Re Superdelegates

[kristopher]

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

If Hillary wins the primary by getting more delegates via the election process, she will have my full support in the General Election.

If Bernie wins more delegates via the election process and the super delegates give the election to Hillary, I will consider the primary election to have been stolen and will resign from the Democratic party.

I am 100% sure that Hillary will lose the General Election if such a theft via rigged rule-making takes place.

Superdelegateveto? Hell no: A Bernie Sanders surrogate warns against insiders swaying the nomination
BY JONATHAN TASINI NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Tuesday, February 16, 2016

We correctly criticize undemocratic elections in countries with dictators or one-party systems. That said, our self-satisfied view of other countries’ shortcomings is blind to our own creaky, often flawed, election system. No better example beckons than the possibility that the Democratic nomination will be decided by an unelected group of people who will thwart, in a backroom deal, the actual desires expressed by real voters.

To win the Democratic nomination, either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton must amass a majority of the 4,764 delegates to the Democratic convention, which takes place in Philadelphia in July. Most voters think those delegates are all allocated by votes held in primaries or caucuses. Unfortunately, that's not true: A full 15% — 712 — are unelected so-called superdelegates.

Let's understand who these 712 superdelegates are. Elected Democrats in Congress and the party's governors make up a significant chunk (whose numbers have shrunk due partly to the dismal leadership of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz). The remaining bloc are Democratic National Committee members, who are a mish mash of other elected officials, party functionaries and heads of partly-aligned groups such as unions and leading advocacy organizations.

Most of these people are capable and legitimate activists — solid Democrats who have, in their own right, been elected by voters to serve in their respective positions. And, almost by definition, they are part of the party establishment.

The key point, however, is that they never ran on, nor were they ever elected by voters...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-tasini-superdelegate-veto-hell-no-article-1.2529854

Please Sign the Petition

Superdelegates: Let the voters decide
Petition by Ilya Sheyman

To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates

The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.

That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.

There are currently 164,096 signatures. NEW goal - We need 175,000 signatures!

PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.

But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.

In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.

Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.

Sign the Petition: http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=none&fb_test=0

[MohRokTah]

1. So you don't like the process.

Too bad.

Fortunately for everybody, Sanders won't make it all the way through the primaries before Hillary has the required delegates to win.

[cascadiance]

4. We apparently like the system of democracy more than many like you do...

Which want delegates to represent VOTERS and not be hand picked to represent high paying lobbyists that like to have bribery be re-legislated to no longer be a crime.

Wish more people that have taken control of this party would believe in the system that this party's named after!

[MohRokTah]

5. I am a Democrat and fully support the process for nominating a presidential candidate

You should have thought about all this years ago, gotten involved, gotten into your local party and worked to get changes made to this process.

I know I have been involved at that level for years. I am not a national delegate but spent years in the state party delegation.

It's certainly too late to cry about the process now.

[kristopher]

9. I'm certain you are a minority of the rank and file with that view.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/18/superdelegates-wont-save-hillary-clinton-from-bernie-sanders/

[morningfog]

16. It's going to be along time before she had enough, even including supers.

Months, if she ever makes it.

[MADem]

2. Did you feel this way about superdelegates eight years ago?

I don't remember you voicing any protest about them back then.

[kristopher]

3. Try to win the GE without us.

[MADem]

6. Way to a) Issue a rather childish threat and b) Avoid my question. Proud of yourself?

I think you're showing us your nature, and acquitting yourself rather poorly in the doing, too.

kristopher
3. Try to win the GE without us.

[kristopher]

7. I'm not playing a game.

I'm not supporting a rigged system any longer.

Period.

End of story.

[MADem]

11. You don't realize it, but yes, you ARE playing a game.

It sounds a bit like "Play by MY invented rules, or I'm taking my ball and going home!!!"

Nice knowing ya...!

Period. End of Story.

[kristopher]

12. Basic fairness is an easily comprehended facet of life that even animals understand.

[MADem]

15. Isn't that special. Basic fairness means you get back what you give in, too.

If you're not a member of the club, if you don't help the club achieve their goals, if you mock and diss the club at every opportunity and call its members all sorts of vile names, it should not surprise anyone if you're not welcomed into the inner sanctums with open arms.

[kristopher]

17. Is that how the club of humanity works?

But truth be told I admit hearing about just what you say.

Chomsky: Bernie Sanders is a ‘Decent, Honest, New-Dealer with the Best Policies’

Tom Cahill | February 17, 2016
Noam Chomsky, one of the most prominent socialist-leaning intellectuals in the US, says Bernie Sanders isn’t a socialist, but rather a “decent, honest New Dealer.” He made the comments in a recent interview with Al Jazeera English:

Chomsky gave historical perspective on why being a “new dealer” isn’t such a radical thing, citing a widely-popular, two-term Republican president who outwardly supported the New Deal.

“In the current American political spectrum, to be a New Dealer is to be way out on the left,” Chomsky told Al Jazeera English. Eisenhower, for example. who said anyone who questions the New Deal doesn’t belong in the political system, would be regarded as a raving leftist.”

The author and professor acknowledged that in our “bought” political system, a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who outwardly opposes the political establishment and spurns corporate contributions to political campaigns, “doesn’t have much of a chance.” However, Chomsky maintained the Vermont senator is still his preferred presidential candidate.

“If he were elected, I think, of the curre

nt candidates, I think he would have, from my point of view, the best policies,” Chomsky said.

Chomsky went on to criticize the Republican field ...

http://usuncut.com/politics/noam-chomsky-bernie-sanders-new-dealer-best-policies/


Wait a minute, that isn't it...

Isn't that the essence of this philosophy?

Howard Roark. John Galt. Dagny Taggart. Hank Rearden. The heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are famous because they're unique. Rand's stories, full of drama and intrigue, portray businessmen, inventors, architects, workers and scientists as noble, passionate figures. Where else will you find an inventor who must rediscover the word “I,” a young woman who defies a nation embracing communism, or an industrialist who must disguise himself as a playboy? A philosopher-pirate? An architect who is fiercely selfish yet enormously benevolent? A man who vows to stop the motor of the world — and does?

In creating her novels, Rand sought to make real her exalted view of man and of life — “like a beacon,” she wrote, “raised over the dark crossroads of the world, saying ‘This is possible.’” For millions of readers, the experience of entering Rand's universe proves unforgettable.

https://www.aynrand.org/about

[MADem]

18. We're not talking about "the club of humanity," though.

Lots of people belong to that club--The Pope, Donald Trump, and even the late Antonin Scalia were members of that club.

We're talking about a machine--and kumbayah notwithstanding, political parties are MACHINES. They organize, they raise funds, they develop a platform and a purpose, and they prosecute their vision in an organized and often hardball fashion. They are successful because they are DISCIPLINED in the way that they conduct their business. They're also insular, to no small extent, though the Dems have a larger tent than their opponents and they put up with a lot more shit from people who have no loyalty to the organization and don't treat it like an agent for process, but like a waiter who isn't serving them quickly enough.

There's no difference between the voters-superdelegate affiliation than there is between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just as the superdelegates modulate the direct representation of voters--many of whom are NOT Democrats, the Senate serves to modulate the direct representation of the House. To put it another way, Vermont has fewer people than the city of Boston--yet they get TWO Senators? TWO votes? TWO opportunities, out of a hundred, to "influence" the course of our nation's history? If life were fair, and everything "equal," Massachusetts would have 36 Senators to Vermont's two--after all, we're a state with almost seven million people. Why do we have to suffer with less Senatorial clout per capita than a state with more cows than people? I mean, after all, "fair" is "fair." But no--the founders decided that every state deserved a few "superdelegates"--to make sure their particular issues and concerns were given a fair amount of weight.

Part of the reason the Republicans have been more successful than the Democrats over the last half century is because they prioritize that discipline over "feelings" and "views," and some of their membership are willing to subvert their own views in order to advance the vision of the greater membership. Others, less willing, are like the nail that sticks up, and they get hammered down.

We have an opportunity to succeed again--but we won't do it without discipline.

I think Ayn Rand was a selfish asshole. I found her pronouncements purile, and noxious. It was certainly a bit of old Al Gore's schadenfreude that she ended up "on the dole" at the end of her days, after bellowing on about leaving the weak behind. No sympathies from me.

I don't think Sanders has the best policies. He has repeatedly said he is not a liberal--and I believe him. His gun POV sucks--I mean, no other way to say it, it SUCKS and his hiding behind that 95% white population of VT (pop: 360K--an insignificant number in the big scheme) is just bogus. Boston has the same population as VT, and they don't like guns like VT does--so why not let Boston make the call? They've got more universities, more hospitals, and a helluva lot more going on! If he wants to be a NATIONAL candidate, he has to step up and put that rural, parochial crap behind him. I doubt he'll do it because his supporters do not question or challenge him on pretty much anything. It sounds good, so it must BE good...! And, like it or not, he comes from a state that is intolerant towards people of color. Your likelihood of being arrested or incarcerated in VT for the "crime" of having black skin is greater in VT than it is in Ferguson. And in all these years, Sanders (and Leahy--he shares the blame on this one) have not addressed this. It is shameful. And since assertions require links in my world, here you go--this one is stuffed with data: http://mic.com/articles/124341/here-s-how-black-people-actually-fare-in-vermont-with-bernie-sanders-as-their-senator#.TY3cYzonl

[MohRokTah]

21. .

[treestar]

23. "Don't treat it like an agent of process, but

like a waiter that isn't serving them quickly enough." Well stated.

[George II]

25. Very well said, thank you!

[zappaman]

27. Well said!

[GusBob]

28. word!!

[OhZone]

29. Excellent post! OHYEAH! nt

[Bobbie Jo]

33. Excellent post.

[kristopher]

34. You can't muddy the water on this.

One of the defining aspects of human relationships is fairness. It is, literally, in our DNA. We call it the Golden Rule and it forms the foundation of virtually all ethical judgements.

The Democratic Party is many things to many people. I'm for it as the Party of FDR, not the Party dismantling FDR.
Expanding the voter base
Making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes
Federal Funding of Elections
Single payer Health Care
Expansion of Social Security
Free college tuition for qualified applicants

Well, you know the list. Sanders can win because he is dedicated to policies that the vast majority of voters support.

Hillary can't win because she doesn't. She wants to play the same old game of identity politics that has been steadily destroying the Democratic Party.

Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign
byKevin Gosztola

<snip>

...What Chait’s argument really amounts to is an argument that Democratic Party politicians and the operatives who run their campaigns would be uncomfortable with talking openly about socialism because that would alienate the corporate interests they have cozied up to in order to win elections.

To demonstrate this is the case, read this glorious excerpt from the Times about how petrified the Democratic National Committee is by Sanders:

House Democrats got a taste of those challenges last fall. As many of their candidates met in Washington with consultants, donors and reporters, word leaked that Mr. Sanders was to give a speech explaining what it means to be a democratic socialist. “We had candidates and consultants calling us, emailing us, saying: ‘What do we say about this? How do we explain this?’” recalled a House Democratic official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to intervene in the presidential race.

The official drafted a mock question-and-answer memo.

“Senator Sanders has caught fire in the Democratic primary. He is a democratic socialist. Are you a democratic socialist?” went one of the questions. “No,” was the recommended response.

Another question asked the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Candidates were urged to express pride in being a Democrat but also belief in capitalism and small businesses, “the engine of our economy.”

Democrats, along with President Obama’s administration, have spent the last eight years protecting capitalism from populist calls for reform, which would diminish the power and influence of corporations. The Affordable Health Care Act was a prime example, where Medicare for All was immediately taken off the table, and the political party manipulated citizens into believing requiring private insurance companies to offer insurance to all consumers was the best that could be accomplished.

It is one thing to vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, who are more than happy to serve the moneyed elite, if you actually believe in what she stands for as a presidential candidate. But it is quite another thing to delude people into voting for her simply because it is your view that Bernie Sanders’ vision is difficult to make a reality. That position accepts the status quo and embraces a politics of low expectations, where the best elected officials can do is triage the effect of wealth and power becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/21/liberals-no-longer-amused-bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign

[MADem]

37. You can't gish gallop--and I'm not "muddying." I could not possibly be more plainspoken and clear

in what I had to say. What's "unfair" in "You GET as good as you GIVE?" That is the quintessential definition of fairness.

You're running a bit far afield from the original discussion. It's noticeable. Put all that stuff, and the kitchen sink, away, because I'm not playing that game. You want to join the party? Go on, do it. But don't think you can waltz in and change the game without doing the work, first. It does not work like that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Based on your post, I'm starting to think you might not support Sanders in the primaries.

[MADem]

51. Absolutely, that's correct.

I will support Clinton in the primaries. Enthusiastically.

I'll vote for the winner of the nomination whosoever that might be at the end of the day, because that's what adults do, but my primary vote is for Clinton. I am hoping I will be able to vote for her in November, too.

[Cary]

26. "Us" being what, exactly?

[cascadiance]

8. By the time Super Tuesday came along, most candidates left over at the point weren't progressive...

My comments in a photoshop from that time then...



The rigged process then appeared to steer progressive votes away from candidates like Kucinich and shut down perhaps in an arranged fashion the other entity voicing need for progressive change (Edwards) to the point that we had to "hope" that the "hope and change" nebulous campaign that Obama was running might deliver on things. Instead the "hope" that we had that Obama would "renegotiate NAFTA" turned out to be a scam that many of us felt was happening at thetime.

At this point, the stakes are high for those of us who feel that the PTB are fighting directly against a voice who REALLY represents hope and change for us in Bernie, that won't have some reason to be pulled out right before Super Tuesday like Edwards was.

And the superdelegates seem to be lining up for the PTB far more in this election when faced with potential REAL change to our government to roll back the corruption started many years ago when Al From along with the Koch Brothers and the Clintons started this party down its path of corporate corruption with the DLC taking control.

If superdelegates are used this time around to subvert democracy because the corrupt party in this election feels threatened for the first time since it's been corrupted, then yes, there WILL be a general rebellion in the populace that have been fed up heavily with what's going on in Washington!

[MADem]

10. So you hated all the Dem candidates who'd been vetted through the process?

You do realize that the winner of the popular vote the LAST time around didn't get the nomination? So what are you saying--that it was OK that "democracy was subverted" then....why? Because you didn't like Hillary? What?

smh!

Let's not talk about "this time around" like the Democratic Party is going to leap through their own behinds to accommodate people who have never substantively supported the party or the process. It's just not going to happen. You can go support another candidate, and feel virtuous while your vote either doesn't count or worst case, it puts another Bush-type in the WH.

This system is the way we, as a party, do it. And it's not NEWS either.

The people get the bulk of the weight, and the PARTY gets a weight. It's a bifurcated process.

It's a good system. The people are short term, "I want it now!" The party is long term, rather like the cooling saucer of the Senate (to riff on Jefferson).

Years ago, fat guys with cigars used to pick the nominees. We ended up with guys like FDR and Truman.

No one seems to mind that "PTB" when talking about those guys.

[Cary]

24. "Democratic Party ... accommodate people who have never substantively supported the party or..."

The concept is amazingly dysfunctional on so many levels.

[MADem]

30. I know.

They bite the hand that feeds them, some of them.

[Cary]

20. I'm so tired of this rhetoric

It's loser talk, defeatist, negative.

It's a lot of whining and not constructive. It's also insulting and way off base. I am anything but "corporatist" yet day in and day out on this board I get called names like that by people who will never accomplish anything more than barking at the moon.

[WillyT]

13. K & R !!!

[kristopher]

14. Did you sign the petition?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511267088

[firebrand80]

19. I highly doubt this would happen

It would ensure Hillary would lose, and severely damage the party in the process. I just don't see the SD's committing political mass suicide for absolutely no benefit.

[Cosmocat]

22. Of course it won't

but, it makes for good demonizing of Hillary ...

[kristopher]

31. Did you expect her to vote to support Shrub invading Iraq?

Good judgment hasn't been the defining characteristic of Hillary's career.

[HooptieWagon]

36. It was a surprise to me at the time,...

...although looking at her entire record back from the present it fits her pattern of neo-conservatism/neo-liberalism.

[HooptieWagon]

32. Since the pledged delegates are apportioned...

...and no state is winner take all, it's quite likely that neither candidate goes into the convention with enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. This will put the nomination in the hands of the superdelegates. There is a valid possibility that Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates. If the superdelegates ( including the corporate lobbyists) overturn this will of the voters, and hand the nomination to Hillary, quite frankly there will be hell to pay. It will put an exclamation point on Sanders point that the political system is rigged, and not for us. Many, if not most, of Sanders supporters will view Hillary's nomination as being stolen and illegitimate, and will refuse to support or vote for her. Whatever agreements and promises Sanders made to DWS are his, not ours, and we aren't bound by them. November will be a bloodbath for Hillary and the DNC. It's as simple as that.

[kristopher]

35. Yep, it goes to the issue of fairness.

Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign

The objective of the week for liberals appears to be to make clear Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is some kind of pariah. Despite how his candidacy has transformed into a phenomenon over the past months, establishment liberals maintain the U.S. senator from Vermont should not be considered a “serious” candidate. They believe it would be a huge mistake if a Democrat with unapologetic socialist leanings won the nomination, especially over Hillary Clinton.

But these cases against Sanders are really arguments against citizens voting their conscience. The uncertainty and dismissiveness toward Sanders serves to silence any critics of the corporate-driven politics entrenched in the Democratic Party. It suggests a fear that Democrats might actually stand against corporate power for a change....

Cozstola goes on to say about the claims of Bernies critics that:

This rhetoric fits a playbook the American liberal class has followed for the past decades. As writer Chris Hedges argued, “The liberal class’ disposal of its most independent and courageous members has long been part of its pathology.” After World War I, and especially after World War II, corporations gradually sought more and more control of the state. Corporations now hold government completely captive and the liberal class, which “purged itself of the only members who had the fortitude and vision to save it from irrelevance,” bears some responsibility.

Those in power expect liberals to police others on the left who would threaten their supremacy. So, when a political elite such as Clinton is faced with a formidable opponent, liberal pundits wittingly or unwittingly devise arguments for why Americans should vote against their interests and support someone who would likely manage government in a manner suitable for the corporate state

.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/21/liberals-no-longer-amused-bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign


To quote an old coal miner's adage:
Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

[MADem]

38. Golly, was there "hell to pay" in 2008? Anyone? Buehller? nt

[HooptieWagon]

39. In 2008 the superdelegates didn't overturn the pledged delegates.

Pledged delegates were never earned in Mi and Fl because both states broke the agreed upon rules and voted out of turn.

[MADem]

40. Who had the most votes? Since y'all are so 'into' the 'democratic' element, and all.

The lectures on fairness here are nothing short of hilarious.

Isn't it fair that the person with the most votes "win?"

Or is a bifurcated process OK when it ain't Bernie?

smh!

[frylock]

41. Obama had the most votes once you remove MI

[MADem]

42. Oh, so you're in favor of removing votes that the party doesn't like, but you're NOT in favor

of party weighting by use of delegates such as they have been doing for DECADES, now?

OK. The logic fails, but at least you're being honest about it.

[frylock]

43. You know what the fuck happened in MI and FL in 2008

Hillary showed she was as good as her word, and that's why her trustworthy numbers are underground.

[MADem]

44. PLEASE. You know how the super delegate system has worked ever since

we got a gander at THIS debacle:



--so stop playing this faux poutrage game.

You're either a member of the party, or you aren't. Nothing wrong with not being a member, but don't play like you have a right to gloss over THIS party methodology that was ginned up over the leadership not liking state timeframes, but you find THAT party methodology that has been in place for decades "outrageous."

I don't buy it. It's situational, and phony as hell.

I like Super Delegates. I like them much better than that gut-wrenching map, displayed above, So stuff your "what the fuck happened" (your words) and welcome to the real world.


Oh, and don't blame ME--I'm from Massachusetts.

[frylock]

45. Nice deflection!

As I've been saying, good luck with your superdelegates in the GE.

edited to add: I'm NOT a member of your party. Shit like this is a large reason why.

[MADem]

46. Not a deflection at all--it's entirely on point.

And if you read my post, I already commented on membership. That's fine--no one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. But don't tell people in a club where you aren't a member how to run their outfit. It's just "not on," as they say. More to the point, you have had forty four years to gripe about it, and I can't recall you going to the barricades on this issue before THIS election cycle, leading me to believe that your regard is situational and biased towards a candidate as opposed to the actual system.

Why is it that I believe if Bernie had several hundred supers in his back pocket, you'd be swell with the system as it stands, and be lecturing me--a party member for all those decades-- on its virtues?

smh...

[frylock]

47. You claimed that Hillary won the popular vote in 2008.

Remove MI from the equation, and that is not the case. Deflection duly noted. You can throw as many hypotheticals out as you want. It doesn't change the fact that if Bernie wins the popular vote and superdelegates throw the nom to Hillary, your party is dead. It will be an ex-parrot.

?w=300&h=227

[MADem]

48. She did win the popular vote. But party "rules" applied then, as they will apply now.

People who don't like "party rules" should affiliate with another party--or start their own.

See how that works? And it has nothing to do with parrots--it's about rules that have been in place for years, that, now that they might not be breaking your way, you're getting huffy about.

[frylock]

49. As I said. Ex-parrot.

[SheilaT]

52. Since it only takes a simple majority of all the delegates,

super and regular, it is extremely unlikely that in a two person race as we have this year, that one of them won't get the majority.

Also, keep in mind that in the end the super delegates have ALWAYS gone with the candidate with the most regular, pledged delegates. The fact that a number of them have already come out for Hillary is utterly irrelevant. It was like this eight years ago, and remind me again who got the nomination?

I'll add that I'm a strong Bernie supporter, and I'll be beyond disappointed if he doesn't win the nomination, but if Hillary gets a simple majority of pledged delegates through the primary/caucus season, then so be it.