The Atlantic - "Is the Democratic Primary Really Rigged?"

[TomCADem]

Here is a nice article that seems to summarize both sides of the recent argument that the Democratic Primary is rigged. I think Bernie's campaign is pushing the view that even playing by the rules is corrupt, because the entire system is fundamentally corrupt. Of course, this means that in the pursuit of equity, it is okay to break the rules or complain about the rules if it is in Bernie's favor.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/is-the-democratic-primary-really-rigged/483168/

In a statement Tuesday, Sanders said that the the campaign “believes in nonviolent change, and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.” But he also added, “If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned.”

It’s true that the odds have always been against Sanders. But there is a difference between a candidate who amasses a competitive advantage playing by the rules and a candidate who actively breaks the rules. Part of what could make the rift between Clinton and Sanders supporters so hard to repair is that the two camps don’t necessarily agree on what side of that distinction each candidate is on, or whether or not there is even a meaningful distinction to be made. Many Sanders supporters believe that elements of the political landscape, such as the campaign-finance system, are fundamentally corrupt. So, in their eyes, even playing by the rules could signal corruption—for example, by relying on money from super PACs. The Clinton wing of the party, on the other hand, adopts a far more pragmatic approach, arguing that it’s necessary to play by the current rules to win the presidency and ultimately enact reform. But the more that Clinton is seen as a corrupt figure—as opposed to a politician simply advocating for a different, more incrementalist model of political change—the harder it will be for her to successfully extend an olive branch to disaffected Democrats and angry Sanders supporters.

* * *
The superdelegate system could easily become a major point of dispute at the convention. For many of the Sanders faithful, allowing party elites to throw their weight behind any candidate they like is emblematic of a broken political process. In reality, it’s very unlikely that superdelegates, in the aggregate, would defy the will of the people. Earlier this month, Jeff Stein at Vox put it this way: “[S]uperdelegates are not the reason Clinton is going to win the nomination. Clinton is going to win the nomination because she is getting many more votes than her rival—and thus winning the pledged delegate total. There is a theoretical world in which the superdelegates subvert the will of the voters and give Clinton the nomination ... We are not living in that world.”

It’s not wrong for Sanders to see corruption baked into the law and the political process as it currently exists. Nor is it out of bounds for his campaign to point out the very flaws he is fighting to change. But the campaign should remain cognizant of the fact that suggesting the entire political process is unfair is quite different from drawing policy contrasts—and more likely to have negative and destabilizing consequences for the party as a whole. It’s easy to understand the temptation to lash out: Sanders fans feel that their voices are not being heard in the political process. But anger and frustration are far more likely to create chaos and confusion than they are to facilitate a productive discussion about common goals—like keeping a Republican out of the White House. If Sanders and his supporters were able to view Clinton as a politician who takes a different approach to politics without vilifying her campaign and her allies, that might not bring about political revolution, but it would provide a better path forward for the party—and put it in better position to beat Trump in November.

[CrowCityDem]

1. Bernie calling the process illegitimate is stupid. If he somehow won, then HE would be illegitimate.

[reformist2]

2. It's not just about the superdelegates anymore. It's about rigging the primaries as well.

Voter registrations switched, or erased, resulting in widespread disenfranchisement, often by the hundreds of thousands. Voters given provisional ballots that weren't counted. Voters forced to wait on 4-hour lines, many not being able to vote as a result. Vote-counts flipped in favor of the favored candidate. Reported vote-counts retracted, only to re-appear with new numbers without explanation.

This litany of problems cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten.

[Ferd Berfel]

4. This litany of problems cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten.

Agree.
Because if they get away with this crap, we will never dig our way out of this again.

[Perogie]

3. It is rigged. Even DWS says so

Super Delegates are meant to stop grassroots candidates. I'll believe DWS when she says it's rigged over the Atlantic.

[TomCADem]

6. Rigged In Favor of Bernie. Primaries Are Exercises of the First Amendment

The right of association. They are a means that a group of people (a political party for instance) can choose a candidate to run in the general election. States have tried to regulate primaries to make them "open" where everyone can vote for a party's nominee, i.e., registered Democrats could pick the Republican parties' nominee and visa versa. However, the Supreme Court invalidated such laws as violating the right to association:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party_v._Jones

Thus, open primary voting is only permissible if a party allows it. Republicans rarely do. The Democratic party often does, which is why Bernie is able to rely on non-Democratic votes. To illustrate the difference between RNC and DNC rules, 538 compared the outcome if the Democratic party primary was run under RNC rules:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/

Clinton’s Delegate Lead Would Triple Under GOP Rules

So what’s the takeaway? The Democrats’ delegate allocation rules are more “fair” than the GOP’s rules in the sense that vote shares are translated into delegate shares more faithfully and uniformly — but aspects of the process, such as the use of low-turnout caucuses and some delegates getting allocated based on the results of subsequent conventions, can distort that translation. If the Democrats used Republican allocation, Clinton would have wrapped up the nomination long, long ago. If the Republicans used Democratic allocation, we’d almost assuredly be heading toward a contested Republican convention.

[Hiraeth]

7. but, their hair looks good.

[winter is coming]

5. Hundreds of superdelegates "subverted the will of the voters" by publicly choosing sides

well before the primaries began. The Clinton campaign and the media have been reporting superdelegates as part of the delegate count for months, to make Hillary's lead look unassailable. Anyone who thinks that's had no effect on the outcome of the primaries is a fool.

[TomCADem]

8. NPR - Sanders Campaign Now Embraces Superdelegates As Key To Nomination

I think the affect you describe is minimal. In 2008, Hillary had the early support of superdelegates, and this does not prove to be a problem for President Obama. In fact, you could argue that Bernie got traction by touting his lack of superdelegate support as being anti-establishment. Finally, Bernie himself is now relying heavily on superdelegates to get the nomination.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

Despite badly lagging in the delegate count, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager told NPR the campaign believes Sanders can and will be the Democratic nominee by winning over superdelegates at the 11th hour.

"If we can substantially close the gap between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders in terms of pledged delegates," Jeff Weaver told NPR's All Things Considered, "he can go into the convention with a substantial momentum from having won the vast, vast majority of states at the end of the process."

It's a sharp contrast from earlier in the campaign when Sanders supporters called superdelegates "undemocratic" and petitioned for them to support the candidate who has the most votes by the Democratic convention this July.

"When they get to the convention," Weaver continued, "nobody has the delegates to win with pledged delegates. It's going to be the superdelegates who are going to have to decide this."

[winter is coming]

10. Sanders is trying to get the support of superdelegates after they've had

months to size up the field and know who we'll almost certainly be running against. Hillary sought the support of superdelegates well before the primaries began, and the goal was obviously to intimidate would-be challengers and sew up the nomination as quickly as possible. Even starting the season with a delegate "lead" in the hundreds, many voters opted for what we were told was a no-hope fringe candidate. Months later, he's still winning states and besting her in fundraising. That doesn't make her look like a very strong candidate for the GE.

[TomCADem]

11. You Supported Bernie Even Though You Describe Him as a "no-hope fringe candidate."

I think the importance of so-called early pledged super delegates is way overblown. I have never paid attention to them either in 2004 when I supported Howard Dean or 2008 when I supported Obama. Ah, I remember getting into a few flame wars with Beacool, who supported Hillary back then. Those were the days.

Nonetheless, I supported, contributed and voted for Barack Obama even though he was a long shot at the time he ran. At the time, Hillary Clinton was the favorite, John Edwards was considered formidable, since he had run as VP in 2004, and Joe Biden also seemed like a favorite. Heck, Barack Obama started out with less name recognition than Bernie Sanders.

I just don't buy this idea that Democratic primary voters and caucus goers just rubber stamp the favorite. To the contrary, I think they are somewhat inclined to stick it to superdelegates, which is why I would just do away with them. They do not even really help the so-called favorite and just serve to make the favorite a big target.

[winter is coming]

12. I'm not sure there's anyone at DU who would be opposed to getting rid of the supers.

I certainly wouldn't object.

[RobertEarl]

13. Enough of that bullshit

For months the media claimed that nearly all the supers were in the H camp. Your assertion that it was overblown is just ignorant of the facts. Willful or not I don't care. Just stop with doing it again.

And.... H was rubber stamped by the lazy ass voters who declined to become informed and educated about Bernie.

[TomCADem]

14. You Are Supporting Bernie. How Did You Resist The Siren Call?

Are you telling me that early on, you relied on the superdelegate totals, and were about to automatically support Hillary, but somehow at the last minute, were saved from the brink?

Please share with me your personal experience as "lazy ass voter," who was almost defrauded into voting for Hillary by virtue of the siren call of super delegate totals. I am curious as to what goes through the mind of a Democratic primary voter relying on superdelegate totals.

In my experience, primary voters tend to be the most rabid and active. The lazy ass voters simply do not vote in the primaries. They vote in the general election. But, if someone wants to raise their hand and own that they voted for Hillary in reliance on super-delegate totals, then be my guest.

In my experience, I have tended to support someone other than the pre-ordained favorite (Dean/Obama), but if I would love to hear the stories of sheep who were mesmerized by early superdelegate totals.

[RobertEarl]

15. Nice dancing

You didn't once face up to the fact that the media, et al, were claiming H was the winner because of the supers as far back as November.

As for the supers ---- they are part of the rules we are playing by. We didn't just make them up. They are set in place to keep the party from making a huge mistake, and we see H is a huge mistake. Supers voting for Bernie will stop that mistake in its tracks!

The lazy ass voters who did not become educated and informed is a fact you danced around, but you're not fooling me, just yourself. But let's look at the lazy asses who did not vote: example is the South Carolina primary... 13% voted. Just a measly 13% voted. The other 87% are lazy asses that didn't even get off their asses and vote.

This takes us to the bullshit about the popular vote. Nationwide, I doubt even 5% of the voters all total cast a ballot for H. Saying she got the popular vote is bullshit.

[TomCADem]

16. So, You Are Not Talking Based On Personal Experience?

Bummer. Folks keep on talking about these folks who are mesmerized by early super delegate totals, but like unicorns, I have yet to encounter them. Instead, you are that "Supers voting for Bernie will stop that mistake in its tracks!" So, Bernie is now pro-superdelegate? Finally, "I doubt even 5% of the voters all total cast a ballot for H. Saying she got the popular vote is bullshit." All I can say is, that's Democracy.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” – Winston Churchill.

[RobertEarl]

18. That's democracy?

You have a perverted view of democracy, then. Democracy is ALL the people having a voice.

What we have seen here is a rigged primary. Rigged to limit the numbers of people having a voice.

All Bernie is doing is playing by the rules set by the party. Those rules, made to limit democracy, are abhorrent to Bernie and he has every right to make such claims. And what we see is the H camp getting all pissy at Bernie for one: using the rules, and two: deriding the limited democracy.

The super delegates are not democracy. The supers are an invention of the powerful to keep power. If Bernie, and we, can use those supers to get him nominated it's just fair play given the rules.

[TomCADem]

20. Seems Like You Are Preaching An Anti-Democracy Message

You insist that the system is corrupt, rigged, fraudulent, that the votes of the people are being ignored, and that superdelegates are undemocratic.

Yet, you also argue that Superdelegates should ignore pledged delegate counts and voting totals and select Bernie Sanders. Also, you encourage people to vote and participate in the Democratic primary, even non-Democrats, even though you insist the system is broken, corrupt and rigged.

Personally, I think Democrats should be encouraging people to vote and praising involvement and participation in our political system. Likewise, it is fair to push for campaign finance laws and disclosure to even the playing field. Heck, lets ban corporate donations. However, attacking the system as rigged, corrupt, etc., then citing Bernie's losses as evidence comes off as cherry picking and is just as corrupt as the system you are attacking.

What is the difference between Bernie going all in on superdelegates while opposing them and Democrats opposing SuperPACS, but using them while they still are legal? You do recall that Citizens United arose from an anti-Hillary RW donor funded movie?

This is why I have been kind of neutral throughout this primary. I supported Obama over Hillary back in 2008. But. Bernie and his followers just comes as a bit sanctimonious. He sometimes reminds me of Ted Cruz in that Bernie's followers seem to think he is the only progressive in the room, and that if you don't support him as President, then you are not a true progressive/ liberal/ Democrat. Am I right?

[randome]

9. How would such a minor detail affect the mighty revolution?

If Sanders was truly as popular as some at DU think, those superdelegates would have easily switched their position. The only reason the media reported on them was because it was accurate that at the time they supported Clinton. Anyone can win the votes of the superdelegates. All they have to do is be...revolutionary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. If on the day you announce your candidacy, before a single voter has voted, you already have 300 EV?

Yeah, rigged.

[snowy owl]

19. It isn't superdelegates - he knew about them. DWS, Media, DNC all backing Clinton. Rigged.

And the superdelegates having 1000 more votes than me? That's a sorry state of affairs in any US election. DWS had no reason to provide more support for one candidate. Her job is to let the candidates duke it out and then support the winner in GE. Whether a champion for payday lenders or Clinton, she's corrupt and should be long gone. And her tawdry little rant about Nevada all uninformed and emotional. That was a disgrace. And the fight for debates early on which Clinton only agreed to when she saw Bernie amassing votes.

Let's be serious.