Can someone PLEASE explain why, when the DSCC recruits candidates

it DOESN'T make it a rule that all elected Democratic candidates, in exchange for having received DSCC support, must support the party on procedural matters?

Isn't it enough to let them be independent on the final passage votes?

Why is it too much to ask that all Democratic Senators agree not to block Democratic legislation from reaching the floor?

And a Nelson, Baucas, or pre-schism Lieberman probably wouldn't take that pledge.

they even need to be conducted.

That's because primaries are not part of the legal electoral system, it's a party function. That's also why the DNC and RNC run their primaries in different fashion with different rules. For example the RNC's "all or nothing" state primaries, or the DNC's Superdelegates.

But if you know better, please feel free to enlighten me.

Title 16 - Elections and Electors. Chapter 2 ELECTION DATES. Article 1 Primary Election
Chapter 3 NOMINATING PROCEDURES. Article 1 Party Nomination Requirements
http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=16

That's why some states have open primaries (everyone can vote) and some have closed ones (only Party members can vote). CAUCUSES are handled exclusively by the Party organization.

Political parties are under no obligation to avail themselves of that service.

In Texas the 1905 Terrell Primary Law mandates (requires) a primary election for all offices statewide and down. You can look it up. I imagine other states have similar laws.

Can you imagine the potential for abuse if candidates could be chosen by the parties by any means whatsoever? It could certainly get ugly. I've seen enough local politics to know that.

Alabama law, for example, says "... nothing herein contained shall make it obligatory upon any political party or parties to hold a primary election ..." whereas Alaska law says "... Candidates for the elective state executive and state and national legislative offices shall be nominated in a primary election by direct vote of the people ..." and Arizona law says "... At a primary election, each political party entitled and intending to make nominations for the ensuing general or special election shall, if it desires to have the names of its candidates printed on the official ballot at such general or special election, nominate its candidates for all elective, senatorial, congressional, state, judicial, county and precinct offices to be filled at such election ... If no candidate is nominated in the primary election for a particular office, then no candidate for that office for that party may appear on the general or special election ballot ..."

There's no advantage to misrepresenting the situation: citizens should learn the laws governing their own states and not assume strictly analogous laws apply elsewhere

they even need to be conducted.

Primaries are controlled by a mix of state party rules and state party LAWS. Either of which would be hellish to change, and could not be changed at short notice or at a whim. I know this because after we held our primary, there were a lot of calls to change it, and the commission to investigate changes (which I testified in front of) had to very carefully determine which aspects of the primary was controlled by state party rules, and could be changed by the State Democratic Executive Committee, and which had to be changed by the Legislature.

Furthermore, the Florida primary dispute you refer to was caused by the change which was made by the Florida State Legislature -- not by the Florida Democratic Party.

And, actually, in the Health Care passage in the Senate, they had 60 votes for the procedural votes, so most of them vote that way without a worthless pledge.

The DSCC has the money to support candidates in primaries, but they don't decide who wins those primaries, as was stated by other people here.

So they really don't vote that way without a worthless pledge. They vote that way after being appeased, and it is not unreasonable to make committee assignments contingent on good senate citizenship.

But that is how they play the game of power in the Senate.

So the fact that eventually they let themselves be placated doesn't render the hypothetical moot.

Our party should be able to EXPECT unified caucus support on procedural votes, not have to barter for it.

Some pet project they have been trying to get, committee assignments, chairmanships. We have roadmaps for this but we don't use them.

DSCC may not decide who wins but monetary support does go a long way in winning elections.

They don't like the idea of someone being able to hold the office of party chairman in an effective manner.

The US system is a version of first-past-the-post voting where a candidate wins if he achieves a simple plurality of the vote. Mathematically, this tends to favor only two parties becoming viable, like our current two-party system. Now, in a system where a candidate is required to obtain a majority of the vote, 50% + 1 more vote, it is possible to have a third and even a fourth party being viable. This may not seem to answer your question, but it does have a profound effect on how officeholders behave.

Given the incumbency rates of officeholders--it's extraordinarily high--and the usual monetary disadvantage most challengers suffer running against an incumbent and the very glaring lack of a recall mechanism for federal officeholders, there is a lack of leverage over certain officeholders, especially if they sit for very long six-year terms with no possibility for recall referendums, even more so if they have sat in that seat for several decades. Yes, we could yank Joe Lieberman's chairmanship positions, for instance, but won't be out of anybody's hair until 2012 when he can be challenged again in a re-election contest, so he still can vote however he pleases and still be fairly certain of his survival, at least for this mid-term election.

1. Chairman is chosen for a 12 year term, and only can be removed with a 3/4ths supermajority

2. All funds raised by candidates must be handed over to the party to be administered during their campaigns.

3. Breach of party discipline can lead to ejection from party including banning from further primaries and forfeiture of funds raised at the decision of the chairman.


What you need to do is turn the incumbent's strength against them. Once you get control of people's money, you have them by the balls. I know of pastors who maintain membership in denominations they no longer believe in because if they were to convert they'd lose their pensions.

that I am registered as a democrat. If I collect adequate signatures on a petition, or pay the relatively small fee to the State division of elections I am on the ballot as a (d) candidate. Under current laws I did not have to speak to the party to register as a democrat, and would not have to speak to the party to appear on the ballot as a (d) candidate. I do not think the party has any right to compel me to change my voter registration, and could only force me off the ballot by winning at the polls.

There was no test of ideology I had to take to register as (d).

I do not believe that a move to create parties that could grab any contributions to my campaign would survive constitutionally. Now if the party got control over who could register to vote as a (d), then they would have some measure of control over their ballot line. Otherwise, I am pretty sure I have the civil right to run for office, as I am registered to vote, without party interference.

If the party were to start requiring a loyalty oath to register as a democrat, there would quickly be few democrats.

In most places here, you are far more likely to win when registered as a republican, regardless of ideology. If running as a democrat required turning your contributions over to the party structure, folks would simply run under another party name, or make one up. It is not like being a democrat brings all that much in the way of benefits or assures you of more than about 35 percent of the vote. One can lose just fine on their own, so why put up with the hassle of having to beg to get your own contributions back?

This whole notion is silly.

They stand up and decide to run on their own. Furthermore, the DSCC doesn't actually support all candidates equally. Some get more support than others. Some get very little support. Furthermore, as was posted upthread, the DSCC has very little control over who wins the primary.

Due to the loose way the DSCC and the party as a whole allow the nomination process to be done(at least when dealing with candidates who are to the party's right on most issues)is that we tend to get a lot of Senators, especially, who think they are doing the party a special favor by allowing their names to be associated with it and conclude, therefore, that the party owes them everything and they owe the party NOTHING.

Why should we accept this state of affairs when the Republicans never have to? Why should they get to be a real party while we end up being reduced to a party in name only, and in fact in the Senate find ourselves reduced to being nominally represented by a caucus of prima donnae?

I had an experience in a State House campaign and the campaign committee gave us minimal help. It was really disappointing because we were expecting more and hoping for more. As a result, if my candidate had gotten elected (she didn't) we would have felt very little obligation to the party structures.

I don't know how we can get more control over this, though -- I know for certain that the local party doesn't feel they have a lot of bandwidth to deal with candidate recruitment. However, now that we are getting contested primaries, the party structure is in fact making it clear about who is a D and who is a R in D's clothing -- and I think that is a start, at least.

n/t.