Pray tell, who in the Swamp is not?
Really? There’s been no analysis of this? If a tree falls in a forest but you don’t hear it, did it fall?
“It’s like the coach of the losing football team blaming the refs for the loss rather than looking at game film to see what happened.”
No, more like a basketball coach that keeps screaming to the refs that there are seven players on the court for the other team, and the refs responding by calling the coach a “whiner”. Then, when the cheating team wins, the winning coach pretends the cheating and the bias from the ref had nothing to do with it. That’d be more accurate.
Don’t you feel that the inability for some people to be able to participate in caucuses (such as working people who cannot spend the whole day at a caucus) is a problem? I like the highly engaged nature of a caucus and I definitely prefer voting systems like the ones you mention - but we’d need to make them more accessible to people - just like elections in general I suppose. Perhaps some of the online participatory democracy ideas that @natureboy often posts about would be a good system.
I can almost make a case for caucuses for primaries.
Theory of the case as follows - Caucuses reward organization, dedication to the party and (generally) awareness of the issues. At least in theory, this should lead to a candidate who best, ideologically, fits the profile of the party.
The general election then allows those competing ideologies to vie for votes among the population at large. In effect, each party puts the person who best represents the views of the party stalwarts forward and the public selects it vision.
At least it wouldn’t have left us with the two candidates we had last year…
Caucuses and primaries have different attributes for sure - hence the idea of having a mixture is reasonable to allow for the benefits of each to appear and the problems with each to not dominate the nominating process. The eligibility issue is also a fundamental part of the presidential nomination process in the U.S. (same day registration for independents being the key controversy - something I support but party loyalists do not). Your argument for caucuses implies some sort of party loyalty that doesn’t really square with reality.
In a post above I tried to address the issue of having a situation that allows a party to “find a diamond in the rough” by recommending more caucuses early on in the process and a party fund to help-kick start promising campaigns. Taking a play from @natureboy I think it would be more accessible if we also looked at virtual caucuses as a component of the nominating process.
Testing innovative nominating processes is something that third parties should really take a stab at - but they rarely have the logistical skills to pull off more than the minimum process required by law. That’s a shame - providing a model for a transparent process with a truly neutral referee might really help such groups make a name for themselves.
In further relation to the aftermath of the Sen. Sanders nationwide scandal, an insider coup against Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, and the continuing M.O. of the DNC:
Tom Perez, the current chair of the DNC, has the right to appoint 75 superdelegates – so they’re not even elected officials." See recent piece by Cory Doctorow: “The DNC picked a bunch of sleazy lobbyists as superdelegates, can’t figure out why no one is donating.”
The 2018 “superdelegates” to the Democratic National Convention will include lobbyists for Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp, CITGO petroleum, Citigroup, and other large corporations.
Superdelegates are unelected party favorites who get to vote for the party leader in primaries. The DNC was sued for dirty tricks in the 2016 primaries, and in its defense, DNC leaders insisted the party could “pick candidates in smoke-filled back-rooms” and ignore the votes of party members.
Where and when did the Clinton campaign do this? From reporting at the time, the six sanctioned debates were in line with precedent. I’ve answered the debate issue above and I think there is nothing to it, except the sanctioned thing, which I agree was stupid. Factually though, it was Clinton and O’Malley that agreed to non-sanctioned debates first, not Sanders. Sanders came in later. Here’s a good explainer from May 2015 before it was even an issue:
As for the other charges, here’s the just released MOU on the Victory Fund:
Myself, I think it shows the Clinton campaign was legitimately concerned about the DNC’s mismanagement. I’d sure like to see Bernie’s MOU now so we can compare apples to apples. But my preference and hope for the future is that Victory Funds aren’t needed. On that score, I think we both agree.
And yet the link you posted said there were 24 Democrat primary debates in 2004 and 27 debates in 2008 (Wikipedia also shows approximately those same numbers). That’s because of the debates not sponsored by the DNC as you said …
That is not the “except” part - the is the fundamental point. Having the exclusivity rules in place gave the Clinton campaign a veto over having more debates. So that is precisely what limited it from the mid twenties to the small number we had in 2016.
Except the sanctioned debates were the exact same sanctioned amount as 2004 and 2008. 538 has a great piece on the history of party-sanctioned debates, I’ll provide the link if you want. The other debates were forums, town halls, debates, whatnot sponsored by other entities, and the 2015 debate rules didn’t bar forums either. As the article from the time before it ever became an issue notes, the exclusivity rule came from Howard Dean because he believed the debates were out of control when he ran. The DNC adopted the sanction rule from Republicans to try and get a handle on the number of debates. Notably, and maybe most key, the six were agreed to in cooperation with television networks. However, as O’Malley’s campaign was quick to point out, the exclusivity rule itself was unenforceable. It was illegal for the DNC to dictate the structure of formats and invitees sponsored by 501© or media organizations.
To me though, the issue I have most is that in Spring of 2015, Biden was a likely candidate for president and other big-name Democrats were still considering. It wasn’t even a Hillary versus Bernie thing at the time the number of debates were decided and the exclusivity rule adopted (a rule that Bernie used, not Clinton or O’Malley, who agreed to non-sanctioned debates). Moreover, DWS wasn’t a favorite of Clinton, despite what people claim. Clinton wanted her replaced as party chair by Obama in 2012, unhappy with her after 2008. In fact, rather than Clinton, DWS favored Biden. Here’s a sense of the intra party tension from late 2014:
A lot of people within the party did not like DWS. I think Clinton is taking some phony hits here—fed by primary opponents—for decisions it’s not clear to me she made, fed by the typical Clinton-is-Nixon press innuendo. And I don’t think I need to say Clinton wasn’t going to criticize DWS publicly for her party mismanagement, as that would’ve been hitting Obama too.
Of course, and millions upon millions of us already knew that – last year.
Will there be any (true) Change with Tom Perez at the helm? Has there been?
Hopefully, you already know the answer.
But, just in case, read the quotes above the relating video.
Maybe, watch the video (closely) as well?
In December or January of 2015-16, with Bernie already having been running for president for over six months, as an elected Democratic Party leader I and countless others received a letter from the Democratic National Committee. This VERY unethical letter informed us that in order to “validate” our membership in the D.N.C., we were required to send a certain sum of money … I think about $50. In this grossly-illegal manner, essentially by false representation and extortion, the DNC raised a great deal of money which was used to benefit Clinton and not Sanders.
Socratizer, since the most politically conscious group in the U.S, is the black community, and since the NYT is apparently not offering any ‘reader comments’ (as CD does) on any reporting or editorials dealing with Donna Brazile’s truth-telling about the deceit of the neoliberal ‘D’ Vichy Party or its former ‘Empress-in-waiting’, I thought it would be fun to consider what it might have looked like if her telephone call with Bernie Sanders occurred face to face and in the form of a movie scene like that in “Bulworth” — where Warren Beatty, in the back-seat of his limo, is more interested in other things, but Halle Berry shocks him with her knowledge of the real deceit and brutality of political/economics based on an Empire that a powerful white man might not easily understand:
Obviously, I’m not implying that any romantic intentions exist between Bernie and Donna, but she certainly opened his eyes to a dirty reality of power that neither had fully perceived nor dealt with in polite political company, eh? And in film noir style this fictional conversation might be titled “Donna and Bernie’s Moment”
Wow, how many repliers actually read the memorandum of agreement between Mook and DNC? If they did, they would seriously question this so called bombshell and whether it was as Brazile led us to believe. After reading it, I conclude she’s a phony progressive who is trying to peddle a new book. Shame on Brazile!
PS would someone please explain 1) why independents have a right to run on a Democratic ticket, 2) why Hillary had an obligation to rescue the DNC from crippling debt without having a say in how the fruits of her fundraising were utilized, 3) why an agreement pertaining to the GENERAL election indicates rigging of the primaries, and 4) why Bernie did so little to support the DNC and down the line elections? Seems like he and his friends are terribly self centered and sore losers.
the dim public will choose the charismatic one every time
Guys, it was in large measure statements like this from Clinton that got Trump elected.
If you want to win, stop talking this way and start talking in clear, analytically coherent, respectful sentences addressed to those whose support you seek.
So much was obvious – Only to some people, and not necessarily on the basis of admissible evidence.
That Donna Brazile, “on personal knowledge,” says it is about as different from its being “obvious” to readers of this website as one can get.
I don’t believe that. The corrupt parties control the candidates and elections.
More importantly, both parties consciously opted to undermine the people after WW2 (when Europeans got healthcare while we tripled down on militarism instead), and then again in the 70s, in response to activism that interfered with the war machine. Democrats and Republicans purposefully undercut our school system and loaded college students with debt.
The Democrats’ ‘A Crisis of Democracy’ explicitly addressed the ‘indoctrination of the youth’ and determined that the ‘crisis’ was US.
The government in toto has been working against us for decades.
Probably not many since it just became pubic late yesterday. It turns out there were actually two documents - a Joint Fundraising Agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding. The JFA was a document that just says how the Victory Funds are to be distributed. It was the MOU that Brazile was talking about in the book excerpt posted on Politico. I am reprinting the MOA below for those who are interested.
"This Memorandum is intended to memorialize our agreement regarding the creation and operation of Hillary Victory Fund (Victory Fund), a joint fundraising committee of Hillary for America (HFA) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
"HFA is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory. In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.
"Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC’s data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer, Beth Jones (who is employed by HFA) to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of one million and two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the “Base Amount”). In the event that the Victory Fund is not in possession of adequate net proceeds allocable to the DNC on the first of the month to make such transfer, it shall make the required transfer as soon as adequate funds are available.
"HFA’s obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.
With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.
If asked by a State Party, the DNC will encourage the State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund.
"Once HFA has raised the first $1,200,000 and it has been distributed to the DNC, HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
"The parties also agree that they will enter into an agreed upon voter file licensing agreement. As consideration for that agreement, HFA will raise an additional $250,000 into the Victory Fund that will be distributed to the DNC no later than March 31, 2016.
"In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC’s data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project’s scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.
"Finally, HFA agrees that on a monthly basis the Victory Fund will provide the DNC a list of receipts and disbursements from the Victory Fund. The DNC agrees to provide monthly financial reports to HFA as it relates to the use of the funds distributed by the Victory Fund to the DNC.
"In the event that there is a disagreement in the operation of this agreement or the use of the Base Amount, the DNC department head and their HFA counterpart will meet and confer to resolve the matter. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, then you and I will resolve it. If there is still no resolution the DNC Chair and the HFA Chair will resolve.
"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
"This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.
The MOU was what the Clinton camp negotiated in order to sign the JFA. Politico covered the Clinton camp’s mistrust of the DNC here in real time:
I think the difference is the Clinton camp, expecting to win the primaries, were willing to play ball with strings attached in order to sign the JFA. Bernie’s camp ultimately went a different direction (it was O’Malley who railed against the DNC first). Notably, Washington Post just put up a story citing emails to Sanders camp that they were informed of this MOU. Weaver bitches in the story, but I never thought he was a good campaign manager to begin with and believe they spent too much on Devine’s ad shop. And we’ve got Brazile walking her story back now to boot.
Whatever the case, I think we can all agree this should not happen in the future. If the DNC’s broke, no one candidate should be responsible for picking it up and JFA’s should be signed with all parties, or none.
Now, let’s cross our fingers that a Republican legislature won’t be deciding the makeup of Congressional districts with a Republican Governor in Virginia after the census in 2020.
Anyone who paid attention during the primaries would have already known this. I remember watching the wretched chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic primary stating a false result from voting between Sanders and Clinton. I was frustrated to see democracy destroyed like that. This woman should be behind bars!