Dem
47
GOP
53
We made brief allusion to it yesterday, but there was a damning report about the DNC and its chair, Ken Martin, from The New York Times over the weekend. As to the Committee, it's in the red by a couple of million dollars, and has had to take out a $15 million loan, secured by its headquarters. By contrast, the RNC has nine figures in the bank. As to Martin, he's apparently got Troy-Jackson-style temper issues (though Martin throws phones rather than water bottles), and he's not liked or respected by... anyone, it would seem.
As we have written before, it is not easy to reconcile the enthusiasm that Democratic voters are expressing in polls (and special elections) with the sea of red ink in which the DNC finds itself. Our guess remains that Republican voters are much more likely to give money to the RNC, which is the "old school" approach, while Democratic voters are much more likely to give money directly to candidates, thanks to ActBlue (which is much more effective and usable than the Republicans' WinRed).
Martin's not going anywhere anytime soon, since he thinks he's doing swell, and since it's not easy to remove a DNC chair who does not want to go. If there was a sitting Democratic president right now, they could probably lay down the law, but there isn't. So, Martin gets to stay on.
There is some talk that since the DNC has no money, and since nobody has much regard for Martin, that states might start to disregard the national party organ, and to hold their primaries whenever they damn well please. Color us skeptical. Democrats, particularly party loyalists—which is exactly the type of people who make decisions about primaries—are not known for rebellious behavior like this. Plus, no matter how broke the DNC is, it can still impose sanctions, like taking away delegates.
That said, we wonder exactly what the DNC is thinking when it comes to its plans to put South Carolina at the front of the primary line. In the item yesterday, we noted that the South Carolina legislature is not likely to go along with that, since it is controlled by Republicans. However, reader C.F. in Tigard, OR, wrote in to point out that state law (see SECTION 7-11-20, B.1) says that state party committees get to pick the dates of their primaries, the legislature does not. So, putting SC first may be doable.
That said, there is still the problem of New Hampshire. As we have pointed out many times, New Hampshirites care a lot about protecting their place at the front of the line, and state law says their primary gets to be the first one. The DNC can punish New Hampshire if it does not yield, but aggravating voters in a swing state may not be the wisest course of action.
There is another possibility, namely having South Carolina hold a caucus. This would not run afoul of the New Hampshire law, and it would also not subject the Democrats to South Carolina state law (or state interference) because the parties themselves run caucuses. Of course, a caucus tends to attract activist voters rather than median voters, and so can produce wonky results. Also, the Democratic Party doesn't exactly have the spare cash lying around to pay for such a thing.
Whatever the plan is, the Democrats better figure something out. The biggest complaint that Black voters have about the Democratic Party is that it makes big promises and fails to follow through. Coming up short here would not get the party off to a good start in 2028, that is for sure. (Z)