Alleged Killer of Charlie Kirk Is Charged

There's been quite a bit of news related to the death of Charlie Kirk in the past few days. Here's the rundown:

The Case Against Robinson: The main new development yesterday is that the state of Utah has formally charged Tyler Robinson with seven criminal counts, the most serious of which is aggravated murder. Utah prosecutors will seek the death penalty. In Utah, the primary means of execution is lethal injection, but the necessary components are increasingly hard to come by. So, if Robinson were to be subject to the death penalty, well, by the time it's imposed he could be left with only the secondary option, which is a firing squad.

The prosecutors are clearly being governed by political considerations and/or emotion, as the death penalty is almost always limited to cases with multiple deaths and/or with aggravating circumstances (like torture). Consistent with the notion that politics/emotion is involved here, there is a lot of "explosive" stuff in the charging documents, including alleged text messages between Robinson and his roommate (and alleged romantic partner). The entire text-message exchange is here; this is a representative passage:

Robinson: I am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.

Roommate: you weren't the one who did it right????

Robinson: I am, I'm sorry

Roommate: I thought they caught the person?

Robinson: no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.

Roommate: Why?

Robinson: Why did I do it?

Roommate: Yeah

Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it.

If someone, or many someones, wanted to demonstrate that: (1) Robinson was LGBTQ, and (2) Robinson was guilty, this exchange would be THE smoking gun. It's almost too perfect. Couple that with the writing style, which is not very text-messagey, but is very hacky, and quite a few people smell a rat. Click on the link above, and read the comments for examples.

Blogger Ken Klippenstein, followed by The Washington Post, laid hands on a bunch of Discord chats that Robinson was part of. The messages there, for what it is worth, read much more like they were written by an information-age person in their early twenties. And the tale they tell is that Robinson was mostly apolitical, and that the views he did express do not fit neatly into the right-left spectrum (for example, he was strongly pro-gun, but also pro-LGBTQ tolerance).

WrongThink Will Be Punished: We wrote last week that "When people are as angry and upset as the friends, fans and supporters of Charlie Kirk are, they will generally FIND someone who will pay for what has happened." Nothing that has taken place since has given us cause to rethink that observation. Although there is a suspect in custody, and one who has allegedly confessed and may face execution, many people on the right are out for far more blood than just that of Tyler Robinson. Here's a rundown of some of the things that are happening, or are being pursued, already:

• There is an effort, apparently centrally organized, to identify people who said critical things about Charlie Kirk online, and to try to get them fired. There have been dozens and dozens of news stories about people who got suspended/terminated, both from public- and private-sector jobs. Here is one fairly good list, for those who are interested.
  
  On that note, one reader who wrote in this weekend was doxxed (although there was no punishment imposed, as far as we know). If any reader who wrote about Charlie Kirk in this past weekend's mailbag would like us to go back and anonymize them, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. If we run any Charlie Kirk letters this weekend, we will identify them only as "Anonymous in STATE," unless the reader tells us otherwise.
  
  
• "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, who must not have paid much attention in law school, suggested that anyone who says mean things about Charlie Kirk might be punished for engaging in hate speech. That is a rather novel interpretation of the term "hate speech" which, incidentally, is also not illegal. Later, after much blowback, including from conservatives (you know you've overstepped when even Ted Cruz is telling you to dial it back), Bondi "clarified" that she was referring to "violent rhetoric." That's at least something that is punishable, although only in very narrow circumstances.
  
  
• Bondi also threatened to prosecute a Michigan Office Depot employee who refused to make copies of a flier for a vigil in Kirk's honor. To be honest, we wish we were friends with that employee, so we could collaborate on a setup. What we'd like to do is create a flier for the "Charlie Kirk Memorial Drag Show," and have that employee refuse that flier, too. How would Bondi process that? Her head would probably explode.
  
  
• When it comes time to shut down WrongThink, that also means any WrongThink coming from the government. And so, Bondi also ordered that a study illustrating the incontrovertible fact that most domestic terrorism in the U.S. is right-wing terrorism be scrubbed from the DoJ website.
  
  
• As promised/threatened, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered his department to revoke visas of any immigrant or visitor to the U.S. who "celebrated" Kirk's death online. Of course, that could cover a broad range of remarks, from "Thank God the bastard's dead; I always hated him and only wish I'd killed him myself" to "I don't approve of what happened, but I don't feel a sense of loss, either." Rubio has not specified where the line is, probably because he and his people are making it up on the fly.
  
  
• Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have both vaguely threatened to investigate/prosecute "the left." It is unclear exactly what this means, and to what extent it is serious, as opposed to being red-meat-flavored hot air for the base. The one clue is that Trump said it would not only be an investigation, but a "MAJOR investigation." Usually, when he adds those kinds of meaningless superlatives, he's blowing smoke out his rear.
  
  
• Trump did get specific in one way, however. He said he wants to designate Antifa, and other left-wing "radical groups," as domestic terrorists. The justification is that these groups engage in violence and, in Trump's words, "got away with murder." It is worth noting that the only specific example Trump came up with, Antifa, is an overwhelmingly non-violent movement, and is also more like a philosophy than an organized political faction. It's like saying "We're going after gay pride, because they got away with murder" or "We're going after environmentalists, because they got away with murder."
  
  
• Elon Musk, who just so happens to control eX-Twitter, has been threatening violence against the left, and telling his followers to prepare for civil war. Kirk's widow, Erika, seemed to be expressing similar thoughts when, in her first public remarks after the shooting, she decreed: "You have no idea what you have unleashed across this country and this world."
  
  
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is calling for the red states to secede and form their own country. She is, as readers may recall, a duly elected member of the United States Congress. One wonders how that comports with the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

  Greene says she'd like the division to be "peaceful," but note that the Amendment does not give an exception for "peaceful" insurrection.

We will note, once again, that we don't really know where the line is between "I'm upset over Charlie Kirk's death" and "I'm going to use Charlie Kirk's death to justify something I wanted to do anyhow." For example, it's hard to believe that Trump never once thought about investigating left-wing groups until Kirk was killed a week ago.

There are at least a few things that we are confident are opportunistic. First, J.D. Vance guest-hosted Kirk's podcast from the official vice-presidential residence. The VP claimed that he wanted to honor Kirk, and maybe he did, but we are 100% sure that he also saw a golden opportunity to connect with younger Republicans, in advance of his planned 2028 presidential run.

In addition, the various redistricting efforts underway in red states are now claiming to be doing their work in Kirk's name, and in service of his memory. Does anyone, even the most MAGA-y of MAGA Republicans really buy this? Does anyone really imagine that they would not be trying to gerrymander their maps, but for Kirk's passing?

Meanwhile, various right-wing groups are doing fundraising in Kirk's name, including solicitations being sent out in his widow's name. If she approved of her name, and her husband's death, being used in this way, so quickly (the first one went out less than 24 hours after he died), that's pretty icky. If she did not approve, and was coerced or her name was utilized without permission by others, that's even ickier.

No True Scotsman: We imagine readers are largely familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Just in case, it's a logical fallacy that goes something like this:

Person 1: No Scotsman likes hot chocolate.

Person 2: Well, Duncan likes hot chocolate, and he's a Scotsman.

Person 1: If he likes hot chocolate, then he's not a true Scotsman.

In other words, if you decide that a particular behavior defines a class of people, then anyone who does not engage in that behavior is automatically excluded from that class of people, even if it makes no sense to do so.

In the past week in particular, we've seen two expressions of a logical fallacy that doesn't really have a name, but is basically the opposite of "No True Scotsman." In this fallacy, you don't use a behavior/characteristic to EXCLUDE people from a group, no matter how illogical, you use a behavior/characteristic to INCLUDE people in a group, no matter how illogical. Here's what we mean, based on re-jiggering the example above:

Person 1: Duncan likes hot chocolate.

Person 2: Well, Duncan is a Scotsman.

Person 1: Then it must be that all Scotsmen like hot chocolate.

You probably see where we are going with this. People who commit assassinations or murders are extreme outliers. They are less than 0.01% of the populace, and less than 0.01% of whatever community they are a part of. And yet, there is much energy expended in proposing that if assassin/murderer/mass shooter [X] has [noticeable quality Y], then everyone who has [noticeable quality Y] is a potential assassin/murderer/mass shooter. The obvious example of this, right now, is the right-wing longing for Robinson to be trans, which will then lead them to pass judgment on all trans people.

The other expression of the reverse No True Scotsman fallacy is the absolutely crazy notion that some number of online windbags represent their entire political faction. Have people forgotten that online discourse is often a sewer, that it brings out the worst in people, and that many people on social media are trolls who are just looking to get attention, or clicks, or a rise out of people? The obvious example of this is the now-frequent assertion, which has come from people as high-up on the food chain as Trump and Vance, that "Democrats are celebrating Kirk's murder" or "liberals are celebrating Kirk's murder." Nonsense. Some very small number of people, who CLAIM to be Democrats/liberals, and who may or may not be telling the truth, are celebrating his death. They quite clearly do not speak for the vast majority of liberals, Democrats, or Americans.

Much fairer, we would say, is to look at the leadership of a political faction. After all, those individuals got votes, sometimes millions of them, from people who said "This is my preferred representative." Here's what the last three Democratic presidents said, in response to Kirk's death:

• Bill Clinton: "I'm saddened and angered by Charlie Kirk's murder. And I hope we all go through some serious introspection and redouble our efforts to engage in debate passionately, yet peacefully. Hillary and I are keeping Erika, their two young children, and their family in our prayers."
  
  
• Barack Obama: "We don't yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie's family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children."
  
  
• Joe Biden: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk's family and loved ones."

Biden's comment is a little extra-generous, because Kirk once called for him to be executed for crimes against America.

Of course, those three men are, to a greater or lesser extent, moderate liberals. How about the progressives? Well, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) recorded a video, shortly after Kirk's death, that was nearly pitch-perfect in denouncing political violence:

Sanders makes very clear that he did not agree with Kirk, but that violence is not an answer.

Last week, we proposed that some leeway should be granted to people who were reeling from someone they regarded as a friend, a colleague, an inspiration, etc. But we think the leeway period has ended. Folks who continue to engage in divisive rhetoric, and to dishonestly misrepresent millions of Americans on the basis of bad behavior by thousands of Americans, deserve to be challenged on their harmful and hateful words.

And that's the latest. (Z)

The Invasion of Memphis Set to Commence Today

Donald Trump has now spent about a week waving the presidential penis in the direction of Memphis, and it would seem he is now prepared to act. Yesterday, he signed the official order, and said troops had been dispatched. So, today's presumably the day that Memphis will get the L.A./D.C. treatment.

We don't have much new to say about these military actions, which are as obvious a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act as is possible. However, we had some thoughts yesterday from former Memphian B.C. in Walpole, and today we thought we'd share some thoughts from another former Memphian, M.S. in Canton, NY:

I would like to add to the excellent commentary from B.C. in Walpole about the possibility of Donald Trump ordering the National Guard into Memphis. I lived in Memphis from 2008 to 2018; these are observations from a Northerner-turned-Memphian, now returned to the North.

B.C. is quite correct that if you want to understand the problems and politics of Memphis, you need to start with race. According to the 2020 Census, the city is 61% Black, but that number alone does not begin to tell the whole story. White and Black neighborhoods within the city are highly segregated. (I have less sense of the makeup of the much smaller number of Latino neighborhoods.) However, the divide is not a "side of the tracks" situation; the city is a patchwork of these neighborhoods, with clearly-defined areas of different racial makeups sometimes facing each other directly across a street. It's a reminder of a saying from the Civil Rights Movement: "In the South, the white man doesn't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too high."

It is also important to be aware that there is an asymmetry in the relationship between race and poverty in Memphis. First, despite what many people might assume, there is a large, Black middle class in the city. Not surprisingly when you think about it, middle-class Black neighborhoods look very much like middle-class white neighborhoods, and have comparable crime rates. However, poor neighborhoods within the city are overwhelmingly Black; white poverty in the region (which is real) is much more likely to be found in the towns and rural areas outside the city itself. But again not surprisingly, it is within the poor neighborhoods of the city that crime is the most prevalent.

The crime problem in Memphis is indeed real; the statistics don't lie. Beyond the numbers, there is a matter of perception. In my time there, local news outlets followed the principle of "if it bleeds, it leads," and evening TV news routinely featured reports of the latest murder, shooting, or major drug bust. In truth, it is genuinely disturbing to be driving to work and realize that a place you have driven past hundreds of times before was the scene of a shooting the previous evening. And people have personal experience. For example, when I was first considering moving to Memphis, an acquaintance (now a good friend) tried to convince me that the city's reputation as dangerous was overblown; he himself had only been robbed at gunpoint twice. (I don't think that came out the way he intended, but that's how it came across.)

I have stressed the interplay of geography and race here because it will have a huge effect on local and even national reactions to the Trump Invasion Force, if it arrives. If the National Guard is deployed primarily in the downtown area, which is where the tourists mostly go, it may or may not make some people feel safer, but it will do precious little to address the real problem of crime in the city. If instead they are sent to the poorest areas, which are overwhelmingly Black, local reaction is likely to be as strong, and as racially divided, as B.C. predicts. And if they are sent to the relatively safe middle-class parts of Memphis... well, what's the point? And beyond that, how will residents react if the troops go to the largely white areas? Or to the largely Black areas? It is hard to imagine any possibility of a good outcome.

Thanks, M.S.! We have no insight into exactly what will happen, or when, but when it comes to whatever news is generated, we think readers of this site will understand better than anyone who isn't a current/former resident of Memphis and its environs. (Z)

Melissa Hortman's Seat Will Be Filled by Xp Lee

There was a special election yesterday to fill the seat left vacant by the assassination of state Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-MN). It's a very blue district, and that's before you account for the likelihood of a "sympathy" dynamic. So, it's hardly a surprise that Xp Lee (DFL-MN) won in a rout, taking 61% of the vote to 39% for Republican opponent Ruth Bittner.

In case you are wondering, Xp is short for Xiongpao, and is pronounced as if it were written X.P. These days, dumping the periods is all the rage; maybe he's an aspiring VPOTUS. Lee has a compelling personal story; he is Hmong and was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and immigrated to the U.S. as a child. His campaign slogan was "Tuaj pov npav rau kuv!" We wouldn't insult readers' intelligence by translating something so elementary, so we'll just note that we couldn't have said it better ourselves. If you'd like to see a video of Lee, speaking in Hmong, and pronouncing his first name, you can click here (spoiler alert: Hmong apparently does not have a word for "primary" or "Democrat.")

Lee's victory means that the Minnesota state House is once again evenly divided, 67-67, and that the power-sharing arrangement that was worked out early in the term—by Hortman, in fact—will continue. The Republicans could theoretically have "seized" the majority for the 3 months or so that Hortman's seat was open, but they thought better of doing so. Good on them for being collegial. It's called Minnesota nice.

Incidentally, Donald Trump has been in a little bit of hot water because he did not order flags lowered for Hortman when she died, but did grant that honor to Charlie Kirk. He has offered two explanations for this in the past 48 hours, either that he would have lowered the flags if Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) had asked, or that he is not familiar with who Hortman was, and so could not possibly have known that a flag-lowering should be considered. These two explanations are not entirely in conflict with each other, though we'd say neither reflects well on Trump.

Next week will be the special election in Arizona, where Adelita Grijalva will be chosen to replace her deceased father. And... oh, all right. Just in case there is a reader or two out there whose Hmong is a little rusty, it translates as "Come vote for me!" (Z)

Congress Is Back to Playing Budget Chicken

Generally, we do not take too much notice of squabbling over budget proposals during the phase where leaders on both sides are negotiating through the press. Generally, it's not until the actual sausage making gets underway that it's worthwhile to pay attention. However, a government shutdown is looming on September 30, and the current round of bickering looks like it might end up being the basic framework for the next couple of weeks. So, we'll talk about what's going on, at least a little bit.

Yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) released what he described as a "basically clean" stopgap bill that would fund the government for 7 more weeks, at which point this whole drama would be repeated. The careful reader might notice that there's a fair bit of difference between "clean" and "basically clean." If we add in the fact that the proposed bill is 91 pages, that further illustrates that it's not so "clean," after all.

Broadly speaking, the Republicans are not trying to sneak anything really big through, either in terms of outlays or in terms of policy changes. Much of the 91 pages is devoted to spending more money on security for politicians, and some of the rest is unlocking the Washington, DC, funding that is currently tied up in silly rules and red tape. None of it should be terribly objectionable to Democrats.

What IS objectionable, however, is that the Democrats have not been granted the concession they insisted upon, which is an extension of the healthcare subsidies that are about to expire. And so, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (both D-NY) put up a united front yesterday, and said that without that concession, there will be no deal. Johnson's response to this was: "In exchange for their vote to fund the government, some Democrats said they wanted Republicans to repeal our very popular and very effective reforms to the Medicaid program... Zero chance that we will do that."

How Johnson could possibly know the changes are "effective," at this early date, was not explained. As to "popular," his dictionary must have a different definition of that word than ours does, as poll after poll after poll has shown that voters oppose the "big, beautiful bill" by a margin of about 2-to-1, with the Medicaid portions being among the least-liked parts of the package.

In any event, Schumer and Jeffries know very well that rank-and-file Democratic voters very badly want to see some fight out of the party's leaders, even if that fight is unsuccessful (see below for more). This being the case, and given their tone and their words yesterday, we don't think they will roll over for Johnson. Meanwhile, as is usually the case, the Speaker is taking marching orders directly from Donald Trump, so he's not likely to yield, either. We shall see which side blinks first, though it's very possible neither does, and that October begins with the government putting up the "closed" sign. (Z)

Trump Wants a Midterm Convention, Too

A couple of weeks ago, we had an item about how the Democrats are bandying about the idea of having a midterm convention next year. The blue team used to do that sometimes back in the 1970s and 1980s, then abandoned the idea, and now is thinking about bringing it back.

There is nothing that Trump loves more than money, of course. But one of the serious contenders for second place on that list is publicity/attention. And so, now that he's heard the rumor that the Democrats are thinking about a convention in 2026, he wants one, too. Here's the "announcement" on his its-only-purpose-is-publicity-for-Trump social media platform:

The Republicans are going to do a Midterm Convention in order to show the great things we have done since the Presidential Election of 2024. Time and place to be determined. Stay tuned, it will be quite the Event, and very exciting! President DJT

We must say, we are a little insulted that he did not thank us for our attention to this matter.

If Trump wants a convention, Trump will get a convention. However, while we think the idea might have merit for Democrats, inasmuch as the Party has no clear leader right now, we don't see how it could plausibly pay dividends for Republicans. There's nothing to discuss about the party's platform or message; it is what Donald Trump says it is. Meanwhile, nobody is going to tune in except (some) hardcore MAGA and very, very sad politics bloggers, who have no choice but to watch so they can write it up for the next day's posting. Trump isn't going to get anyone notable to attend; it's going to be the same, old, same old—Kid Rock, Lee Greenwood, Scott Baio, etc. And there's a very good chance it will be low-energy and low-attendance, like the birthday parade, and will actually look kinda bad for Trump.

If we were Trump's advisors, we'd try to talk him out of it. That said, it's not a hill worth dying on, and again, he loves, loves, loves attention and publicity. So, he'll likely insist, just like he did with the parade. (Z)

Massachusetts Democrats Have Their State Convention

Over the weekend, delegates from the Massachusetts Democratic Party met to discuss what their official agenda for the upcoming elections cycles would be. This event is of interest, in our view, for two reasons. First, it's a preview of what a national midterm convention for the Democrats might look like, if they hold one next year. Second, since the people who show up to a political convention in an off year, and in a blue state, are the vanguard of the vanguard, it could be a preview of what the 2028 Democratic presidential race might look like (possibly Hillary vs. Bernie, part 387, it would appear).

Reader H.R. in Jamaica Plain, MA, was in attendance, and agreed to send in a report. Without further ado:

I was a delegate to the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention on September 13, which became a vigorous face-off between two strategies: one that advocates for moving to the center and being vague about what the party wants to accomplish (as exemplified by Chuck Schumer and New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo) and one that advocates for being bold and explicit about the party plans for working people (as exemplified by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani).

First, some background: The Massachusetts Democratic Party grassroots volunteers are organized into Ward (portions of cities) and Town Committees. Members are elected on the presidential primary ballot and each committee has a maximum allowed number of members (set by the state party). In between presidential primaries, people can become members by other means specified in the Ward and Town Committee by-laws. In my experience (I've been on two different Boston Ward Committees, because I moved), attending six meetings allows one to become a full voting member up to the maximum number of members allowed. (An interesting side note is that in 2017, a large influx of younger Democrats joined these committees across the state in response to the first election of Donald Trump.)

These committees do a major portion of the party's work, including voter registration, holding candidate forums and educational events and endorsing local candidates. Another responsibility is running an annual caucus to elect delegates to the state convention. In even years, statewide candidates (including for U.S. Senate) must get a vote of 15% of the delegates to get on the Democratic primary ballot. Every 4 years, the state convention enacts a party platform. As it happens, 2025 is a platform convention year. The caucuses were mostly in April; any registered Democrat can attend and run to be a delegate.

In order to craft the 2025 platform, a series of online meetings were held to gather testimony (and people could also submit suggestions in writing). The Platform Committee then drafted a new platform which may have been reviewed by the co-chairs of the Ward and Town Committees, but wasn't sent to the delegates until August 22, where a pointer to it appeared at the bottom of a very long "delegates newsletter." Personally, I looked for a particular section that I had worked on in 2021, and it was still there, though the name was changed from "Public Safety and Criminal Legal Reform" to "Community Safety." I found that many specific planks from 2021 were gone in 2025. In fact, it seemed that much of the input from the online meetings had been ignored. A young man in the party who serves on both one of the Town Committees and in the Young Democrats of Massachusetts Disability Caucus did a thorough comparison and published a two-page paper on all the platform planks that had been removed by the 2025 Platform Committee. With nearly 50 individual items removed, the draft platform had managed to offend huge swaths of the party rank-and-file, including folks advocating for health care, peace, climate action, election reform, criminal justice reform, LGBTQIA+ rights and many others. A few examples: Fossil fuel divestment of public pensions; single-payer healthcare; elimination of all sub-minimum wages; same-day voter registration; abolition of civil asset forfeiture. Quote from the two-page comparison document:

Democrats take offense at this draft because it silences decades of organizing and erases the victories we already won. At a time when Republican authoritarianism threatens democracy, MassDems should be leading the nation with bold commitments, instead of cowering and watering them down.

What quickly emerged was a coalition of progressive organizations and labor who concluded that the only practical way to restore all the missing sections and planks in the 2025 draft was to completely replace the 2025 text with the 2021 platform and many, many activists started to rally around this plan. A website was published, meetings were called, whips were organized for each state Senate district (delegates sit by these districts and if actual votes are taken, the voting is organized that way). I was one of the whips and we all were in a WhatsApp chat, where the "whip of whips" sent instructions during the parliamentary maneuvering. On September 5, the chair of the Party and the chair of the Platform Committee sent an e-mail to all delegates defending the 2025 draft. This e-mail tried to justify (but poorly, in my opinion) the attempt to rewrite the platform from scratch, removing many specifics.

According to the convention rules, to get an amendment to the draft platform considered at the convention, signatures of 500 delegates had to be collected between Friday evening and 10:00 a.m. Saturday morning and submitted to the party functionaries. While the 2000+ delegates waited to get to the business part of the convention, we heard many speeches and the business didn't start until early afternoon. The most important thing to know is that the Chair ruled the "replacement" amendment had not qualified, despite the fact that 980 signatures were submitted. The well-prepared activists appealed the decision of the chair, and after a lot of maneuvering, the amendment was given its 10 minutes of debate time (5 minutes "pro" and 5 minutes "con") and it passed on an overwhelming voice vote. Note that because the speeches took so long and some people were apparently just there to party, quite a few delegates left for a party Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) was throwing at 2 p.m., which was when things were just getting interesting. Nonetheless there was still a quorum. Possibly this reduced the "No" votes in the hall. Possibly the chair's maneuvering to prevent any vote had the effect of increasing the "Yes" votes. After the amendment was adopted, more parliamentary maneuvering and the amended platform was also passed by a voice vote.

Quote from the young man mentioned above, who was the first proponent to speak during the "debate":

You don't grow our tent by cutting the protections for the people holding up the tent; the workers, veterans, immigrants, LGBTQ+ community, communities of color and people with disabilities.

I think those of us who waged this fight (and I was a pretty minor participant) felt that the approach being taken by Mamdani won out in Massachusetts this weekend. This fight also brought together many, many disparate organizations, which, if they stay together in coalition, can only strengthen the progressives in Massachusetts. If the 2025 platform had prevailed, I think a huge portion of grassroots activists would have walked out of their roles and the Party would have been greatly weakened.

Among the speeches, that of State Auditor Diane DiZoglio (D) was notable when she said that some leaders in the party think the "D" next their names stands for "dictator." The platform fight showed that insiders trying to control the Massachusetts Democratic Party can be defeated by the grass roots. It was another sign that the Sanders/AOC/Mamdani approach is the successful one.

Thanks, H.R.! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger