contested primary on the Republican side, there is the very real potential Republicans may try to influence who our nominee is.
There is a clear history of partisans in Virginia getting involved in the other parties state-run primary to influence the outcome. The most recent and clearest example was Democrats crossing over to help Dave Brat unseat Leader Cantor in 2014. I know how Kossaks think, where is my proof? The evidence strongly suggests Democrats voted heavily in that 2014 Republican primary in district 7. Here is how I came to that conclusion.
- There was no Democratic primary in District 7 that year.
- I reviewed every state-run contested primary over the last 20 years (10 election cycles) in the Commonwealth of Virginia. That is 220 potential nomination contests amongst the two parties combined. There were only 28 total state-run contested primaries over that time.
- I looked at the vote totals in each primary. The average number of votes cast in any primary, regardless of party, was 26,749. The 2014 Brat-Cantor primary saw 65,021 votes. That is 143% higher than the average voter turnout for a contested primary in Virginia over the last 2 decades.
- The median total is 27,268 votes. The Brat-Cantor race had 138% more votes than the median.
- The next highest vote total was the 2012 primary in the same district with 47,041 votes cast. The Brat-Cantor race saw 38% more votes cast than the next highest race.
All of that is pretty compelling evidence that Democrats likely meddled in the Republican primary to help unseat Cantor that year, with success. I went further though.
- I looked at the precinct by precinct results as well. I compared the vote totals Brat and Cantor got by precinct to who won the 2016 presidential election in that precinct. Brat won the Clinton precincts by 36% while only winning the Trump precincts by 22%.
- Not only did Brat perform better in Clinton precincts against Cantor, but he won a significantly higher percentage of Clinton precincts by beating Cantor in 84% of them. Meanwhile, he only won 66% of the Trump precincts.
Was Democratic participation in this primary decisive? Honestly, it may not have been. That said, their participation in the Republican primary is pretty evident AND the sitting Republican Leader of the House was unseated in that primary.
Given that example alone it is very important that each and every Congressional District Committee in Virginia considers this potential in their races. They must weigh the pros and cons and the probabilities that Republicans might try to participate in a state-run primary within the state. This is a simple matter of due diligence, the reason we elect committees to consider these things in the first place.
Guarding against this sort of meddling is precisely what these committees should be doing. To blanket say the only option is this option, without any deliberative process at all, would be political malpractice in this environment.
Objection 3: You claim this is damaging? What harm has been done to the members of this committee?
OK, to be fair, only one person has raised this objection as far as I have noticed. That said, I have claimed this David Nir article is doing damage, so let me explain my thinking here.
Nir works for a well-respected entity in the Daily Kos. He heads a team most of us consider does good and important work for this site. A valuable resource. Given his position and credibility for him to write a piece calling the due process a local volunteer committee is engaged in “garbage” is damaging to that committee's credibility. Just look at the comments on his post to get a flavor on how people that agree with David now view this committees actions. Most think they are engaged in trying to deny their candidates a fair nomination process. That is not at all the case, that means the assertion itself is damaging their reputation.
When a Democratic Party committee at any level is damaged that by definition damages the party. Now, if that committee has done something to warrant the criticism, it is good to bring it to the open so their actions can be addressed. This committee held a public meeting to educate themselves and their membership on the rules as laid out by the DPVA. They have done nothing more than their job and in a particularly open and transparent fashion. The damage being done to this committee is of Nir’s doing, and by running that post unchanged repeatedly, the making of the Daily Kos as well.
I know, me bringing it up again only serves to restart the controversy, right? Well, I have been checking how many times Nir’s article on Facebook has been shared and the count continues to grow. I think my last check yesterday was that it had been shared 190 times. As I type this Sunday at 3:00 pm eastern it has been shared 206 times. This is circulating on indivisible groups and other activist sites in Virginia. Outrage has been expressed regarding this committees actions. Even petitions have surfaced railing against this committees efforts. That is damaging to the due process the committee is engaged in.
In terms of personal harm, yeah, the members of the committee are adults in the world of politics, they should expect to take some heat. In many ways, it is sort of the job of a committee chair to take the heat and eat criticism so our candidates don’t. That is all well and good, that said, they should not be taking heat from the site that proclaims its mission to be to help more and better Democrats to win elections. If Zach had to deal with the Politico story, fine, that is his job. Nir’s post calling the process this committee is engaged in “garbage”, accusing them of contemplating an “end-run around democracy” and assigning a potential nefarious motive to them has blown this story up in a way a post behind a paywall at Politico just would not have.
Finally, Virginia is at the height of a very important election. All 100 House of Delegates seats stand for election in just 52 short days. That is where every Democrat in Virginia’s focus ought to be. This committee has 10 candidates challenging Republican-held seats in this body alone in the 10th district. Their focus and energy should be on conducting party business and helping get these great candidates elected. Instead, Zach and others on the committee have been forced to spend time preparing statements, calming members, responding to the concerns this inflammatory story has created. Given the universal acknowledgment that gerrymandering is one of the key challenges we face as a party, forcing engaged and active Democrats, doing their jobs in an open transparent way, to defend their process is damaging to these candidates and the party. Frankly, it is also damaging to the reputation of Daily Kos as well.
What we ought to be focused on, electing these great democrats to the house of delegates
Clinking on the district number will take you to a profile of their district. Clicking on the candidate name will take you to their web presence.
This is where all of energy ought to be focused. This is where this energies of the Congressional District Committee ought to be. Let’s get behind these folks, support their campaigns and help them get across the finish line.
As promised here is Zach’s full statement:
Democratic Friends,
There's been a lot of discussion and controversy about our most recent meeting, so we'd like to take the opportunity set the record straight about our most recent meeting, and about where discussions of the nominating process stand.
The Virginia Democrats' State Party Plan instructs the 10th CD Committee to pick the nominating method for the Congressional race and gives us 4 options to pick from - a Convention, an Assembled Caucus (Mass Meeting), an Unassembled Caucus (Firehouse Primary), or a State-Run Primary. All of these methods have been used for different races in the 10th CD over the last few years, and there is no "default" choice - every time there's a nomination, some committee somewhere discusses which method to use, and votes.
In the past, these discussions haven't been fully transparent to our activists, volunteers, and voters in the Democratic community, and that's something we'd like to change. Because we believe in leading by example, we held a 45 minute discussion at our public meeting on Saturday where we debated the pros and cons of each method. Then we decided to go back to our local Democratic communities and talk to our fellow activists before voting at our November meeting (which again, will be open to the public). We also wanted to do more research, because that public discussion raised questions we don't have immediate answers for. We're currently only 6 days into that two month process.
There've been some claims that the race in the past has been a primary and we're taking that away. The last three or four cycles have in fact been conventions, and none of them were contested.
We're going to have a lot more info for you on the pros and cons of each method over the coming weeks. We're all volunteer leaders who're also working hard to elect our 2017 candidates, so we ask for your patience if it takes us some time to do the research and writeups and pass it along to you - we're doing our best to be transparent and frank with you, our friends and fellow Democrats.
This committee isn't made up of "party elites", we're all volunteers and activists. We all make phone calls and knock on doors and show up at protests. We go to the same local committee and group meetings you do. If you're an active Dem volunteer in VA-10, you've probably met at least one of us. Feel free to talk to us there and give us your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Zach Pruckowski,
Chair, 10th CD Democratic Committee
Required Disclaimer: My name is Donald Braden. I run a political consulting business, Full Slate Consulting. Part of that business included me preparing the district profiles linked in this diary. I am not under contract, nor have I been under contract with any of these candidates. The profiles were undertaken by me with my own resources and is based solely on publicly available information. All of these posts have also been posted to Daily Kos as a service to inform this valuable activist community about the dynamics in each district. Refer to my diary list to review them and all Republican-held district profiles in the state of Virginia.