General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them.
Last edited Sun Nov 5, 2017, 07:00 PM - Edit history (2)
For 2020
1)Get rid of caucuses-we're all agreed on that.
2)Get rid of superdelegates-and admit that we don't need anything in our process that is THAT fundamentally antidemocratic.
Trust everybody with some of the say and make sure everybody is heard.
(ON EDIT...NEWS OF THE SOUTHERLAND SPRINGS MASSACRE BROKE AFTER THIS THREAD WAS POSTED. I DON"T WANT TO END THIS THREAD, BUT I'D ASK THAT NO ONE POST IN THIS UNTIL AT LEAST 24 HOURS HAVE PASSED FROM NOW-6 PM Eastern Time-, OUT OF RESPECT TO THE DEAD. THANK YOU).
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)The party really has no control over either.
dsc
(52,162 posts)and they could refuse to seat delegates chosen by caucuses.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Will not be accorded their full voting strength at the national convention.
This OP is a call to agree on a common agenda.
triron
(22,003 posts)Perhaps reduce the role of super delegates but not eliminate it completely
There are those with insider knowledge and power that need to have a voice weighted heavier
than the electorate I believe. A truly similar thing at the GE level may well have prevented Trump from taking office.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)So I'm not following what you meant by "at the GE level".
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)People didn't turn out to vote for the other candidates. Getting rid of supers won't change that, and they serve a useful purpose...watch progressives fall for Russia and GOP tricks last year leads me to believe we need supers to protect Dems from nominating the Dem version of Trump...I have less confidence in the good sense of our voters after the 16 General.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)often, money. No, republicans could not have overturned Trumps nomination and not imploded, and so wouldn't have Democrats couldn't have used super-delegates without doing that kind of damage to themselves either. We will never have a Trump gain traction in the Democratic party. We have no need for this kind of anti-democratic protection.
And even when it isn't used to flip the public's vote, the pledged votes of super-delegates IS tallied into the totals when news people report, which is a feature that allows the person with the establishment support to look so far ahead of the underdog that people will write that person off. It happened over and over in our last primary.
greeny2323
(590 posts)The supers will vote with the people. If they are removed, they will take the place of others who won't have the opportunity to serve as delegates.
LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)Leaving less options for others to be delegates.
FSogol
(45,485 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)JI7
(89,249 posts)It's a way where groups who are most loyal to the party can have more influence.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The argument that I keep hearing about caucuses is that they unfairly reduce the influence of POC in the process. It's a valid argument.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)thought further adjustments in the representation requirements, I think.
Or, if there had to be supers for the purpose, they could and should be required to stay collectively neutral until at least some voters have gone to the polls in the primaries-including an early place in the primary cycle for California or New York, so that the nomination is not decided solely by small rural states.
The nomination should be decided by rank-and-file Dem voters in primaries...and that has actually always been my position.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)being decided by the small rural states.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)by a diversity of Democratic voters in the world's sixth-largest economy rather than a handful of white farmers in flyover country.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Give me a break.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)states go first.
MichMan
(11,927 posts)I'm shocked, I'm telling you, shocked !
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Being included in superdelegates is one way to help them retain some influence in the process.
MichMan
(11,927 posts)The state parties have no constraints on who serves as delegates other than those of their own making
Having superdelegates isn't the only method
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)The states don't pick the delegates. The caucus attendees pick delegates from among the attendees.
LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)case doesn't mean loyal to democratic ideals because who is the judge of that? It means loyal to the people who will dole out this super-delegate status. That arrests us from evolving as a party. It entrenches the people already in power before the voters even speak.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)So the logical conclusion of your preference is that African Americans will have less influence.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)demographic are awarded superdelegate status is what I'm taking umbrage with. And just because african americans have come in for Democrats time and time again does not mean that they are wholly satisfied with the status quo. It means they are keenly aware of just how shitty the GOP is for their interests and even their survival.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)When there is no gerrymandering, then there may be a reason to eliminate superdelegates. Till then, we need them to help increase representation of minority voters in the process.
Unless you can think of a better way to assure that a representative number of minority voters are included, please don't oppose the only way we have.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)or currently serving elected officials who still hold super-delegate status, they were voted on at one time, but that doesn't mean they all still represent the interests of the party at large to day, and apparently not quite 10 percent of super-delegates are actually appointed, not elected.
And looking at the numbers, it doesn't look like Super-delegates skew female or latino or black at all. They are predominantly white, so I have no idea why people are saying these reward the loyalty of any of these these groups. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but the numbers don't seem to reflect it.
MichMan
(11,927 posts)The state parties are the ones that decide how regular delegates are chosen. Nothing is stopping them from selecting large numbers of minority delegates.
I don't know why people think that having superdelegates is the only way.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)They are voted on in the caucuses. When the caucuses are filled with white people (as they mostly were in my area), then they tend to elect other white people.
MichMan
(11,927 posts)Whose fault is that?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)They schedule caucuses that last for hours and are often at a long distance from voters' homes. Most people don't have several hours to spend voting on one day, much less at a state convention (for those chosen to be state level delegates) and at a national convention (for those who go on to that step.)
We have both primaries and caucuses in my state. Many more people vote in the primaries because it is easy and quick. Caucuses are a huge pain, but that's where the delegates are chosen. The voters in my state voter to have a primary back in the 80's, and the R's went along, but the Dems refused. So we're still stuck with our non-diverse, non-representative caucuses, and a "beauty contest" primary.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I think that supporting the party is a good thing
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Superdelegates entrench the party as it is, without input from the voters. They are used to influence the voters sense of choice from the get-go. That's lousy.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Weakening the party is a bad thing in my world
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Super delegates are party leaders who have earned the right to have their voices heard. Your analysis is totally silly in that you clearly do not understand the DNC rules. I was Clinton delegate to the National Convention. I have read the DNC and the model state party rules on delegate selection. Under DNC rules no delegate (both pledged or super) are legally obligated to vote for any candidate. The DNC rules are in effect based on the same legal reasoning that says that presidential electors are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. I understand and agree with the legal analysis underlying the current DNC rules which is why I think that your proposals and the plans to "bind" super delegates to vote the same as the results of such super delegate's state primary do not make sense and will not work. If the legal reasoning in the presidential elector case is correct, then the DNC cannot bind either pledged delegates or super delegates to vote for a particular candidate. The current DNC rules are clear that pledged delegates as well as super delegates can vote as such delegates deem fit.
I know a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as a number of super delegates. Elected officials are free to endorse the candidate of their choice during the primary process and should not lose this right simply because they are a super delegate
I am amused that you think that being part of the party is a bad thing. I will continue to work inside the party because that is the best way to help protect democracy
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)They’ve got the name recognition and political cliut so they always won in the years before SDs were created.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)choose the people who will fill the delegate slots(that's how it was always done in Oregon, where I was first involved in Democratic politics, choosing the delegates in accord with national Dem rules for ethnic/racial/gender/identity representation.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Those with the most name recognition, the elected democrats or highly popular formerly elected officials, will win the delegate slots. The grassroots will be left out.
Or would the rules leave highly well known dems out of the running for those slots?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There were a few hundred people representing each of the candidates, people just got up and made a pitch for why they should be chosen, some were chosen and some weren't.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)If they were selected by voters, they're like to be Party leaders and officials. If they're appointed by the Party, they're likely to be Party leaders and officials.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)people who simply showed up and paid to be delegates, who then took voted to appoint the number of delegates each candidate had obtained.
Not sure why you're so adamant about the idea that everything has to circle back to "Party leaders and officials".
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)...I'm delighted to know that anyone who wants to can join a State Convention in Oregon...PROVIDED they can invest the same amount of time as a Caucus requires.
Out of curiosity, how many grassroots Democrats took six hours to drive from the Eastern part of Oregon to the Convention site?
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)simply not ready for such a position...I work with grassroots...very unreliable in terms of doing the heavy lifting of campaigns and even in voting.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)Obama only won the nomination because of caucus states
I don't actually mind super delegates either but they should keep quiet about who they support until there are a few debates (at least)
LisaM
(27,811 posts)That ought to be enough reason to get rid of them. They held the 2016 Washington caucus on Easter weekend. Turnout was sparse.
They can also be very intimidating to attend. I hate them.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)differently than regular state elections.
LisaM
(27,811 posts)and generally the options for voting absentee are few (and only count for the first ballot; in 2004, we had four ballots). If you are a caregiver of any sort, you pretty much can't go. If you work on the day they are held, you can't go. If you are ill, you can't go. If you have transportation issues, you can't go. And, once you are there, you need to steel yourself to be yelled at. Moreover, the vote isn't always secret. Even though you need to commit to the two-hour window and be there during that time, they can go on for hours. Some in Washington were still going on at 11:00 pm. If you had to wotk or go home to a child or leave for some other reason, pouf! There goes your vote. They are awful.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And just keep counting their votes as part of the total for their candidate in ADDITIONAL fan-outs.
Or at least let them leave if their candidate has achieved viability.
Or use a preference process in which people can fan-out and make a list of where they'd like their vote to be reassigned in subsequent fan-outs so they could just leave after the first fan-out anyway.
Or work out a means where you could caucus remotely using your laptop or tablet or cel.
The yelling is bad and it has always been part of the process.
I'd rather scrap them entirely.
Never did think they were a good idea.
still_one
(92,190 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)state cannot participate which makes them undemocratic.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)primaries, but caucuses have to be this way, or this is just the way they all are?
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)I will continue to support caucuses as they are harder to manipulate
here is an example...
http://bradblog.com/?p=7875
For example, in the Dem results, there are four different precincts where 4 voted for Morrison, 9 voted for Lincoln and 7 voted for Halter. Not "impossible," but curious. On the Republican side, some of the very same precincts also had identical numbers for each of the eight candidates, and a few more had nearly identical numbers. A few of the precincts also reported what appeared to be the exact same percentages for each candidate as seen in the precincts with duplicated numbers, but where the number of votes is simply doubled. All still not "impossible," but certainly getting much more improbable.
////////////////////////////////
thousands of votes disappearing with no explanation
that is the state of our elections
/////////////////////////////
I am not denying there are problems with caucuses, Easter Sunday is foolish but caucuses are how Obama became the nominee
And then the numbers finally became plain "impossible" when examining the number of votes cast in the primaries for the Congressional District 1 U.S. House Race that also took place in Monroe County on May 18th.
In that CD1 race, there were 1,860 Democratic and 318 Republican votes cast, for a total of 2,178. That certainly represents a more reasonable undervote rate, but how can it be possible that there were 1,860 votes cast in the Dem CD1 race, when there were only 600 votes cast in the Dem Senate race, yet the "total votes" were all supposedly accounted for, according to the SoS's turnout numbers, in both the Dem and Republican Senate races?
LisaM
(27,811 posts)Caucuses may have cost Hillary the 2008 nomination. My experience at the caucus in 2008 was do horrible that I left in tears and I wasn't the only one. I will never forget it.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The only valid reason to oppose caucuses is that structural problems.
What they did for or against any particular candidate should never have mattered.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Uh no.
That's your opinion.
Some states and voters prefer the caucuses.
It would be unDemocratic to tell them to get rid of them because YOU don't like them.
geeze !
moriah
(8,311 posts)I admit, I live in a primary state. A Conservative open primary state, to be exact, which means people can and (multiple conservatives have told me they regularly do) cross over to vote in Democratic primaries when they know the Republican they want will win without their help.
The idea of caucuses as networking opportunities for the party, to get to know and talk to your neighbors, is a beautiful idea.
I think allowing early/absentee instant runoff "caucusing" for people who can't make the actual event would help balance both aspects -- still encouraging networking, but letting people decide where they would move if their candidate didn't make a cut and not disenfranchising them if they can't make it.
It might also make the in-person caucus process a little less crazy, if people not interested in networking decided to caucus early.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I meant rank-and-file Democrats generally.
The reason I said that was I don't think there's a difference on that based on who anybody supported or supports for president.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)than the fact that it irritates the Usual Suspects.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why not have a nomination cycle grounded in not sticking it to anybody for a change?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They're a non-issue that the Perpetually Aggrieved can't stop blubbering about. Petulant children should not get their way.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)existence but you just want to stick it to people who don't like them. Nice.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They also allow our party to safeguard against having our own version of Trump ascend to the candidacy.
I bet the Pukes wished they had some SDs in their pocket back when The Tangerine Idi Amin was gaining his initial momentum. Cooler heads inside the party can work against shit like that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)legitimate concern, nor would superdelegates flipping a vote do anything but to result in the election of a republican in the GE. And they are never good, or even slightly better than the alternative.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Idiots and dipshits abound, spreading across the ideological spectrum with little regard for political and party boundaries.
We are not immune to those tendencies, though they do thankfully seem to be less common than on the other side. To pretend otherwise is either willful ignorance or whistling past the graveyard.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and even that probably means different things to the both of us, but they are still a far cut above republicans when it comes to appreciating facts and being informed. But none of that changes the fact that flipping the will of the voters would only result in a republican presidency. Which means the only value of superdelegates is to inflate a candidates numbers in the primary, making that person look out of reach hell...after the first couple states have come in, or even before. Thats how those numbers are used. To misconstrue information, and it was rampant in the last election.
Might it have been used as a kill-switch to prevent someone like Sanders(certainly an action I would completely disagree with but I'm not sure where you stand) from getting the nod? Probably not, because again, the result of doing that versus just witholding or giving tepid support to a candidate that the leadership doesn't like would both likely be that a Republican ended up in the White House. There's no reason to blow up your own party if the result is likely to be the same either way.
In what scenario in the Democratic Party can you actually envision Super-delegates making a positive impact by flipping democratically achieved results?
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)wiki bullshit...I am no longer sure that is true...so the supers need to stay.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Perhaps a tiny handful are, but the vast majority of those you would describe as "aggrieved" are simply passionate about the things they care about, as you are.
What matters is the future-we are much more likely to get post-convention unity if there aren't any moments in the process where people are served what tastes to them like shit sandwiches.
We need to be trying to bring people in, not drive anybody away. We need to be working towards dialog and learning to listen to each other.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)many, MANY people are indeed aggrieved for the sake of being aggrieved. Among the brigade that we're obliquely discussing I would venture to guess that a huge majority could be described this way.
Nobody was served a shit sandwich. A group of loudmouthed politics noobs discovered that - for the first time in their lives - they weren't going to automagically get their way just because they pitched a fit. Party politics isn't all orange slices and participation trophies, and sometimes the answer is NO.
If one is sufficiently delicate so as to be driven away from politics because they backed the wrong candidate in the primary then it's safe to say one wasn't the sort of person who was likely to remain involved in the process anyway.
Shit, Hillary was literally the first candidate I ever backed in the primary who went on to win the nomination. I never found a need to smear the nominee or denigrate the process.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying is, as Democrats we should be the party that makes all progressive people welcome, that includes rather than excludes(while expecting everybody who is included to treat everybody else with respect).
It's in our interest as a party to make politics inviting and accessible...to be the place where people with progressive ideas, principles and passion are reached out to, whoever they are.
I know what it feels like to when the party doesn't do that...when it gives you the "shut up, know your place and do what you're told" treatment. It sounds like you've experienced that, too. You didn't deserve being treated like that. Neither does anybody else.
And the thing is it, it doesn't help the party to treat anybody like that.
It simply drives people away, sometimes driving them away from political involvement altogether.
Obama won because he sounded like he would challenge that idea of what our party's inner political culture should be-that it would be a party run from below as much from above. While the Obama Administration did some good things, the Obama era never allowed there to be that kind of transformation within the party. Now, we need to actually become the party we were supposed to become then.
Why not do that? Why not make this a party where all the voices from below...POC, LGBTQ people, women, progressive activists of all sorts, peace activists, rank-and-file labor and those who organize against austerity and neoliberalism are working together to shape what we're about, with candidates emerging from that kind of politics?
Compared to 2016, where we essentially lost everything on every level, what could possibly be worse in trying that?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Only you know your motivations.
But I doubt that I am the only one here who believes that every post you put up is indeed about one candidate.
I may be wrong. Often am. But that is certainly the impression you have left on me.
Have a good day.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)primaries and that is because they didn't get the candidate they wanted in the general. Look at the twitter feeds after the Brazile lies came out.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Unless we get rid of both Caucuses AND open primaries.
Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No candidate's presence was "external manipulation".
We had a longer process because there was a legitimate debate that needed to be had regarding where we were going.
And there was never any point at all at which the party was so overwhelmingly united behind any candidate that the primary cycle should have been a simple formality.
In the real world, Democrats never actually do better in the fall when the primaries are over before they start. Our nominee was not We never do better when debate is prevented. Had our nominee accepted that there had to be a real contest and that everyone on our side deserved a real say, she was more than strong enough to have won on the merits anyway.
You're dragging the dead past into things...I'm talking about the future...to have a decent process that leads us to unity in future elections, we need to make sure there are no real impediments to the popular will and that we don't have a political culture in this party that sees the rank-and-file as needing "to be saved from themselves".
And to take it back to what started the superdelegates, the 1972 election...it's time to face facts.
Once Chappaquiddick happened, we were going to lose and probably lose solidly no matter who we nominated. And by the summer of 1972, there was no candidate who could have been put in place instead of McGovern who had any chance at all of uniting the party(which was a precondition to victory or even to improving our showing at all from 1968). There was no savior figure who could have been brought in if only "the pros" had been allowed to overrule the outcome of the primaries. It wouldn't have made any difference to have superdelegates...or at least not any positive difference.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I wasn't talking about Sanders. I was talking about the Russians.
sheshe2
(83,766 posts)I think you are owed an apology.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's a waste of time to STILL be arguing that anybody who was in our 2016 primaries did not have a legitimate place there, or was the cause of what happened in November.
Russia sabotaged the fall elections...that's where they played their role, and that role needs to be fully investigated.
But we need to focus more on the future than the past, because the future is the only period of time we can change.
In the future, in 2020, we won't nominate anybody who ran in 2016.
I see no where in Adrahil's post that was said or even alluded to it. No where at all.
Sorry, but pretty sure they were talking about Republicans.
..................
Open primaries for 2018 and 2020 need to go, we do NOT need Republicans/ Russians meddling in our elections.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And there's no reason to be launching into any line of argument NOW about who should or should not have been in our 2016 primaries. Let's just accept that every candidate in those was legitimate and that the nomination was settled and that all of that is in the past.
The only thing that matters now is the future. It can't make the future better to insinuate that any past Democratic primary candidacies were in any way illegitimate or the result of Republican interference.
All that matters is future elections, and we can't produce any better outcome in any future election by obsessing on trying to retroactively discredit any past candidacies.
And it does damage to try to discredit past candidacies, because we can only win if we bring in everybody who had a side in the 2016 primaries, everybody who wanted to vote in the fall but was suppressed, and all the nonvoters who felt they weren't represented.
Please just let the 2016 primaries go already. The primaries were not the cause of Trump.
sheshe2
(83,766 posts)Your OP.
I am done talking about this again and again. I wish to focus my thoughts and grief on the 25 murdered souls in Texas at the First Baptist Church.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2016 was brought in by people grousing about "open primaries" and all that.
As to the souls in Texas, I started this thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9801303
(btw, this thread was started before I heard of the Texas thread).
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)And it's a waste of time to STILL be arguing that anybody who was in our 2016 primaries did not have a legitimate place there, or was the cause of what happened in November.
Adragil never said any of that in their post. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)So you assume that they won't try to screw with iur primaries if they can? Seriously? Jeezus!
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)To great effect.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I agree with the CBC http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place
In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.
Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.
"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter.
It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
MichMan
(11,927 posts)They are all currently superdelegates. Of course, they are in favor of keeping their power
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)MichMan
(11,927 posts)The CBC is composed on politicians no different than any politicians. Regardless of race, political persuasion , or geography, virtually every politician spends years trying to achieve political power. Don't recall any willing to voluntarily give it up once they have it, nor would I expect them to. Not being critical, just stating a fact.
The CBC is no different. Of course people that presently serve as super delegates like the current system as it is.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just as much of a distortion to have the superdelegate system as it is to have caucuses.
If there must be superdelegates, they should be required to stay neutral until the process has at least significantly played out.
Delegates should be chosen by primaries in which they are allocated by the proportional vote share each candidate receives, and then delegate slates should be filled by the supporters of each candidate at the state convention.
P.S. Please stop posting links from mid-2016.
We're done with the HRC v. Bernie rivalry.
Neither of them is going to run again, and we need the supporters of both uniting in this party behind somebody else if we're to win in 2020.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It would be fine to have them as institutional memory, but not actually influencing who we nominate.
It implies that the primary voters can't be trusted to make a wise choice, and why would we want to implicitly insult the people who stay with us when nobody else does?
This is all a reaction to 1972, and it's a bogus reaction-Nixon has the whole process rigged, and once Chappaquiddick happened and Muskie collapsed over essentially nothing, there simply wasn't any savior figure who'd have done better if only the "pros" had been allowed to block McGovern.
And the "pros" who'd have tried to stop McGovern were the same "pros" who doomed us in '68 by insisting on imposing Humphrey as candidate when he had no real popular support anywhere and was totally out of touch with the realities of the year.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)The Congressional Black Caucus is far more important to the party than the people eho want to eliminate super delegates.
I do not want to alienate an important segment of the party
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We could honor the CBC without having a process where the nomination is decided before anybody votes.
And there was no good reason to try to end the primary process before it began.
We can trust the primary voters...and in fact Hillary would have won without the supers declaring early, so you have no reason to question that.
BTW...you do realize the vast majority of superdelegates are neither the CBC or any other people of color, right? Most of them are white politicians and party officials.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I was at the national convention. In the real world your concepts would not work.
You do realize that even regular delegates can change their votes? I actually had a copy of the party rules which I read before runing as a delegate for Philadelphia. I was a pledged delegate for Hillary Clinton for the 2016 convention and I had Sanders people yell at me and call my youngest child the C-word in order to try to get me to change my vote.. In the real world this was handled by vetting delegates. I was on the committee that vetted delegates for the Clinton campaign.
Your proposal would not work in the real world. Do you think that Congressman Al Green or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would pay attention to this silliness? I know both and can ask them just for grins.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've been actively participating in real-world politics since 1976, when I first became involved in the Democratic Party of Oregon.
And I was a delegate to four state Democratic conventions in Alaska, as well as being an active member of the local Democratic group in
Juneau and the fall Democratic campaign in Olympia after moving here.
I respect the work you've done and have never said anything personal about you, so it's not asking too much to expect you to reurn the favor by refraining from implying that I'm out of touch with reality.
And nothing we're discussing here is about HRC vs Bernie. It's about the future.
(BTW, I've never defended the way you were treated at the convention, so why do you keep bringing it up?)
Can't you accept that we are past 2016 and that all that matters is what happens in 2018 and 2020?
That nothing in the next campaigns will have anything in common with the Sanders/Clinton rivalry?
As to the congressmembers I mentioned-I think they'd actually enjoy being neutral until the process is further along, and then actually being able to get something in return for their votes at the convention. What's not to like?
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Your proposal makes no sense. in the real world. No congressperson would listen to or follow your silly proposal in the real world. Again in the real world under DNC rules no delegate is bound to vote for anyone. I was a pledged Clinton delegate but could have voted for anyone My younest child was called the C-word by Sanders delegates for not trying to change my vote. Your proposals would mean making changes that would not work
The real world is a nice place. I like living in the real world
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And your insistence on disrespecting me personally makes even less sense.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... is pointing out the flaws in the proposals you've presented. What's wrong with that?
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I actually work on politics in the real world. I attend real party meetings and help on campaigns at a high level. I know a good number of super delegates and was on the committee that vetted the Clinton delegates selected for the 2016 national convention.
Again under current Democratic party rules, neither super delegates nor other regular pledged delegates are bound to vote for anyone. All pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. That is why the candidates each have approval rights over their pledged delegates. To be selected as a delegate to the national convention, one must not only be elected by their local group (my senate district caucus) but must also pass the vetting process for each campaign. As a result of the vetting process the people who make it to the national convention are normally loyal party supporters who will not vote against the candidate they pledged to support. A pledge of support from a superdelegate is understood in the real world to be meaningless in that the superdelegate can change their vote at any time. Why people focus on these votes is strange to me because the super delegates who I know are not likely to change their positions easily unless it is to their political benefit to do so.
In the real world, super delegates are party leaders who may endorse or show support for a candidate. In 2008 for example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee supported Hillary Clinton even though her congressional district voted for President Obama. Sheila was very loyal to Hillary Clinton for a long time but came around. Sheila voted for President Obama at the 2008 Texas Democratic State Convention and again as a super delegate in Denver. A party rule that purports to require super delegates to not announced their support for a candidate would never pass and would be ignored or laughed at in the real world. Again, I actually know real super delegates who would be amused at the concept of the premise of your proposals.
Again, I live in the real world and deal with real party issues. If I see a proposal that makes no sense in the real world, then do not expect me to ignore this.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't need to falsely accuse me of not living in the real world(and especially to accuse me of never being involved with actual practical politics when I've proved I've been involved with them for decades)to make whatever point you are trying to make.
You and I are not in competition and nobody here needs to try to personally discredit anyone else to make a point in a discussion.
And personal insult is never going to stop me posting things here that you disagree with, or stop people reading them. As a practical tactic, it fails you.
BTW, in the part of the "real world" where you live, Beto O'Rourke is the strongest candidate against Ted Cruz. Are you going to accept that and stop trying to talk the guy's chances down? I get it that you might not be ready to endorse him yet(it's early)but can you at least show enough respect to the party's chances to not say anything overtly hostile about him? That's what would help in "the real world", since Beto is almost certainly going to be the nominee against Ted.
P.S., I have no idea why you keep bringing Hillary into this discussion when this thread started with the assertion that she'd have been nominated WITHOUT the superdelegates. Can you please just accept that the Hillary V. Bernie is the past and that what matters is the future?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've been involved in Democratic politics starting in 1976, so I have as much claim to living in reality and working in practical politics where compromise is involved as you do.
And I've showed that in practice by campaigning for centrist candidates in the fall in many, many elections.
You've done this to other people and have never had any justification for doing so.
And there is no good reason for you to bring up the primaries when that campaign is the past.
OK?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Ken I have made my own determination as to your "real world" experience and your posts speak for themselves. The concepts you have advanced on this thread would not work in the real world and would be laughed at by super delegates. I simply strongly believe that your proposals will not work in the real world.
I have actually work in the real world including going to a national convention, training 200+ poll watchers and running the statewide voter protection efforts. I know the DNC rules on super delegates and pledged delegates. Your proposals ignore how DNC rules work. Again, if you have proposals that will work in the real world, please post them. However if these proposals will not work in the real world, do not expect people to ignore this fact.
As for Beto, I have met him a couple of time including at the National Convention (Beto was one of those nasty super delegates that you dislike). If Beto continues on his current course/platform I doubt that he has a chance against Carnival Cruz absent a major Democratic wave election. Beto is the only one willing to run against Carnival Cruz which is sad given that Carnival Cruz is a disgusting human being and is one of the few GOP senators who will not be primaried by Steve Bannon. I fear that Beto is pursuing the only platform currently available to him and I doubt that this platform will work in the real world. For Beto to win, there needs to be a major wave election and Beto may need to change his tactics to compete against Cruz. If a true Democratic wave materializes, then I suspect that Beto's fund raising will take off and that Beto will be changing tactics. Beto's current course is the only course currently available to Beto and a major Democratic wave election and increase fund raising would change that.
I will vote for Beto (I vote for anyone over Cruz) but I have not decided if I will donate to him. There are other candidates who are more competitive where my funds may make a larger difference. For example I have a friend running for District Attorney in my county and that position is both winnable and would make a huge practical difference. Harris County has its first Democratic District Attorney in 36 years and Kim Ogg is making a major difference (bail reform and marijuana decriminalization). Again, if it looks like 2018 is a true democratic wave election and Beto's fund raising takes off and Beto changes tactics, then I will revisit who I will be donating to.
The 2018 cycle is the last cycle where Texas will have straight ticket voting and I have a number of friends running for judicial races who have a decent chance if Harris County goes blue. I am also donating to the lady running against the Tea Party idiot who is running the Harris County elections.
In 2016, a lady I trained as a poll watcher won the Harris County Tax Assessor race (Texas used to have a poll tax and voter registration is handled by the local taxing offices in most counties) and so we do not have to sue on voter registration issues this cycle. If we can rid of a Tea Party idiot named Stan Stannart in Harris County, we have a chance for fairer elections. In addition, the son of a good friend is one of the leading candidates in Texas CD 7 and we can flip this seat.
I will continue to have fun working in the real world. Texas will turn blue but it will take a great deal of hard work on the ground. For example this motion was filed today by Chad Dunn in the Texas Redistricting case http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95844 In 2018, it will take a great deal of work to keep GOP voter suppression tactics from stealing the election. As noted above, I really want to defeat the tea party election administrator in Harris County.
Have fun with your efforts and I will have fun with my efforts.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)about what they've done to help.
You are simply one other person who posts here, and while I respect your efforts, you are not head and shoulders above any other poster here.
Or to imply that I'm lying when I've offered proof of my extensive practical political experience.
A LOT of people involved in long-time practical political work support the ideas I support-including the Sanders supporters who won most of the positions in the Alaska Democratic Party before I left and led it to its first significant gains in legislative elections in years-winning enough seats to take over the state House in a coalition with a handful of saner R's and an independent or two.
Also, I don't personally dislike people who happen to be superdelegates, including the congressmembers you mentioned. I simply don't agree that we need to have a block of convention delegates who are just there to say "NO" to democracy.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I actually work on political issues in the real world and so I can express an opinion as to whether your proposals make sense to me based on my real world experience. I know the DNC rules on both pledged delegates and super delegates. Under current DNC rules, your proposals make no sense and ignore the framework for how delegates are vetted and whether they can be bound to vote for a particular nominee.
I also know a good number of super delegates including three members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Would you like me to run your concepts by these CBC members and get their reactions?? I am willing to bet that the CBC members will share my opinion of your proposals.
Ken I am busy working on political issues in the real world. I will be basing my opinions on this work. You can advance any proposals that you desire but do not expect people to accept these proposals if their real world experience tells them that these concept make no sense.
Right now we have primary sign up deadlines coming up in Texas. We need to recruit candidates for the 2018 cycle and get them signed up before mid December if they are going to be on the ballot in 2018.
Just to summarize, I am against caucuses but I still support super delegates. I saw how caucuses can be abused in 2008 when Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary but lost the caucus portion of the Texas two step process. There are some nasty games that you can play in caucuses that render the process totally undemocratic. I was happy when the DNC banned Texas from using caucuses in 2016, The Congressional Black Caucus represents a vital segment of the party base and I stand with the CBC on their position on super delegates. Telling super delegates that they cannot commit or pledge their vote until after the primaries are over makes no sense in the real world and ignores DNC rules on delegates.
Have fun.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not your place, though, to accuse anyone of being out of touch with reality OR to imply that anyone is lying about their own real world experience-OR to accuse anyone of not working for the party in real life.
And if you need to recruit candidates, recruit candidates. There's no reason for you to be fixated on proving your personal superiority to me. An insistence on doing so can actually be interpreted as deep insecurity.
BTW, you know perfectly well I am not disrespecting the Congressional Black Caucus-the vast majority of whom are sharply to your left on the issues, btw, as the annual Alternative Federal Budget the CBC proposes proves.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I am actually working on issues in the real world and I can base my opinions on the soundness of your proposals based on that real world experience. I really do not care what you are doing or claiming to be doing in the real world. The only thing that I care about is the fact that your proposals make no sense and would not work in the real world.
If you disagree with my opinions, then defend your proposals. Go talk to a member of the Congressional Black Caucus about super delegates. Do not get mad at me simply because your proposals make no sense and will not work. Again, I think that super delegates serve a valuable role for the party.
Ken, I have read the DNC and the model state party rules on delegate selection. Your proposals would not work under DNC rules in that no delegate (both pledged or super) are legally obligated to vote for any candidate. The DNC rules are in effect based on the same legal reasoning that says that presidential electors are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. I understand and agree with the legal analysis underlying the current DNC rules which is why I think that your proposals and the plans to "bind" super delegates to vote the same as the results of such super delegate's state primary do not make sense and will not work. If the legal reasoning in the presidential elector case is correct, then the DNC cannot bind either pledged delegates or super delegates to vote for a particular candidate. The current DNC rules are clear that pledged delegates as well as super delegates can vote as such delegates deem fit.
I know a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as a number of super delegates. Elected officials are free to endorse the candidate of their choice during the primary process and should not lose this right simply because they are a super delegate. I would love to see Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee's reaction to your proposal. Hint, Sheila is not a patient person.
Ken, I am happy living in the real world and working on issues in the real world. You are free to make proposals and to defend these proposals. So far you are NOT defending your proposals on this thread. If you really think that your proposals are worthwhile, then defend these proposals.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you think my ideas don't work, then JUST say you think the ideas don't work.
It's not your place to question whether people you disagree with are living in the real world.
Nor is it your place to essentially accuse me of lying when I've discussed the work I've actually done in Democratic politics.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Your proposals are not realistic and will not work in the real world. I am glad that you agree with my analysis. The facts and the analysis posted on this thread clearly show that your proposals are wrong and I am glad that you are admitting that you are unable to defend these proposals
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But the ONLY thing I should have to defend is my proposals-I should not have to prove that I live in reality.
Democrats are supposed to believe in human equality and mutual respect. If you are willing to accord me that as I accord you that, and to admit you don't need to try to prove you're superior to me or to try to use verbal abuse to try and shut me and others up, we can proceed.
Here's a defense:
Primaries,with either same-day re-registration or at least re-registration within a month or so of primary day, so that they can occur when the contest is actually going on(instead of being stopped MONTHS earlier as they always have been in New York, and with delegates apportioned on the proportional share of the vote each candidate received), would be the most democratic way of apportioning convention delegates. By allowing re-registration at least near primary day, they would encourage new people to join our party, and this is purely to the good because we don't have enough people in it to win at this point. Parties should always be trying to grow.
You need to let go of your anger the last primaries, and to stop acting as if I've defended it. Bernie should not run again(and I truly doubt that he will)but it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome against Trump if he'd been kept out of the primaries. There was never an unshakable consensus for HRC at any point, and a primary process in which the outcome was pre-determined wouldn't have strengthened us at all-years like 1984, 2000, and 2004 prove that we don't do better when the "presumptive" nominee becomes the actual nominee.
In 2008, by contrast, we had a full debate and a process that went down to the wire and won solidly.
Caucuses should be eliminated(I agree with you, as I said above, that what you have there in Texas is indefensible-there is no reason a caucus process after the primary should change the delegate allotment between candidates-although it goes without saying that Obama would have beaten Hillary for the nomination that year no matter what and that Hillary wouldn't have done any better in the fall than Obama did OR been a better president-the performance each had or would have had in the job would have been fine). I have Caucuses are a burden to everyone who wants to be involved and do make it hard for parts of the Democratic base to participate. I've pointed it out that the only legitimate reason to oppose caucuses is disempowerment and inconvenience, not the bogus claims that any candidate has been given an unfair advantage by them(neither was, in 2008 OR 2016, and frankly it's a mystery to me that ANYONE would still be complaining about the result of the 2008 cycle when the result was a relatively successful two-term Democratic administration). So my position is-get rid of caucuses, but also to get rid of the bullshit about caucuses-they were invented by old-time "party insiders"; they weren't somehow imposed on the party by leftists or something.
As to superdelegates, my second proposal, that they be required to stay uncommitted, would actually give superdelegates MORE power. The CBC, for example, would actually have gained something for their delegate. My main point is that institutional memory is fine, but that it's an insult to rank-and-file Democrats to act as if we need something to "save our party from itself".
And I'm fine with the CBC hearing my proposal to give them MORE influence in the process. I admire the CBC and wish its members the best.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I actually live in the real world and your proposals make zero sense in the real world. I actually know the DNC rules on delegate voting and I actually know a good number of super delegates and members of Congressional Black Caucus.
Your analysis of the Texas two-step was so off that it was funny. Under the old two-step process, two-thirds of the delegates were selected or allocated based on the primary results and one-third based on first on district caucuses that occurred the night of the primary and senate district/county caucuses that occurred before the state convention. Clinton narrowly won the primary but lost in the caucuses badly and so ended up with fewer Texas delegates than President Obama. The Obama people had some good trainers come in for the caucus segment and the Obama delegates won the caucus segment of the Texas two-step by a good margin. The DNC got rid of the Texas two-step in 2016 and all delegates were allocated based on the primary results. I know this because I campaigned for and ran to be a delegate for the Clinton campaign and was elected in my state senate district caucus.
You keep on ignoring the fact that DNC rules do not bind any delegate (both pledged and super) to vote a candidate. I was a pledged delegate to Philadelphia for Clinton. Again, I was anticipating a possible credentials committee fight in Philadelphia and so I read the DNC rules and the rules of a dozen or so state parties for delegate selection including a couple of caucus states (these rules are identical or have the exact same wording in each state). Pledged delegates are allocated based on either the initial caucus results or based on the primary. I could have voted for anyone but there was no way that I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. Super delegates are just like other delegates. In the real world campaigns carefully vet their pledged delegates to make sure that the people selected will vote for correctly. Again I live in the real world and I was on the committee that was responsible for vetting delegate nominees for the Clinton campaign. The DNC rules are based on some good law that you cannot force a presidential elector to vote for a candidate. To adopt your system, the DNC would have to change or ignore the existing court rulings. Again the current system works because the people selected in the vetting process tend to be loyal members of the party who will not change their votes.
Your proposal would not increase the power of super delegates. Super delegates are elected officials and party leaders. These elected officials have strong opinions as to which candidate they want to support and would laugh at your proposal. Your proposal takes away the right of elected party officials and leaders to indicate support for and to campaign for the candidate of their choice. Heck, one of the members of the CBC who I am friends with was at a Clinton event that I was "officially" a "host" of and had fun introducing me to Hillary Clinton by claiming that I was his lawyer. He would laugh at the concept that denying him the right to campaign for and work with the candidate of his choice during the primary process would increase his power. Your proposal would NOT increase his power but would deny this elected member of congress the right to campaign for and to support the candidate of his choice at the most crucial portion of the primary process.
As I noted on an earlier post, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 even though her congressional district went heavily for President Obama. Sheila continued this support through the senate district/county caucuses but switched just before the State Convention and Hillary conceded. That was her right and I have no trouble with a super delegate or party leader supporting the candidate of their choice.
I would love to see you make your proposal to someone in the real world. Again I live in the real world and I have discussed issues with party leaders and elected officials like members of the CBC. If you want to come to Texas, I will love to introduce you to Sheila and let her have fun with your concepts. I would love to hear someone attempt to explain to a member of Congress why it would be okay to deny such elected official their right to campaign for and to support the candidate of their choice during the primary process.
I will continue to work in the real world on real political issues and work on real campaigns. Your proposals are not based on facts and would not work in the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)
That was nine years ago. It's over. And it's absurd to be refighting the primaries when those primaries resulted in the election of a Democratic president with majority popular support. Let it go already.
Nothing would have been different in the last eight years had HRC been president instead of Obama. The results we had in those eight years were the exact same results we'd have had, no matter which of them had been president. Let that one go already.
If Texas has removed the two-step, why did you bring it up? If it's a moot point(I don't LIVE in Texas and can't be expected to know everything about how specifically Texas politics is run).
As to Sheila Jackson Lee...I just showed how my proposals would empower her and the rest of the CBC. They got nothing from HRC by throwing their support to her before most people voted-they'd have won much more by staying neutral and playing queen-or-kingmakers. I wish the congressmember well, agree with her more than you do(if you backed HRC in 2008, you were taking a position on the contest opposed by over 90% of the CNC, and unlike you, were I a member of Congress, I would vote for the CBC's Alternative Federal Budget).
On the technical matter of delegates being unbound...it's an irrelevant point. We haven't had a convention in the modern history of the Democratic Party(prior to 1932, it was for all practical purposes an entirely different party) in which any significant number of delegates have broken with the candidate they were essentially pledged to. And there was no convention in that time when there was any evidence that any significant number of delegates pledged to the eventual nominee came anywhere close to considering breaking with that nominee(including Chicago in 1968, when every single delegate pledged to Hubert Humphrey KNEW that in voting to nominate him, and also in voting to back Johnson's position on the war, they were voting to make it impossible for this party to hang onto the White House). I grant that, in theory, any delegate can vote for anyone they wished to vote for, but that is only in theory. The option to break with a pledge to a candidate doesn't exist "in the real world".
Again, you're insulting me by accusing me of not living in the real world.
Here's how real world I've been.
In addition to attending several Alaska Democratic conventions...some in years when you had to fly to three separate rounds of caucuses and sleep on somebody's floor while doing so.
I've given speeches for presidential candidates at two rounds of precinct caucuses and wrote the speech given by someone else for a third.
I've campaigned door-to-door for Democratic congressional and legislative and U.S. Senate candidates there...in late October and early November...when it gets dark at 4 in the afternoon and when doorbelling and canvassing involving walking large neighborhoods in a slashing rainstorm when its 35 degrees and there's a 40 MPH wind in my face. That is as real world as it gets.
And if anybody doubts it, I'm willing to get important Democratic figures, including at least one pro-HRC former Democratic National Committeewoman and current member of the Alaska State House, to vouch for me on it.
Your continued implication that I'm not involved in real world politics is a personal insult and a despicable lie.. There's no reason to make it about me at all-since I've never made anything about you. We both have equal authority to speak on things here and you have no reason to try and use personal derision to shut me up.
These tactics make you sound like an insecure bully-one in particular.
Why would you WANT to sound like that?
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I only care about the soundness of your proposals. Whether I believe your claims as to real experience does play a role in my opinion as to the soundness of your proposals. To use more legal jargon, my opinion as to your real world experience is not relevant to the issue of whether your proposals would work in the real world. It is clear to me that your proposals would not work in the real world for the reasons set forth in my posts.
No member of congress would agree to a proposal that would deny such member the right to support and campaign for the candidate of their choice during the primary process. This proposal would be laughed at if presented to a real super delegate. Every high dollar campaign event I went to had numerous local members of Congress and other super delegates in attendance. The members of the CBC would gain nothing by your proposal in the real world and would deny these members the right to attend these campaign events. Again, I live in the real world and I actually know super delegates and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. No member of congress would give up their right to support their candidate of choice during the primary process just to make you happy with no benefit. That is how the real world works.
BTW, I was on the Obama voter protection team in 2008 and was the chairman of my precinct caucus as well as one of the members for the nominations and rules committees for my senate district caucus. I helped train Obama supporters as to how to use the rules of the caucus system to their advantage. President Obama had members of his Iowa team come straight to Texas for these efforts and these people were fun to work with. I enjoyed watching game theory concepts applied in real life to the rules of the caucus system but then again I actually live and participate in the real world. The same mathematical formula used for cumulative voting in corporate elections played a significant role in the training on how to win in caucuses.
It was at one of these Obama training sessions, I heard the complaints from members of Sheila's district about her support of Hillary Clinton. Sheila's district is packed/stacked or gerrymandered so President Obama carried her district by a significant margin. To the credit of the Obama team, they told everyone to be patient and that Congresswoman Jackson Lee would come around at the right time and they were correct. That is how politics works in the real world. Again members of congress have the right to support the candidate of their choice during the primary process and any attempt to restrict that right would fail in the real world. The Obama team understood this and counseled their supporters to be patient with Sheila.
If you disagree, then defend your proposal with facts. What benefits would a super delegate get by forgoing endorsing and campaigning for a candidate? Why would a super delegate or member of Congress not want to attend high dollar campaign events with the candidate of their choice? Exactly what is the supposed benefit that these super delegates would obtain? I have run into a large super delegates and members of congress at high dollar campaign events. They attend these events for a reason and would not want to refrain unless there is an actual reason that could be documented in the real world. You have yet to identify any benefit to these Congress persons other than your personal approval (which is meaningless in the real world).
Ken, you can keep on making proposals that have no chance of being accepted in the real world. I will keep on working in the real world with actual leaders of the party and actual super delegates and members of the CBC. In the real world it takes a great deal of hard work to be elected as a delegate to the national convention. I enjoy hard work on real issues in the real world because I firmly believe that we will turn Texas blue.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you keep implying that I've never worked on real campaigns for real candidates.
If you're willing to stop accusing me of making up my actual personal political history(and cease doing that to anyone else) stop claiming I don't live in the real world(and stop doing THAT to anyone else), I'm willing to stop defending myself against what amounts to character assassination.
Just accept that we both live in the real world, that it's legitimate to disagree with you about what is possible in the real world based on real world experience, AND that you don't need to personally disparage me or anyone else to validate your own sense of self-worth.
You and I are not in personal competition and there is room for both of us in the real world.
The unreconstructed school bully act is getting old and impresses no one.
What I suggested on the superdelegate issue wouldn't stop anyone from campaigning for a candidate. They could still give speeches and go door-to-door and hold fundraisers. ALL it would do would be require them, AS CONVENTION DELEGATES, to remain unpledged until the will of the voters had shaken out. I never proposed barring the CBC or any other superdelegates from campaigning as individuals for candidates.
And it would strengthen the superdelegates, ESPECIALLY the CBC, if the candidates knew that, in the event of a deadlock, they would be able to negotiate with candidates in exchange for their support. They could have asked HRC to agree to include the BLM positions on criminal justice and anti-oppression action in the platform, and won her support for introducing real, large-scale programs to help their constituents. Under this system, their early pledges to the eventual nominee got nothing for their constituents...no significant concessions were ever made to them in exchange for that support.
As to Sheila Jackson Lee...why are you still making an issue of what happened with her in 2008? Why does that even still matter? I had nothing to do with anyone treating her that way and I think we can assume SHE has let it go by now. More to the point, why are you still angry that Obama was nominated then and HRC wasn't? It's not as though anything was worse for the party as a result.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Ken, your claims about real world experience are not relevant to this thread. I am discussing your silly proposals which will not work in the real world for the reasons I keep pointing out and which you keep ignoring. I actually do work in the real world and I understand how the real world works which why I disagree with your proposals.
Ken, I keep pointing out that under DNC rules all delegates (both super and pledged) are not bound to vote for anyone. A super delegate can say that they will vote for a candidate one day and then vote for a different candidate the next day. There are some cases that hold that Presidential electors are not legally bound to vote for their party's candidate. The DNC lawyers determined that this case law means that the party cannot legally bind pledged delegates. The DNC rules do not purport to bind super delegates or pledged delegates. Again, I live in the real world and I worked long and hard in the real world to be elected as a delegate to Philadelphia. As a pledged delegate I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to vote for and that is why the Sanders people targeted my daughter and called her the C-word when she refused to try to convince me to change my vote.
In the real world, the lack of the ability to legally bind a pledged delegate is handled by careful vetting of pledged delegates. Again, I was on the committee who vetted delegates for the Clinton campaign. The people who pass this vetting are people who actually work for and care about the party. A campaign will only approve people who the campaign can trust to vote for their candidate. Understanding how the real world works is important.
No delegate to the DNC is legally obligated to vote anyone and unless the DNC ignore the case law cited above, there is no legal way for the DNC to attempt to legally bind delegates. Super delegates and regular delegates are free to vote for any candidate they want to at the convention. Your silly proposal ignores this fact. The premise of your amusing proposal does not make sense in the real world.
Again in the real world, a super delegate can pledge to vote for one candidate on Monday and change their mind on Tuesday. There is no way for a super delegate to leverage this in the real world. As for pledged delegates, the campaign has approval rights on pledged delegates and there are mechanisms where a pledged delegate can be replaced. However, on Tuesday of the Convention in Philadelphia I could have voted for Sanders if I wanted to. There would have been consequences if I was stupid enough to violate my pledge but my vote would still have counted at the convention. I was approved by the vetting process because the Clinton campaign trusted my word.
Finally, what would it mean if a super delegate such as a member of the CBC endorsed and campaigned for a candidate but did not formally pledge to vote for such candidate? Would anyone in the real world assume that such super delegate is not planning on voting for their preferred candidate at the convention? If a super delegate is campaigning for and has endorsed a candidate, no one in the real world is going to buy the silly concept that such super delegate is not going to vote for such candidate. No super delegate would care about or comply with your rather silly proposal in the real world. Again, I like working in the real world and I care about how things work in the real world.
BTW the concept of open primaries is also stupid but this concept does not really apply in Texas. I would love to figure a way to totally close the Texas primary system and keep non-Democrats from voting. Only Democrats should be selecting the nominee of the Democratic party in the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I didn't say "open primaries". I said closed primaries with re-registration available with a time when the primary campaign is underway(as opposed to the anti-democracy months-early cut off in New York, a cut off that serves no good purpose). The registration would get new people involved in the party, and we always need new people.
Our decisions now should be about what helps in the future-not about preventing another Bernie-type figure from running. The way to prevent that would be for the party to embrace a good chunk of the economic ideas associated with that campaign(while keeping ideas people liked better from other campaigns on other issues-which is the way you build unity).
It should always be our objective to make idealists and activists welcome, to be a place where new ideas and transformational aspirations are included and given practical form. We have nothing to lose from that. It's what elected Obama(we lost ground after that because the transformational was checked at the door).
In the real world, most of what elected us in 2008 was the conception of politics I'm talking about. In 2016, most of what caused us to fall short was the abandonment of that conception. Learn from what works in the real world.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Your proposals will not work in the real world. Vetting has nothing to do with your proposal to ban super delegates from campaigning for and making endorsements of candidates during the primary process. Vetting is only applicable to pledged delegates. In any event your proposal would not work under DNC rules. The concept that one could ban a super delegate from campaigning for and endorsing a candidate during the primary process will not work in the real world.
Texas does not have voter registration by party and so one can vote in either party primary but then cannot change party. I would love to change this in that the GOP engaged in operation chaos in Texas to hurt the party on more than one occasion. I want closed primaries and only members of the Democratic Party should be voting on the nominee of the party.
Ken-Beto may be joining the real world. I have given a good amount to various candidates and I was one of a number of "hosts" at a big dollar fund raiser held at Richard Mithoff's house for Hillary Clinton last year. Richard is a trial lawyer and a major bundler for the Clinton campaign. He had a huge tent on his front lawn that held several hundred people and raised more than three million dollars for Hillary. That tent was amazing. There is a similar event at the Mithoff house next week where the minimum donation is $500 and the required donation to be a host is $5400. It appears that Beto may be getting ready to join the real world and actually make a real run against Carnival Cruz.
I hate Carnival Cruz and I am glad that Beto is seeing the light and will be trying to run a real campaign even if he has to deal with bundlers and trial lawyers like Richard. Beto is joining the real world and we may be able to get rid of Carnival Cruz.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Even *I* knew that! I mean, it's not like anyone needs to vet Sherrod Brown or anything.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)I was vetted or more appropriately they called Juanita Jean and she laughed at them for even asking about me. My friends at the Texas Democratic Party were also amused that they vetted me.
The most important thing is that Beto is joining the real world and we may have a real candidate to go against Carnival Cruz. I cannot tell you how much I dislike Carnival Cruz. I am tempted kick in a couple of thousand dollars to go to the event next week.
There's no place for personal disparagement on this board, and I thank you for your support in that.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)Giving our elected officials and party leaders is not undemocratic. These people are already in a leadership position.
I do not want anyone off the street or a group of novices with their own agenda making the decisions about who will be our nominee. That is why the republicans ended up with trump as their nominee.
Who is this "everybody" who should get some of the say? I trust my Democratic senators and representatives. After all, I already voted for them and helped put them in office. I believe your repeated push for this idea undermines and divides us. I don't think you are informed about super delegates and who they are.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It's standard MO for him at this point.
FSogol
(45,485 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)through idiotic proxy arguments when we have actual neo facists in the WH>
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to run in the general election as a Democrat. They should only be used in the most extreme cases, but I would not eliminate them.
kcr
(15,317 posts)I hope you aren't in charge of any safety protocols.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Allow "absentee (edit: or early) caucusing with instant runoff". Essentially, if you can't be there, you get to decide what will happen if your chosen candidate doesn't make the first cut, or the second, etc.
The beautiful thing about caucus process, that it encourages people to get together and talk and network, is good for the Party and shouldn't be removed.
But the people who can't make it shouldn't be disenfranchised. Sure, they might miss out on getting to hear why they really should change their order of preference, and miss out on the networking opportunity. But they would still get their vote counted.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)
msongs
(67,405 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)I'm in no way, shape, or form saying that the Democrats will ever lose its mind and nominate a lunatic, but that's the scenario SDs are supposed to prevent.
sheshe2
(83,766 posts)No on #2.
Plus primaries should be closed.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... move on and stop rehashing the primary.
Thank you.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Let registered Democrats choose registered Democrats from a pool of registered Democrats.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)People who are not members of an organization are not entitled to chose the organization's representative. People need to join up or check their privilege.
Republicans ran as Democrats in two of my local primaries in September. In both races, the Republican candidate on the Republican line ran unopposed. I live in a red pocket of a very blue state. If we had open primaries, Republicans would have shown up and handed the Democratic line in the GE to another Republican.
There is also a local Republican running for judge as an Independent. His literature claims that he is a "lifelong progressive independent who identifies as a Democrat".
They seemed to have learned well the Trumpian lessons of 2016.
still_one
(92,190 posts)Democratic nominee
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, the superdelegates inject authoritarian influence into primaries. People are nudged or urged to support a candidate from some authority or expert rather than the voters listening to the arguments and deciding. The top down pressure marginalizes or just wipes out voices of people who are already at the mercy of individuals who are already well represented in this competetive society.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)too much of a time commitment (meetings that last for hours, often at quite a distance from the voters home) for most ordinary voters to go to them. So the candidates that come out of caucuses are often not the same who would win in a primary -- or a general.
In Washington and the one other state that had both a caucus and a primary, Bernie won the caucus and Hillary won the primary. And even though the primary voters knew that their votes wouldn't "count," far more voted in the primary than in the caucus.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I like that in my state it only takes a few minutes to make their voice heard. Voters should feel like they have power in their votes. Seems like getting rid of both would definitely open up the process to people who feel like they are not heard.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And think most people on the rank-and-file level do.
We need to be a party that starts including the poor again-and including them by truly addressing poverty, which none of our platforms have done since 1972.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Instead of a war on poverty, a platform for making poverty more tolerable and safe, if not comfortable would be an inclusive shift. Yes to big government, unemployment is okay, welfare is okay, and it's easy to live without a car or home ownership.
sheshe2
(83,766 posts)That caucuses stink and primaries (closed IMHO) are the answer. Excellent to hear!
So the Democratic party has not addressed poverty in their platforms or elsewhere in 35 years? Really? Please clarify as well the poor you are referring to. TIA. Yet again your focus is on economic only issues and not any form of social issues.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And why would it surprise you that I might agree with loyalsister and pnwmom on various things? We supported different candidates but that doesn't define every position I take and I suspect we would agree far more than disagree on the issues of the day.
It appears that you see me solely as a Sanders supporter, and that you believe everything I do or say is about pushing for Bernie as a candidate and for trying to impose the ideas of his campaign OVER the ideas of everyone else.
That's not me.
I supported Bernie in 2016, and still feel that was the right choice to make.
I DON'T support the idea of Bernie ever running for president again.
I DON"T believe the party should be "taken over" by Bernie.
I DON'T believe that every idea his campaign had was better than every idea any other campaign had.
What I'm actually working for is a synthesis, for putting the party in support of something like this combination of ideas:
The need to center antioppression work that was associated with the HRC campaign-and was actually accepted and supported by most rank-and-file Sanders people, whatever the former candidate's failings in communication, and he had many;much of what Sanders talked about on economics, adjusted to take into account the effects of historic and continuing oppression; single-payer healthcare and a strengthened ACA until we achieve single-payer; a real antipoverty program based on providing resources for the poor, wherever they live, to improve their own conditions on their own terms; and a foreign policy based on spending a hell of a lot less time trying to rearrange other countries by force.
None of that is tied to any particular candidate and if you feel any of it leaves anyone in the base out, I'm open to adjusting it. My purpose is unity and I don't support ANY candidate at this point.
If you have any suggestions about
As to poverty, I'm sorry, but there have been tiny measures at best since the end of the LBJ era. No major programs were brought in under Carter(who had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress)there was the creation of CHIP but otherwise more lost ground than gained ground in the Clinton yeas-and, other than the ACA, only marginal improvements under Obama.
There were good intentions and occasional small measures, but no Democratic president after 1968 tried to mobilize the country against poverty, none called on Congress, the business sector or there rest of the non-poor to deal with poverty on any significant level other than to treat the poor as if they DESERVED to be lectured, regimented and treated as failures.
It does the party no harm to acknowledge the truth-our party's leaders largely(not totally, but largely)distanced itself from the poor. Given that you weren't the one who decided the party should do that, why would it bother you that I pointed it out? I doubt you were actually thrilled about it.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)the very high proportion of young white men.
Not only does the first day take several hours, but they then have to elect someone with the time to go to the state capitol and spend a whole day at the next level of conventions. And from there someone has to be elected to go to the national convention. So this can require a huge commitment.
In my district we elected a husband and wife to be the delegate and alternate, and felt grateful they were willing to do the work. No one else wanted to.
In a previous election, NO ONE who voted for our candidate could make the commitment to go to the capitol for a day -- so an attendee who voted for another candidate offered to go. And we didn't have any choice, really, so we said yes.
ecstatic
(32,704 posts)
Owl
(3,642 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)over the mere existence of superdelegates really does suck.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Democracy and transparency are our friends.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Meeting. Start there.
Those of us do it soldiers at that level - the folks who do the grunt work . . .
Don't trust online idea folks who can't prove their credentials to us.
Go to a meeting, get involved, get offline.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I'm so exhausted from canvassing and calling this weekend.
I just can't with these keyboard warriors.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Let's go back to pre-80s nominations that guaranteed white males get nominated.
Supers exist for a reason. Obama would not have won if it wasn't for their influence.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Make the SDs winner take all delegates, to go along with the PDs, which are based on proportionate representation.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Response to NurseJackie (Reply #119)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
RandySF
(58,823 posts)
betsuni
(25,520 posts)What I learned from this thread: Superdelegates are establishment Dems loyal to the party (bad) who cannot be impartial and if not stopped will anoint a non-transformative neoliberal who doesn't care about poor people. The primaries will be over before they begin, debate will be prevented. Teh Neoliberals will hand out shit sandwiches and stick it to the nice passionate street level progressives who represent the will of the people, tragically silenced and excluded. 
Pretending to be talking about 1972 isn't fooling anybody.
brer cat
(24,565 posts)Well said, betsuni.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Sad.
brer cat
(24,565 posts)as well as pompous.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)FSogol
(45,485 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)SSESFD!!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“We want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents,” said Chairman G.K Butterfield.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place
Joe941
(2,848 posts)the super delegates created MOMENTUM for HRC by throwing there votes behind Hillary at the very beginning. By doing this Bernie votes were suppressed. There was a sense from the beginning the DNC was never going to allow Bernie a fair shake. The recent developments (Brazile and Warren) prove what was suspected.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
betsuni
(25,520 posts)and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional post about neoliberals rigging elections in the dead past and the future. I believed all the conspiracy theories about Democrats and although I fought hard for Hillary in the fall campaign, it broke my heart. Again and again I thought about calling Joe Biden. Out of respect for the dead I ask that no one call Joe Biden or talk about anything for at least 24 hours. Thank you."
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)pushing this? As said, Trump is an excellent example of why we need to keep them.
I'm afraid he's also the best example of why evildoers obviously want to get rid of ours.
We know both the archconservative plutocrats who've taken over the GOP and the Russians are already working hard to hurt us so they can keep Republican control of congress AND state legislatures in 2018. I strongly suspect this is their doing.
And, of course, unfortunately, the unlimited funding on the right serves the efforts to break the party of the anti-Democratic left as well.
Frankly, at this point I don't know if Brazile is ideologically similar to Sanders or one of the minority conservatives who register Democrat but vote conservative for Trump, or not at all, but Brazile's actions are extremely revealing. She's actively doing her best to hurt the Democratic Party, and that benefits all hostrile groups.
By her actions, we at least can rule out liberal by personality and ideology, and I'm glad at least of that. Those too treacherous for anyone else to trust can always find a home among the many toxic far right groups.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's a good fail-safe measure that I strongly approve of.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)...which proves that SDs aren't part of the nomination process, so there's no reason Party leaders shouldn't be a part of the rest of the Convention.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You're confusing the words "evidence" and "proof," regardless of the dead.
LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)The issue with SD is a media issue that others have latched onto.
The only change with regarding SD would be to not include them during the roll call vote unless a clear majority is not determined.
There is also nothing antidemocratic about SD. Each of them were elected, just not at a primary. The Chair, Vice Chair, and state DNC members are elected by the chairs and vice chairs of each Democratic Congressional district. The remaining SD are elected Congressional members that were elected by the people and essentially serve at-large.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Sorry. 100%
I do think caucuses are functionally undemocratic, and they need to be changed to closed primaries.
I am also 100% against open primaries.