Clinton and the DNC Are Not Just Colluding — They’re Changing the Rules for Superdelegates
The award for most deliberate and egregious burying of a lead has just been handed out.
It goes to NBC News, for a story entitled, “Bernie Sanders Makes Things Awkward for Hillary Clinton’s DNC Takeover.”
Put aside for a moment that the story’s central premise is the uncritical repetition of a nonsense: the idea that a major-party convention can’t — as in literally cannot be — planned without a nominee being declared at least a month and a half in advance. We know that’s untrue because, up until a week ago, that’s exactly what the GOP was (with minimal public grousing by RNC Chair Reince Priebus) planning to do.
More importantly, in the context of Democratic National Committee rules — which, as DNC officials Luis Miranda and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have both explained to the media repeatedly, dictate that super-delegates cannot be tallied until July — there can be no doubt about which sentence in the above-cited NBC News story is the most important. It’s this one, about what the Clinton campaign and the DNC have been up to since April (more than three months prior to the Party’s late-July convention):
Back-channel conversations have already begun between Clinton’s campaign and the DNC about what role the party will play in the general election. These discussions are happening out of sight for now to avoid the appearance of collusion before the party has formally selected a nominee.
Where does this information appear in the article? In the very last sentence, of course.
cont'd
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/10/clinton-and-dnc-are-not-just-colluding-theyre-changing-rules-superdelegates
= new reply since forum marked as read
... significance of their General Election vote with how much impact (or lack thereof) their primary vote had in the nomination process.
Most rational people are able to comprehend the difference, and are accepting of the fact that when the nominee has been established prior to their state's primary, and when any other contender has been mathematically eliminated, then their late-scheduled primary vote won't change the outcome.
The attitude that some are adopting ("my late-primary vote didn't matter, so I'm just not gonna vote in the general"
is an immature response to the reality of math, the reality of scheduling, the denial that we don't have a National Primary Day ... and it's little more than self-pity and pure distilled vanity.
If those people lack the ability to cope with disappointment and to accept reality... and if they want to sit out the General Election as a way to "punish" others, and as a way to soothe their own hurt feelings, or to make themselves feel better about having the "misfortune" of living in a late-primary state ... well... that's their choice, isn't it?
I won't indulge their egos. If they've made up their minds to not vote, then it's a waste of anyone's time to convince them otherwise. OR... if it's just an empty threat, and they plan to vote anyway, then that's ALSO a waste to spend time trying to "convince" them to do something that they're actually going to do anyway. (It's all so silly.)
They can do what they want and believe as they will. I don't care.
