Should county/senatorial conventions endorse Democratic candidates?

[derby378]

This was one of the big controversies at the SD 16 convention on Saturday. A motion was made to endorse Barbara Ann Radnofsky over Gene Kelly at the senatorial level. At first, it sounded like a good idea, but those who opposed the motion made a good argument that endorsing candidates could turn SD 16 from a senatorial convention into something of a kingmaker. I wound up voting No on the motion, but it passed with a sizeable majority.

So what do you think? Yes, Kelly is a clown and a poseur who will sabotage the Democratic run for Hutchison's seat if nominated again. But is this enough justification for such a change to the way a county/senatorial convention does business?

[WolverineDG]

1. This was brought up at my County Convention

but not as a resolution. During the open forum, someone got up & said he would like to encourage everyone present, including candidates in the run-off & upcoming local elections, to endorse Barbara over Gene & tell their friends/voters why. He explained why he felt this was important, but left it up to everyone present whether to do this or not. Maybe that's the best way to go?

dg

[merci_me]

2. I think that's the best way..............

It came up at SD7 as a resolution and passed, but I voted no. To me, it's the same as the SDEC endorsing one candidate over another for TDP chair, before the convention.

It's not like we all don't know who Radnofsky and the other guy are and need the body to make a statement, to direct us. It really is a bad thing to start. I mean, we didn't endorse in the Lt.Gov runoff. Why? Because it just isn't something we do. People who are SD delegates should be savvy enough to make an educated decision or what are they doing there? To write and pass "resolution" is like grade school clubhouse.

My feeling is, we play right into Gene Kelly's ego, by making a big deal out of it. A big enough deal, to go against our normal way of conducting business.

[derby378]

3. Should we try to challenge it at the State Convention in June?

I know there are ways you can do it if you get enough delegates on board, but would it be worth the effort to try this year, or should we just wait until 2008 and do it at the local level?

[merci_me]

4. See that's the really stupid thing................

my husband was on the resolutions committee and he raised this in committee and got voted down......the resolution was to endorse Radnofsky in the run-off (it seems). The run-off is April 11th and the resolutions don't even go to the convention, until June 9.

If it was to endorse her for November, how can they endorse her in November, until she has won the primary? If it's just symbolic, then why not endorse other the candidates running in November?

[robbzipp]

5. We didn't have to discuss it

because BAR showed up to SD 6 and won everyone over! Now if there was a way to ban those LaRouche zombies from showing up...

[merci_me]

6. In SD7 it was an actual resolution

which is what I have a problem with. I think we need to look seriously at a panic move, which could set a really poor precedent. I mean, there are several run-offs around the state, including lt. gov, the Borris Miles/Al Edwards, CD10 and others. Where is the line?

She was at our convention too, and the delegates were applauding (I think there was a standing ovation) that's one thing. To have it in the form of a resolution, going through committee, that's another thing. I seriously doubt if there is one delegate from SD7 who will support Gene Kelly. Welllllllll, maybe our repuke with the designer suit and Pravda bag, as WesHoustonDem posted about, lol.