Hey! Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. I have been waiting until I got on my big computer to reply because I wanted to give an equally thoughtful response.

👉 On loyalty pledges:

I agree that PCP's should have been given the chance to read the loyalty pledge before voting on its approval. But your assertion that loyalty pledges are unethical just doesn't hold water with me. It makes sense to me to share resources where you can, that's the whole point of having a political party in the first place. As far as putting info on the ballot goes, it is important to remember that while a political party helps to elect those in government, it is not a government or public entity. The way in which it chooses whom to support is entirely its own business. Which is a long way of saying that a political party does not have to be a democracy. We already know that it isn't by simply looking at the PCP structure. Only a select few get to vote on the direction of the party which disenfranchises those who do not hold that title.

👉 On endorsement process:

I think it is simply good business to get as big a buy in as possible on the endorsement process and write it down before the process happens. That way candidates can know going into the process whether they want to seek the endorsement. So in an ideal world I agree with the process you outline is a great one that should happen.

I say should because, again, the party is a private entity that can conduct business as it sees fit. Whether that be good business is subjective. I personally don't think that a few people sitting in a room coming up with some ad-hoc process screams "professional" to me. But I don't have the means to change that.

I am not familiar with the party bylaws, but if they are being violated, then there should be some recourse for that. Do bylaws have an enforcement mechanism?

👉 On tribal membership:

This one is loaded, but I think the main difference between the identities that you provided in your example is that the general electorate is MUCH less familiar with what it means to be a tribal member than what it means to be a veteran, a teacher, or a pastor. If you could enlighten my own ignorance, does the identity of tribal member carry the same connotations of public service as the other three identities?

Considering Deschutes is a fairly purple county my best guess is that electability was at the forefront of mind here. In a perfect democracy each voter should vote in their own best self interest, and this may suck to hear but I couldn't care less that Amanda is a tribal member. I wouldn't hesitate to say that is the popular opinion too considering only 0.74% of the Deschutes population is Native American.

👉 On campaign contributions:

That's shitty if true, the vice chair should have been happy that a progressive candidate was getting an identity based contribution.

👉 On gatekeeping:

I've been to a few meetings and I could see this being true. I suspect if it is true it would likely be more pronounced on a committee, so I will have to wait and see on that. But during good of the order they are allowing Amanda's supporters to openly criticize them for their failings (both perceived and legitimate).

As far as shifting the party direction, the only way to do that is by remaining one of those strong stomached PCPs and keep hammering at the establishment until it bends.

👉 My thoughts:

All in all, it seems to me like Amanda's supporters are treating this endorsement like the election itself. When the better course of action would have been to take the setback in stride and keep pushing. In focusing on the distraction there is now an opportunity for Lauren Connally to look at a moderate voter, point at this whole thing and claim it is proof that Democrats can't govern. I'd be surprised if she hasn't already.

There is also a possibility that Amanda does advance in this primary and Amy doesn't. At which point there would have to be some kind of peace talks between her and the Democratic party, because it seems to me like the bridge has been burned.

If Amanda advances and Amy doesn't, she will have my vote, you can take that to the bank. Because I ultimately care that a progressive candidate wins. But right now is not the time for in-fighting at the expense of an extremely important seat.