DWS Supports Hillary Clinton in 2016. So, She Should Be Purged? OK, Here's how:

[MineralMan]

What does such a "purge" even mean? Who is going to do this purging? She was appointed by President Obama to lead the Democratic Party, and the members of the Democratic National Committee approved that appointment.

How do people think she would be removed from that position? Who's going to get rid of her? The President? That seems highly unlikely, since he appointed her in the first place. The DNC members? They were elected by their State Democratic Party organizations to be members of that Committee? Those DNC members are elected at the state conventions for each state. Each and every one of them is a long-time Democrat, often for decades, very active in the party and duly elected by the party.

So, if you don't like Debbie Schultz, I get that. But, unless you're part of the the Democratic Party leadership, you have no say in the matter. Would you like to be someone who could vote on whether she remains the party chair? Well, the road to that starts in your own precinct. It's very easy to chair a precinct. All you have to do, in most cases, is be willing to do that and volunteer. Then, you will be able to be a delegate to your country convention or something similar in your state.

There, at the county convention, there will be elections for officers in the county organization. Typically, there are openings at every convention. You can nominate yourself for any elected position. If you've been active in the local party and have met and worked with some of the other local leaders who are also delegates, you have a good chance of becoming part of the leadership of the county organization. There are often people who would love to step down. They're tired from all the work they do.

The next step is the congressional district organization. Those are elected at that convention in most states. Again, if you've been working hard and have become recognized at the district level for being a hard-working, up-and-coming leader who is willing to volunteer for the work that needs to be done, you can nominate yourself or be nominated for one of the open leadership slots at the congressional district level. Now, those are often contested and have several nominees, so your election will depend on your reputation and accomplishments at the county level. You might have to try this more than once, as you build a network of supporters.

Next is the state party organization. As a leader in the congressional district organization, you'll almost certainly be a delegate to the state convention. Again, elections will be held at that convention for state leadership positions. This is tougher to win. You'll need to have proven yourself through steady participation on party activities, strong leadership, active fundraising and the ability to build a strong network of associates within the party. If you haven't done that, you'll have to wait until you have to be in state party leadership.

After several years of service as a state party leader, with increasing responsibility and performance, you might get nominated at the state convention as a DNC member. There are only a few such positions and it is considered to be a reward for successfully helping Democratic candidates win their elections over several election cycles. DNC members will all have seen their names in the newspaper from time to time before they are elected to the DNC. They're excellent fundraisers, too. They work their asses off to earn the right to be a member of the Democratic National Committee. They are party loyalists, each and every one of them.

At that point, after election to the DNC, you will have one vote in the election to confirm or remove the DNC chair, who is elected by the committee members after appointment by the sitting President, who is the true head of the party.

So, if you want to "purge" DWS from the DNC chair seat, that's all you have to do. Of course, by the time you're a DNC member, she'll be long gone, having been replaced a couple of times.

Good luck. I hope you can earn that level of political power. Few do. If you don't get there, then you aren't going to be in a position to insist that a sitting DNC chair lose her or his position. Not a chance.

This summary of how to elect a new DNC chair is presented as a public service, by a lowly precinct chair in Minnesota. I hope to see some DUers elected to leadership positions at all levels of the Democratic Party organization soon. It's a great way to have an impact on US politics, whether at the local, district, state or national level. I encourage everyone to participate and rise to whatever level they can.

[PoliticAverse]

1. As you point out Obama chose her. I think democrats here do actually get to choose who will follow

Obama and that person will choose DWS's replacement. No need to run for DNC office.

[MineralMan]

3. Either candidate will replace DWS.

That's almost certain. She's done that job long enough. Nobody stays in that position too long. Either candidate will appoint someone who has been important in helping to get elected. It's a reward for performance, really. It's not a plum job, in reality. It takes a lot of time and attention, especially for someone who is also in office.

Following the 2016 elect, there is going to be a new DNC chair, I'm sure. Until that election takes place, though, DWS will be the chair. There's not going to be any sort of "purge" before November is over.

[PyaarRevolution]

16. I'm donating to Tim Canova.

Hoping he beats her in the primary.

[MineralMan]

17. Yah, OK, then. Good luck with that.

I don't follow Florida congressional races at all. I have enough to do here in Minnesota.

I'm sure he'll appreciate your donation, though.

[PyaarRevolution]

38. Are there any DINO's there Mineral?

[MineralMan]

39. Well, we have both Democrats and Republicans in Minnesota,

just like everywhere else. I don't have a universal, precise definition of what a Democrat is, so I can't really answer your question. No two Democrats have exactly the same views, I'm sure. I try to choose Democrats in primary races and in our DFL Party conventions who come the closest to my own points of view.

I'm not much for name-calling, though. If Democrats votes for progressive things in general, I don't call them DINOs. They're all different.

So, unless you can give me a complete description of what you think a Democrat is, I'll have to pass on your question. We have Democrats in Minnesota. We also have Republicans. I prefer Democrats for public office.

[NurseJackie]

2. Thank you very much for a very enlightening post! :-)

I enjoy reading well-written posts which bring things into focus, put things into perspective, and which help to bring reality back to the forefront of the discussion.

[MineralMan]

4. Reality is real.

I see a lot of fantasy on DU. People fantasize about all sorts of improbable, or even impossible things. Revolutions. New parties. Sweeping changes in our political system.

I don't deal with fantasy. I live in the real world, where reality is the order of the day.

There is a path for taking over a political party. It simply has to be followed. If people support the change, it will happen, but only if enough people are willing to do the necessary work involved. I'm not seeing that part of the equation, frankly.

[PyaarRevolution]

19. Hopefully they don't become routinized in the process.

If I would follow a path in politics it would be like Bernie's so I don't have to treat Sociopaths like the Kochs with deference.

[MineralMan]

5. Further information:

I have 50 years of working in the Democratic Party at the local and county-level organizations. I'm not an ambitious sort of guy, so I haven't tried to go beyond that. However, I've seen how it all works, firsthand. In California and now in Minnesota, I've been working on party activities, campaigns, GOTV efforts and more. I've enjoyed it all. Now, at age 70, I'm happy to just be a precinct chair and maintain a little, rarely visited, website for that precinct.

I've watched people follow the process I outlined in this OP. Some have become important Democrats. Some have been elected to Congress. I've known them and helped them in my own minor way. I'm still doing that, but now at the state legislative and congressional level only. I know Betty McCollum, the congressional representative from my district. I've helped our State Senator get endorsed and elected. He knows me, too. Same for my district's state house member. Both stopped by our precinct caucus and spoke to the attendees. I was pleased to introduce them.

It's fun to be involved, even at a low level. Rising in the party leadership is lots of work, and not as much fun. I'm sort of lazy, so I stick with what I have the energy to do.

[NurseJackie]

21. :-D

[Hortensis]

6. It seems the first takeover is the White House,

via election of course, and from there the purges begin, presumably beginning with whoever gets in the way. Can't have a purge without people to...purge.

Yes, they are unrealistic, but that isn't the problem. The problem is they are people who would purge if they could. They should not be dismissed as merely unhappy and ignorant.

Poor Bernie. There's a reason many people who say they like him feel certain of his followers are becoming a serious problem...

[MineralMan]

8. Well, I suppose that might happen. I rather doubt it, though.

If it does, that'll be fine. There will be many openings in the Democratic Party organization for all those hard-working supporters to fill, if they have the time and energy.

I'll be stepping out of all of this before long, myself, either voluntarily or otherwise. Good luck to those who follow.

[Hortensis]

13. No, it would not be fine. It's not that I am afraid of

them now. I am made concerned by the spector raised of another situation someday, where, instead of knowing that you and all those you work with could not actually be "purged," you learned that you could be.

Thank you for all the good, inside information. Information is the greatest defense, the greatest tool for progress, and the greatest weapon.

[MineralMan]

11. Not all people who appear to be followers truly are.

At least that's what I suspect.

[Hortensis]

18. Oh, me too. I'm sure you are right.

This will end and most of us will calm down move on.

And I'd only shrug and wince now -- except that here and there, in different times and different places, what could not happen does. Watching the revelations here and dismissing them only as transient manifestations of ignorance and frustration would be to miss out on a tremendously important lesson.

As it happens, Elizabeth Warren just had something to say on the right-wing extremism that is destroying the GOP.

“But I do know this: they are paying the price for their own extremism. It has now taken them by the throat. " ... "What’s the problem they’ve got with the two guys at the top right now — with Donald Trump and with Ted Cruz? These are both people who basically deny the legitimacy of their opponents; they go on the attack. They demean millions of Americans, that’s what identifies them as extremists.”

Extremism is real, it is destructive, and it is antithetical to the liberal principles our nation was founded on.

[NurseJackie]

23. I'm convinced of that as well.

Not all is as it seems to be.

[Thinkingabout]

7. The DNC Chairperson is chosen by a method, it is time to allow the discord go.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. You're right.

It's time to work together, rather than constantly bickering. I hope we will do that.

[Fumesucker]

10. "Purged" Really?

There are a lot of other words that are less fraught with negative connotations, as a professional I'm sure you know this.

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not one who has called for a "purge" of anyone.

Purges are something called for by people with bad intentions, I believe.

I'm responding to such statements by others. Hence the question marks and explanation of the process of becoming a party leader.

You can easily search for the word "Purge" here on DU. Some pundits, like Thom Hartmann have called for one in the party. I think it's bluster and foolishness, altogether.

[dana_b]

14. She can still be voted out of office (TimCanova.com)

and that wouldn't look too good for her.

timcanova.com

timcanova.com

[MineralMan]

15. Indeed. Every elected official has to run for

re-election from time to time. That's also our system. Will Tim Canova defeat DWS for her seat? I rather doubt that. But, he's welcome to try. All it takes is filing for the office according to the rules in Florida. He has done so.

Will he win? We shall see, as we always do. I'm thinking DWS will be returning to Congress, though. I'll bet she'll be glad to leave the DNC chair next year, as well. It's a thankless sort of job, really.

[djean111]

28. And that way she will have more time to support her GOP cronies in elections, and throw her

support of payday lenders and non-support of medical marijuana to her GOP buddies. (To be fair, she was willing to support MM if John Morgan would stop saying mean (true) things about her. So her support IS for sale, it seems.)

For me, she has tainted the idea of the Democratic Party as a whole.

[enigmatic]

20. .

[MineralMan]

22. I believe you've posted that as a reply to me

before. I can't say it means anything to me, though. I was never a Cheers watcher. Perhaps what your trying to communicate would be better put in words. If it's supposed to be some sort of insult, though, you needn't bother. I've been insulted by masters of insults. And yet, here I still am.

[Ferd Berfel]

24. She supports 300% loan Sharks

That alone is more than enough to kick her out of a DEMOCRATIC Party and right back to the republicans where she belongs.

[Jim Lane]

25. Your post explains why DNC members shouldn't be superdelegates

Many of our superdelegates are elected officials. As one example, I think Cory Booker is too conservative, and it's not surprising that he's backing Clinton against a more progressive opponent -- but at least Booker got there through a primary and election. I had the chance to vote against him. I voted for Rush Holt in the primary. Booker became the nominee because more than 200,000 people disagreed with me and voted for him, and he won the primary with 59% of the vote.

By contrast, the DNC members who are superdelegates from New Jersey got there through the kind of process you describe. It's much more opaque and behind-the-scenes, with much less of a connection to the voters. I'm more politically aware than most people, and I don't even know who those DNC members from New Jersey are. To give the apparatchiks that kind of role in selecting our nominee is very undemocratic.

Most people on DU seem to be completely against having superdelegates. For my part, I see a lot of merit in the status given to elected officials, even the ones like Booker. It's giving the DNC members an automatic vote that bothers me. That's regardless of whether they end up making a difference.

[MineralMan]

26. I think the theory is that the DNC members are elected by

the Democrats in their states. I tend to agree.

[Jim Lane]

44. As per your OP, however, they're "elected" only very indirectly, if at all.

The best one can say is that the Democrats in the state elect the people who elect the people who elect the people who elect the DNC members (maybe add or delete one layer depending on the state's rules). Even that first-stage election will be one that's often uncontested. When it is contested, the vast majority of voters arrive at the polling place prepared to vote in the primary for some notable public office(s), and are then confronted with a choice between two people they've never heard of who seek a party post that they're only vaguely aware of.

Your description implies a process that's fairly open, or at least open to anyone who's willing to put in a lot of work over the course of years. Someone inspired by your post couldn't realistically expect to be a superdelegate even as "early" as 2020. Under favorable assumptions, it would take longer.

Furthermore, that openness varies from place to place. Where I live, the county Democratic organization is an inheritor of one of the old-line urban political machines. The corruption that was once its lifeblood hasn't been eliminated but has been greatly reduced. As a result, the organization doesn't rule with the iron fist that it once did. Nevertheless, it has a reputation for being conservative and resistant to change. In this county, the conduct you describe would not get an individual eager-beaver democratic socialist to a position of influence, no matter how long he or she kept at it. There would have to be a mass movement, in which a whole lot of people across the county decided to devote time and money to a long-term project of trying to change things. I think it would be a good idea if somebody did that, but for my part I have other priorities for my activism. Other people have evidently made the same choice. Thus, the entrenched leadership stays entrenched.

Democrats in each state have their say in the nomination by voting directly on the prospective nominees, in primaries or caucuses. We gain nothing by filtering their choice through several layers of party bureaucracy.

[Betty Karlson]

27. Or we could pressure the state conventions to send DNC members who promise to get rid of her.

Those DNC members can be replaced too, and even if they remain in place, their opinions on adequate chairpeople can be influenced.

But thanks for trying a round of "just give up already, and accept the DNC bias". The game never gets old.

[MineralMan]

31. That's what I said. DNC members are elected at the state conventions.

The answer, as always is to work within the party to elect people with whom you agree. As long as people do not participate in the process, they have no input into it. It's our party. We can change it if we have the will to do so.

I'm never about "giving up." I'm about taking action. If no action is taken, no change occurs. I've been posting her about getting involved in Democratic Party organizations, starting at the local level for years. You may have missed those posts.

[Betty Karlson]

35. I remember those posts as intimations of

first you young people have to do what we say for 20+ years, and only when you are as old as we are now will you be allowed to make imput.

I think my generation is a bit fed up with that message, because we can't afford 20 more years of the status quo.

There is a reason why so many millennials are angry: the status quo has become untenable and needs to be adjusted YESTERDAY. If the patient party elite has been neglecting to make the necessary adjustments for 30 + years, then maybe the party needs to learn how to work with millennials, not the other way around.

However you look at it, it is not OUR fault that things started to go awry from the day we were born...

----

I appreciate that you are trying to lure young people into volunteering for the party, but as long as that party is the domain of DINO-Debbie and her coronation committee, YOU might as well give up your efforts. You want people to put time and energy into your party? Then get rid of the persons who called them "complacent", "retarded", "pony-wanters" and so on. Don't throw Debbie out in January, tell her to leave the post now, so her successor can save what little is left of the prestige of the DNC, and show what the party leadership is supposed to be doing instead of campaigning for the status quo candidate.

[MineralMan]

37. You remember them incorrectly, then.

Unless people get involved, as they should have been involved all along, the party will simply continue what is has been doing. DWS will be gone after this election, I'm sure. The next Democratic President will appoint a new chair. At this point there is no useful way to remove her from her position, at least not by popular demand. She has a network of people who support her.

If the party is to change, it will change because those who are active participants in the party change it. Does changing a political party from the ground up take time? Of course. Which is why, instead of simply rejecting the possibility of change, people need to be moving toward making change.

For the foreseeable future, we will have two parties vying for power. Not three. Not four. Two. Choose one. Make it yours. It's not going to affect this year's election. That's already underway. It can, however, affect the future. The future belongs to those who take part to set the course for it.

It's up to you and everyone else. Become the party or be part of the vast majority that only has a voice on election day.

[Betty Karlson]

40. 40 % of all eligeable voters are now independents. Maybe the two-party system is part

of the untenable status quo?

Again, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but your words still amount to:

you first have to learn to work with people you absolutely disagree with, and mostly do what they say, and then we will talk about changing things ever so slightly. Because changing things right now is not going to happen as long as we are in charge. We dot care about you, we only care about the party. If you want to change the way things are, you have to change the party.

Who says we have to change it ONLY from the bottom up? Bernie can start at the top (no more Third Way nonsense), we will start at the bottom, and in 15 years time the effects will reach the midlevels. And why would the party leadership NOT agree to remove a clearly disfunctional chair NOW? Unless they are totally biased, in which case they too are a reason why there are so many independents.

"There are two parties. Pick one" is a variation of Debbie's greatest hit-slogan "who else are you going to vote for?". That lost her the elections of 2014. Are you willing to lose your party over the same mentality by insisting that young people "pick one"?

[MineralMan]

41. One election at a time.

Can Bernie Sanders change things? Perhaps. If you believe so, then you should try to get him the nomination. I'll vote for him if he is. If that doesn't work, then I'll vote for Hillary Clinton. Either way, I'll be showing up as a delegate in our DFL Party conventions, working to endorse and elect the best possible candidate for every office on the ballot. The Presidency is just one part of our system. Local and legislative offices usually have far more impact on people's lives, though. That's why I'm active in the party organization.

It's not just about who becomes President. Not by a long shot.

One election at a time.

[think]

29. People want DWS gone because she is corrupt & corporate owned. Is that too hard

To understand?

And no. People shouldn't have to be part of the party apparatus for years before their opinions matter on important issues affecting the party. This kind of thinking is why the Democratic party is shrinking.

People can see Debbie shilling for pay day lenders, the private prison industry, and pushing for the election of former Republicans over long time progressive candidates.

Either the party shapes up and becomes responsible to the voters or it will suffer the same fate as corporate republican politicians that have so severely tarnished the image of that party.

[MineralMan]

32. If you want to change the Democratic Party,

become an agent of change within it. How hard is that to understand? I've been advocating for that for many years, and I'm active in the party myself. That is the answer.

[think]

34. Good for those that have the time and ambition to do so. I use to be active until

Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2016, 12:46 PM - Edit history (2)

I learned about corruption. I fought hard for a few years but soon realized even those I helped get elected preferred to play the game. I chose to leave as I was on my own. To be clear I was very young in my early twenties and I didn't understand how politicians operated or what went on behind the scenes.

These was no room for idealism and honesty. Corruption was to remain hidden and I was told repeatedly that there was nothing they could do to help me.

Most people become a part of the corruption or choose to ignore it and work with what they can. Others choose as I did to leave.

And anyone who looks at what is happening can see this. So you as one who has been active within the system for decades as you say will have to decide also.

{Edited: As I was presumptuous and rude. I hope you'll accept my apology.}

I understand that sometimes there are no real good choices. Best of luck to you with your decision in how you proceed in politics.

Added:

I have a great deal of difficulty supporting a candidate or party when corruption is observed. Your experiences have obviously been different then mine. I do need to take into account I came from a state that ranked 49th out of the 50 states for corruption. Because of that experience though my local political experiences opened my eyes to corruption and it has changed how I follow politics in general.

Reading about things that smack at the very least the blatant appearance corruption should be very troublesome for all involved and certainly trouble me. That's makes it very difficult for me to feel any desire to be supportive and I've gotten tired of what comes from making waves in my local though that may change in time.

How I wish Hillary didn't appear so compromised. It's obvious she garners a great deal of respect and admiration from both her supporters and from well known & admired Democratic leaders in government.

[think]

43. I apologize for my previous rude and presumptuous post. I've edited it and hope you'll accept my

apology. There was no need for me to be rude and I was wrong for doing so.

You are generally one of the most polite posters on DU and I hope my rude behavior hasn't dowered that positive spirit you try to instill here.

[malletgirl02]

30. DWS has not run the party well.

The main problem with DWS is that she has not run the Democratic party well. She has failed in growing the party and she has failed in electing Democrats in several midterm elections.

[Betty Karlson]

36. "who else are you going to vote for"

was not the effective slogan DINO-Debbie supposed it to be.

[Dem2]

33. Gave you a rec just for writing all that

I gave myself one for reading it all.

[Chathamization]

42. Eh, no. The DNC chair isn't appointed by the president. N/T

[AgingAmerican]

45. Obama needs to fire her. That's how she should be purged.

[aikoaiko]

46. "unless you're part of the the Democratic Party leadership, you have no say in the matter"

You nailed the classic establishment stance.

People can have they say regardless of their position in the party because democracy.

[MineralMan]

47. It's simply a fact.

People can say whatever they wish, but do not make the decision. "Having your say" is a very old expression. It means that what you say has as n effect on the outcome.