Blue dots in a red sea: Utah Democrats look for a way forward
Nearly 600 of the 2,343 delegates from the state participated in person at the Utah Democratic Convention held in Ogden on Saturday, casting their votes for new party leadership with the aim of forming a united front against the dominant Republicans in the state.
Winning 52% of the record-breaking 1,450 votes cast by both in-person and remote delegates, Brian King won as the new face of the Utah Democratic Party.
He told the Deseret News he's going to work to unify the party in the Beehive State. That means the 'very progressive on the left end of the spectrum' and the 'moderates and pragmatists and independents and unaffiliated voters and disillusioned Republicans,' he said.
'It is not either or. It is both.'
'An effective party and an effective party leadership has to be able to have things to say to both groups and everybody in between that causes them to say, 'OK, I feel good about being a Democrat,'' King added.
Before the votes were cast, Jeremy Thompson, chair of the Weber County Democratic Party Executive Committee, said that it'll be the responsibility of the state party leaders to turn 'Utah from blue dots to an ocean of progressive success.'
In his opening remarks, Thompson said the United States is fighting 'the same challenges' that citizens during the civil rights era were going through, with Donald Trump as president for the next four years.
The convention came at a time when many local and national Democrats are wondering if the party can overcome its internal battles to even have a fighting chance against Republican power on the state and federal level.
DNC party chair candidate Archie A. Williams said Democrats' losses stem from the party being outnumbered by Republicans and then worsened by a lack of unification.
'We can't afford to boycott elections when we're losing. We have to work together now,' he said.
A self-described 'pro-life Democrat,' Williams said if you want a Democrat to win in Utah, you're going to have to pick a pro-life candidate. Many in the crowd began to boo his comment, but Williams responded by saying he's simply sharing 'how to win.'
But not every Democrat believes trying to appeal to socially conservative voters is the best tactic.
Ken Charette, vice chair of House District 34 and supporter of King's closest competitor, Ben Peck, told the Deseret News that he doesn't think trying to change the party's message on social issues is the right approach.
'I don't think that's what we need right now. I think we need somebody that isn't afraid to say, 'I'm a Democrat and I support LGBTQ people. I support reproductive rights.''
Peck ultimately lost to King after winning 48% of the votes.
'We need to not move ourselves more to the middle to be appeasing everyone, because people can tell when we are speaking out of both sides of our mouth,' Charette said, pointing out that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' 'Fighting Oligarchy Tour' with New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, brought in 20,000 Utahns 'and their message isn't moderated.'
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who was supposed to be a guest speaker but ended up canceling last minute, said in a short video message that Utah Democrats 'know a thing or two about showing up to the fight.'
'You know how to stand up against the odds and get things done,' Pritzker said.
Now, as chair, King said the Utah Democrats voted for someone 'that they want to stand up and speak truth to power.'
'I want the people in this room to know that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to not hesitate to stand up and speak truth,' he said.
Following his win he said in a post on social media that he's ready for the role.
Here are the newly elected officers:
Brian King, Chair
Susan Merrill, Vice Chair
Brad Dickter, Secretary
Catherine Voutaz, Treasurer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Fetterman: Democrats bungled border issue under Biden
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) declared Monday that the Democratic Party mishandled the critical issue of border security under President Biden by letting millions of migrants into the country over four years, giving Republicans a potent issue to campaign on. Fetterman took his own party to task on immigration and border security during a debate with Pennsylvania's Republican Sen. David McCormick at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. 'That's a mistake that our party made and that's the border,' Fetterman told 'FOX News Sunday' anchor Shannon Bream, who moderated the debate, which was co-hosted by the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation. Fetterman said he supports the roughly $150 billion in President Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill' that would go toward securing the U.S.-Mexico border and ramping up immigration enforcement within the nation. 'I absolutely support those kinds of investments to make our border secure,' he said, acknowledging 'I've lost some support in my party' for taking that position. 'I thought the border was really important and our party did not handle the border appropriately. Look at the numbers, 260,000, 300,000 people showing up our borders,' he said of the migrants who streamed across the border per month under Biden. 'That's roughly the size of Pittsburgh. Now that's unacceptable and that's a national security issue and that's chaos,' he added, noting that Pittsburgh's population was 303,000 in 2023. The Congressional Budget Office last year reported the annual net migration under Biden averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023. 'We can't pretend we can take care of 300,000 people showing up every month,' Fetterman said. McCormick followed up on Fetterman's answer by saying that 13 million people, roughly the population of Pennsylvania, came into the country under Biden. 'If you look at the numbers … over the last four years of the Biden administration, we added Pennsylvania, which has 13 million people. We added that in terms of illegal immigrants coming into our country,' he said.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
European Commission reveals details of von der Leyen's conversation with US Senator Graham
During a meeting in Berlin on 2 June, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham discussed coordination of tough US and EU sanctions against Russia. Source: European Commission press service, as reported by European Pravda Details: Graham and von der Leyen discussed joint coordination of sanctions against Russia in response to its ongoing aggression against Ukraine. "This morning in Berlin, President von der Leyen met with US Senator Lindsey Graham to discuss EU-US coordination on sanctions in response to Russia's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine," the European Commission reported. Von der Leyen stressed that both the European Union and the United States "need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war". "Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," the European Commission president stated. Von der Leyen "welcomed that Senator Graham committed to ramping up pressure on Russia and moving ahead with the [sanctions] bill in the Senate next week". The European Commission reiterated that the EU is preparing its 18th package of tough sanctions, which will target Russia's energy revenues, including Nord Stream infrastructure, the Russian banking sector and a reduction of the oil price cap. "These steps, taken together with US measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions," von der Leyen said. Background: Graham is also expected to meet with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul in Berlin on 2 June. Earlier, Graham stated that he aimed to introduce new sanctions against Russia before the upcoming G7 summit in June. Graham expects the upper house of Congress to begin considering new large-scale sanctions against Russia as early as this week due to the lack of progress in achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,' Thomas wrote. 'That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.' Advertisement Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the decision to pass on the case now, but he said that he is skeptical that such bans are constitutional and that he expects the court will address the issue 'in the next term or two.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Maryland law was passed after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six adults. The shooter was armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly referred to as an assault weapon. Several states have similar measures, and congressional Democrats have also supported the concept. The challengers had argued that people have a constitutional right to own the firearms like the AR-15. The case comes three years after the high court handed down a landmark ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country. Advertisement Ten states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
