What exactly is the problem with “super delegates”? They generally involve more democratic voter involvement than caucus selected delegates.
There are no sanctuary cities in Virginia. I also think both the right and the Left abuse the term. Sanctuary cities at base simply means local law enforcement will not be made into servants of federal immigration policies. That has generally been the rule in the past. It is a very conservative stance, in reality. But conservatism no longer exists.
I thought you’d be interested in this article from after Obama considered DWS’s ouster:
It’s political intrigue, but I’ve been in the way back machine for a few nights. The problems with DWS were well known and keeping her was a big mistake by Obama. This is what stood out to me though:
“According to people who spoke with her, when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic.”
This after House members approached Obama about finding a replacement.
Too little, (way) too late.
This rigged primary was neither a structual nor procedral “mistake” or “embarrassment” within a party’s primary. It effectively was a Complete Disruption of our nation’s Electoral Process, stealing the wishes of a majority of our voters, and thus criminally denying a democratic election for President of the United States of America in 2016 — affecting not only the very core of the USA, but also the fate and well-being of other nations, the World Community … and the Planet itself.
The Revolution to “free” this land … has been undone.
Sure - I remember seeing that she was becoming out of favor back then - but I think that was to be expected given the defeats in 2014. Overall she is in the standard liberal camp of the Democratic Party - and is now one of the lightening rods in the blame game (and her actions have certainly given lots of fuel to that fire).
I expect she’ll get another primary challenger in 2018
She was going to get the boot in 2012 too, but survived. I actually blame Obama more than her for the state of the DNC in 2015. I just posted it out of interest because I was surprised at her plan to push back if fired. Learned something new there.
I think I’m done with this topic at this point, but you might find Josh Marshal’s take of interest:
I would like to get your two cents on this conversation when you get the chance out of curiosity and if you are inclined:
Until the super delegate system is eradicated, the DNC is not trustworthy. Without the complete repudiation of this elitist vestige, believing in a changed party is not possible.
Two words are correct in all that blather: “loser,” “Clinton.”
Ellison has become a tool just like Perez: DNC Chair Refuses To Acknowledge Primary Rigged Against Bernie
I have heard about a possible run for president by Joe Biden. I haven’t really heard or read anything about it recently, but that would be yet another Democrat insider running for president.
Do you just worry about this possibility or are you saying some of Bernie’s folks are actually trying to move us in this direction? If so I am outraged as I am completely behind eliminating all caucuses (and have made it my #2 in my email to my Representative below). Jimmy Dore can be over the top and gets numbers wrong occasionally (e.g., in an episode on the recent military budget increase and discussing how this increase could be used to fund health care instead when the magnitude of those numbers differs too greatly - though the point on funding fee college was pertinent). However, I will always appreciate Jimmy Dore for pointing out such an obvious fact that I missed over the years - caucuses disenfranchise working people and thus have no place in our democracy.
Here is my letter in case anybody is interested. I encourage everyone to write their representatives and senators.
Dear Ted Lieu,
The recent reaction to Donna Brazile’s description of Clinton’s influence on the DNC by Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison marks the need for ethical democrats to all come forward to push for desperately needed reform, and I hope that you will join the fight by publicly asking not just for reform in general, but very specific reforms that you have discussed with your constituents in a public forum on your website. Here are my suggestions:
No more super delegates. This has been an embarrassment for too long. We don’t use them in the general election and it makes no sense to say the primary should be any different.
Primaries over caucuses. States that are currently caucus states should switch to primaries. I’m not sure what the best way to get to this change is (since I’m sure state parties want their independence), but it is clear that many working people do not have time to participate in the caucus process and therefore are disenfranchised. I went to a caucus in 1988 (in Boulder, Colorado) and it was quite long - fine for me as I was a single graduate student, but clearly this is not a reasonable thing to ask of many working parents.
Improve the voting method. Ideally a modern voting scheme should be used to pick the nominee. I think Gov. Brown was completely wrong to veto an RCV bill in California and at a minimum states should be encouraged to use RCV to determine a delegate allotment. Even better would be a nationwide popular vote with RCV choosing the winner though again, that may be difficult. I believe most democrats are on board with wanting the general election to use the popular vote, so at least some discussion about the downside of the way we do the primary is in order. The schedule with Iowa and New Hampshire always first is ridiculous - regional primaries should be on the table.
More open debates. I appreciated that Bernie Sanders was allowed to run (and not that there was some crazy rule that you had to be a registered Democrat for 4 years or whatever). Initial debates should include a wide field with only modest signature or polling requirements with later debates increasing polling requirements to allow for more time per debater. There should be lots of debates. I don’t think it even matters if questions are known in advance (to all participants of course) - and in the case, some debates could use questions that come from all voters (on a DNC open forum where people an vote them up or down or add topics not present).
Reform the DNC itself. It clearly needs to be thinner - to run an open primary should not take as much money as was being spent by the DNC. I’m sure the League of Women Voters would be happy to get a role back in presidential debates even if only on the primary side - they certainly did a much better job in the general election debates than most of the recently run efforts if you ask me. In addition, the DNC needs to be so open that nothing like this last election cycle can happen again. All correspondence and memoranda should be public which will have the advantage of gaining people’s trust again and making it impossible for anything to be leaked or hacked in the future.
Define our core values in the open. Ellison wrote, “DNC must be an impartial and transparent organization that welcomes all people who share our core values of economic justice and human rights for all.” I agree, but I think our core values needs to be described in more detail than this, but less detail than the 2016 platform (which looks like an excellent document, though I am only part way through it). The core values document should be simple enough that most people have time to read it carefully and make a straightforward assessment if a candidate who says they want to run as a Democrat really believes in the core values. I know some people don’t think Hillary Clinton believed every word in the platform, and in any case that document is too specific and temporal to be used as a core values reference. A good set of core values will be something that many independents including Bernie Sanders could solidly pledge to, but that many (perhaps not all) Republicans could not (or what’s the point ?)
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
They both make no sense (see my post above for criticisms of caucuses).
Are you OK with the electoral college too?
I almost don’t know where to begin - are you honestly going to make a case that the optics or fundamental basis for using super delegates to overrule the will of the people is a good thing?
There are plenty of pieces online that make the case against Superdelegates - even CNN gets it right (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/opinions/superdelegates-democratic-party-kohn/index.html):
CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz why the Democratic Party would embrace such a plainly undemocratic process. Here’s what she said:
“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”
In other words, the Democratic Party’s superdelegates exist to preserve the power and influence of the Democratic Party’s elite. Well that makes perfect sense – if you’re, say, the inherently elitist, pro-big business, rich Republican Party. But not if you’re supposed to be the party that protects the interests of regular Americans.
There are many others as well, e.g. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/272638-democrats-superdelegate-system-is-unfair-and, http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections.
Well sure - there will be both liberal and progressive candidates in the primaries next election just like in this past election. My guess is that the workings of the DNC in particular will be much more closely watched because of the 2016 experience and that could help with overall transparency of the process. I just hope the progressive candidate runs a strong enthusiastic campaign that avoids stupid scandals. There will certainly be big money on the other side. We’ll have to wait to see how it plays out.
a fresh idea http://bit.ly/2020PeopleCare
It is just a fear, not a reality. From my understanding, the pushback on Konst et al. was so great regarding the caucus idea that it has yet to be submitted to the commission formally. It was touched on in a few news stories, but mainly came down to twitter fights relaying disagreements among commissioners and commission followers. From what I understand, the idea was to encourage states like Washington, that are considering going back to primaries because caucuses leave out so many voters, not to do so. Floated was the idea of not seating delegates from large states that did not include a caucus process. However deep the idea was considered, my understanding is the pushback from state parties and the public was swift and strong.
As someone from a large state with a semi-open Democratic primary that I’ve been participating in for decades (as an independent and Democrat, variously; Greens, Republicans, etc. are closed), I 100% oppose going the caucus route. They leave out too many voters and my friends from Carson City (one for Bernie, one for Clinton) tell me they are pushing for a primary now in Nevada as a result of last year’s contest. I have my bias, but I like how California does things, with multiple ways to vote, reasonably late registration available (15 days prior to election), provisional ballots counted just like normal ones, and independents can participate. That’s me though.
I won’t waste much time with someone so ensconced in a fantasy of denial. So here’s a bone for you. I won’t even post a link, but in New York there will likely be Democrats who were responsible for purging more than 100k voters from voting rolls in Brooklyn alone during the primary there. To use the sentiment expressed somewhere in this thread, if they altered one email, well then…
That appears to be an error purging the roll for voters who hadn’t voted in along time. Someone probably his delete key or something like that. It probably hurt Clinton more than Sanders since Brooklyn and all of NYC expect perhaps Staten Island favored Clinton. Perhaps it changed one pledged delegate. In any case, no one has proved it was intentional to hurt Sanders’ chance. Donna Brazillie says the primary wasn’t rigged. Ellison, Warren, etc are off bace. The primary was fair and square and the result should be accepted that way because it can only be harmful trying to right wrongs that never happened. Progressives who mistakenly think the primary was rigged are wrong and have no evidence to support that contention. Sensible progressives will study the results of the primary to analyze why Sanders lost and try to figure out how to do better in the future. The more people claim the primary was rigged without any proof the less credibility they have. Bernie Sanders is not claiming it was rigged. Why doesn’t anybody listen to him?
The minute Perez was chosen over Ellison, it was the final curtain for me as a Dem. I still hope for more parties and real choices. I doubt that it’ll happen in my lifespan.
I gave the Democrats almost 35 years of my allegiance, for what?
I might have another 20 if I am lucky, and I absolutely refuse to support the Empire building Duopoly.
Sure, the right wing nut jobs are off the charts now, and things are looking rather bleak, but, I am confident in my support of the Green Party and the monthly meetings that I attend to help them elect good people for local, and state positions.
As you may have seen me write recently, two weeks ago, I got to see and hear and meet and talk to Ajamu Baraka, Dr. Jill Steins VP candidate in last year’s election.
Exactly one year ago today, on November 6th, 2016, my wife and I traveled to the University of Maryland Student Union Ballroom where we saw Jill and Ajamu speak two days before the election.
These two are the real deal Nighthawk.
Listening to them discuss their vision of Peace for America has inspired me in ways the Duopoly never could.
It’s easy to see why the Duopoly parties never wanted the Green candidates on the debate stage with them.
You and I aren’t much different in our desire for a better, more representative form of government.
I am pretty sure if you had a choice between War and Peace, you too would choose Peace.
Ponyboy, I admire your sincerity. I hope your Green Party finds much success. I certainly have not problem with voting Green at local/state level, an I o not rule out voting Green at some point in National Elections.
Having said that, my first goal is to unseat as many Republicans as possible. I live in the largest “Purple State” of all. Florida has more electoral votes than any state besides California (reliably D) and Texas (insanely R). For that reason alone, in 2018 and 2020, I must think strategically.