Bernie Sanders: Democratic primary not "rigged," just "dumb"

[riversedge]

Source: cbs




By Jake Miller CBS News

May 28, 2016, 5:06 PM
Bernie Sanders: Democratic primary not "rigged," just "dumb"




......................................
In a press release declining the debate, Trump suggested the Democratic primary is "totally rigged"
to prevent Sanders from winning, and that it would be "inappropriate" for him to debate a "second-place finisher."



Dickerson asked Sanders, who trails Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates as the end of primary season approaches, whether he agrees with Trump's characterization.



..................Turning to the underlying question, Sanders explained, "We knew when we were in this, that we
were taking on the entire Democratic establishment. No great secret about that. And yet we have won twenty states, we're in California right now, I think we have a good chance to win here. I think we have an uphill fight, but there is just a possibility that we may end up at the end of this nominating process with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. "

"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word 'rigged' because we knew what the rules were -- but what is really dumb, is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where three million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate," Sanders added. "You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign.".......................





For more of the interview with Sanders, tune into "Face the Nation" tomorrow. Check your local listings for airtimes.
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-not-rigged-just-dumb/

---

What have had to listen to day in and day out---its RIGGED!

Seems Bernie has evolved--Now its just dumb!

[pnwmom]

1. Tad Devine, his top advisor, was instrumental in creating the super delegate system they disparage.

I wonder if they have always thought, from the beginning, that they could use the SD system to flip the results -- as they still openly hope now?

Maybe that's been the plan all along. To convince the SD to ignore the will of the voters and recognize the sheer wonderfulness of Bernie.

[billhicks76]

38. Know What's Funny To Me?

You all claim Clinton has already won...when I'm in a position that I already won I don't complain and moan or go after people. I realize my advantage and am gracious to my competitors even if they are still competing. It's called decency, sportsmanship and good character...especially when there's no need to take the low road. But all I see is smug arrogance and viciousness. Not the sign of a winner. Bernie did say things were rigged before...he's being gracious and tossing the opposition a bone. Too bad they can't accept a gift. Of course he really thinks it's rigged...him and 90% of the populace. Like any boss or manager a leader sets the tone for thoe who follow them and to it looks very bad in that respect with Clinton. Bernie would surely beat Trump as independents have no beef with him. Many hate the Clintons whether it's wrong or not so Clinton and her supporters better not blow it if they get the nod.

[laserhaas]

57. ^^^^^^this 10000 times + ^^^^^^^

[riversedge]

58. It is the way the process works and as Bernie said We knew the rules when we went in.

[LeFleur1]

110. Re: Closed Primaries

They are to keep Republicans and Independents from mucking up the process by coming in and voting for a weak candidate so they can run against that candidate in a general election. It has happened in the past. The rules are not hidden and the rules should be followed. It's not a bad process at all.

[riversedge]

112. Yes. I agree.

[billhicks76]

117. It's Going To Be Your Job

To inspire the unaffiliated masses to vote for your candidate. We have done our part bringing in more people to the party while your fold dug in and complained about our candidate. I hope you don't fail the party you claim to love so much. I expect no dereliction of duty and you working overtime like we all did instead of resting on your laurels to register more people to vote than Trump. This will be a true test of you putting your money where your MOUTH is. Better get to work because you are way behind after spending all your time preaching to the choir and attacking someone wanting to reform the party. Don't let us blame you for a Trump win. We always work hard to make sure a right winger or one of their surrogates doesn't get elected so it's not an issue how hard we work...I'll be expecting the same for self-entitled Clintonites. No one can win just because they think they deserve it. It takes actual work.

[billhicks76]

115. My Problem Is Not With Closed Primaries

That's fair enough.

[WhiteTara]

78. Hillary has been very gracious and has not said he should

leave the field and that she understands his position. He's the one who has nothing but bile that he spews at the party (that graciously allowed him to join so he could use their resources) and he has repaid them with lawsuits and nasty rhetoric.

[billhicks76]

81. Wrong Wrong Wrong

She vascillates. And declared herself the winner when clearly she cannot. Neither candidate will reach the required delegates to win before the convention. She tried to do this even before the race started. Bernie had been kinder than he could be. He let the email thing go immediately. If he ran as an independent Hillary would never even have had a chance. It would've been between Bernie and The Republican fighting over independents who see Clinton as having too much past baggage. That's a fact. And it was Clinton in 2008 that suggested she should go past CA primary because RFK was assassinated during the CA 1968 primary and it could happen again. Wow. Even with Obama getting all those death threats from White Supremacists? Can't blame the guy for not offering her VP after those outrageous comments. Bernie is direct but polite. Clinton supporters are extremely defensive for a reason.

[WhiteTara]

83. sorry she is the winner

Bernie can go on and on, but numbers are on her side. I can see that it hurts you. But she has been gracious and kind to him. Her supporters seem to be tired of the endless stream of vitriol from Bernie and his supporters, but she has not said a nasty thing about him.

[Tortmaster]

104. So, we're agreed that Senator Sanders lied?

"Bernie did say things were rigged before..."

I think you will find that most people react strongly to false accusations.

[ArcticFox]

105. I think he's being gracious

And what's the big deal? I mean Hillary's got this in the bag, right?

[Tortmaster]

106. The fighting stops when the bell sounds.

He was also very gracious with his use of the word "establishment" in the quote. Republicans are using him as their useful fool to attack our presumptive nominee. Until he gets out--or stops acting as a weapon in the hands of Republicans--he deserves the scrutiny.
Also, Ted Cruz was gracious enough to bow out when the math no longer worked for him.

[billhicks76]

107. Ridiculous Analysis And Comparison

[billhicks76]

116. He's Not Lying

He's being conciliatory. Now Clintonites have a problem with lying? Hillary dies it three times a day. There is a reason she's the most distrusted democratic candidate in our history.

[bravenak]

2. I can agree that it is hella dumb

We need all closed PRIMARIES. Dumb otherwise. No more caucuses!! It was hot in there and kinda moist and I wanted to go HOME!! No snacks. I brought my own just in case but I felt sad for the snackless. Everybody yelling. Kids screaming and bored and whiney. Bad sound system. Crowded as hell (on the Bernie side, lol). Not my kinda party. It was dumb.

[Laser102]

54. We absolutely need to fix this. The caucus does not benefit anyone. It robs people of their votes.

[Raine1967]

101. I despise caucus'. Problem is they cost a lot less money than

primaries.

Personally, I would love to see closed primaries in all states.

It might help in creating a stronger third party.

[NanceGreggs]

3. "I wouldn't use the word 'rigged' ...

... because we knew what the rules were ... "

If you knew what the rules were, why did you feel it necessary to complain about them 24/7?

[riversedge]

15. That caught my eye also--because we knew what the rules were ... "

[billhicks76]

36. Because The Rules Are Horrible That's Why

Why do people break laws? Because some of them are undemocratic. So authoritarian of you.

[NanceGreggs]

37. Horrible or not ...

... Bernie agreed to abide by them.

He didn't say, "I'll follow the rules I like, while I get to whinge incessantly about the ones I don't."

If Bernie felt he couldn't abide by the rules that exist, he shouldn't have agreed to run for the Party that put those rules in place.

Simple enough?

[billhicks76]

40. The Bush Establishment Does Not Want Trump

If Hillary ran against a normal Republican (is there such a thing these days?) she would be at a huge disadvantage. But anyone looks good compared to Trump, and even the Bushes and their donors know Hillary is their little club. Trump is not but it's a huge risk allowing him to have the possibility of attaining power and having access to our armed forces and nukes. The Bushes are personally insulted by this man and also play chess when it comes to keeping the circle tight. Don't think for a second any of our past presidents weren't approved by Bush Sr and his circle of power. They will try to ensure a Trump loss... I'm convinced of it. If Trump get the masses riled up enough to attain power I would bet he would be picked off as his reckless unpredictability would not be tolerated by those who really pull the money and political strings. AS far as rules go and your arrogant tone...no...not simple. You complain he's an outsider but did you want him to run as an independent instead of joining the Democratic primary? Of course not I would hope because it would ensure a Hillary loss and possibly a Trump win although possibly a Sanders win as they would fight over unaffiliated voters. You should be thankful. If you haven't noticed people are fed up with the 2 party system and the status quo. Sometimes it's helpful to identify your own weaknesses so they can get corrected instead of riding the high of hubris.

[NanceGreggs]

42. I think DU has a ...

... "conspiracy theory" group.

You might want to check it out.

[billhicks76]

77. Why Did Both Chickens Cross The Road???

To avoid debating Bernie Sanders

[NanceGreggs]

80. Why did both chicken cross the road?

Because the chicken wanting to debate them is spinning on the rotisserie - cooked, done, and pretty much bernt to a crisp.

[billhicks76]

82. Nice Try

Don't give up your day job to become a comedian

[NanceGreggs]

84. And don't give up yours ...

... to become a political analyst.

[billhicks76]

93. But I Already Am One

And I'm doing just fine thank you.

[NanceGreggs]

94. Not so's anyone has noticed. n/t

[Arkana]

73. Not sure why you think people aren't allowed to condemn laws they think are unjust

while simultaneously abiding by them.

[NanceGreggs]

85. This isn't about laws ...

... it's about rules - rules that govern how the Democratic primary is run, most of them in place long before Bernie asked to run on the Dem ticket.

He now says he knew the rules going in. If he has such a YUGE problem with them, he shouldn't have run.

Bernie's entire campaign has been like watching a six-year-old play chess:

Do you know how the game is played? Yes.

Do you understand the rules of the game? Yes.

Well, you can't move your rook diagonally like that.

WHY NOT???? THIS is a DUMB game!!! Why CAN'T we play it MY WAY? Who MADE UP these stupid RULES anyway? If I could move my rook DIAGONALLY, I would be WINNING right now!!!!!!!!! This game is RIGGED!!!

[Arkana]

90. He knew the rules. Doesn't mean he has to like them OR think they're fair.

[NanceGreggs]

92. I don't give a flyin' fuck ...

... what he thinks. I DO care what he says while he's (allegedly) running as a Democrat.

Only the worst kind of hypocrite asks to run on a Party's ticket and then continually spouts off about how corrupt, how unfair, how undemocratic its rules are.

Bernie is the guy who asks to be a houseguest - and then tells runs around the neighbourhood telling everyone how badly he's being treated by the very people who welcomed him into their home.

If he doesn't like the rules and thinks they're unfair, exactly how stupid was he to agree to them in the first place? Did he think that if he whined enough, complained enough, was poutraged enough, all of the rules he finds so appalling would be changed to suit him? If so, just how dumb is he to have thought that?

On top of all of Bernie's other many, many, MANY flaws, he has proven beyond all doubt that he is totally devoid of class, and doesn't have an inkling as to how to conduct himself appropriately.

And that is probably one of the many, many, MANY reasons why he's losing so badly.

Bernie wants open primaries - because they would benefit HIM. Bernie wants registration deadlines changed - because that would benefit HIM. Bernie wants the schedule of state primaries changed - because that would benefit HIM.

Bernie's campaign has been All About Bernie from the start.

And now Bernie wants to go whining to the super-delegates about how he wanted his toast served with the crusts cut off, how dinner was scheduled an hour later than he thinks appropriate, and how he would have won the nomination if that damned pea under the twenty mattresses on the guest room bed hadn't caused him to sleep so wretchedly night after night.

I'm sure they'll be listening.

[Arkana]

118. Its rules ARE corrupt, and its rules ARE shit.

Why Democrats want to keep people from participating is beyond me.

[NanceGreggs]

119. That's your opinion ...

... which is obviously not shared by those who put the rules in place.

The point is that Bernie KNEW those rules and agreed to them - and has done nothing but whine and complain about how they should be changed to suit HIM.

[bkkyosemite]

41. Because it is rigged but he's not going to say that ..........not yet.

[TomCADem]

4. Why Doesn't He Also Condemn Caucuses?

Caucuses are even more undemocratic than closed primaries, because you are only taking a sliver of the most active party members. In Nebraska and Washington, Bernie won a caucus, but lost the primary, but still got the bulk of delegates. As for superdelegates. isn't Bernie relying on them to stay in the race? If it was not for the superdelegates, Bernie's primary campaign would be over. Indeed, it was due to the fact that Hillary was seen as the front runner that Bernie has not had negative ads run against him with most of the focus being on Hillary.

My take is get rid of the super delegates, but also get rid of open primaries, because I see no reason why we should allow folks who are not willing to register as Democrats choose who the Democratic nominee is. I would encourage folks to register and be a part of the Democratic party, but if they don't want to a Democrat, then why do they get to say who our nominee is? In California, for example, you have Tea Party groups encouraging folks to vote in the primaries for Bernie:

https://www.facebook.com/Tea-Party-Patriots-for-Bernie-Sanders-in-2016-517219105099552/

What's the rationale of allowing Tea Partiers who are undeclared to vote in the Democratic primary?

Finally, limit caucuses to early in the primary season before April and only to small states where it makes sense to have a small group of active folks get engaged in the process. Thus, you can still have Iowa, but not have states like WA were the delegate selection process disenfranchises most registered Democrats.

[Beacool]

9. I agree.

I despise caucuses. I have disliked them for years because they are undemocratic. If Sanders is so concerned about voter suppression, he should call for the elimination of caucuses. I would gladly jump on that bandwagon.

[SunSeeker]

47. +1

[askeptic]

60. If Bernie is concerned about vote suppression he should kill caucus? What about Hillary?

you appear to be saying that caucus system amounts to voter suppression, so what is Hillary's stance? I certainly hope you aren't taking Bernie to task for something Hillary isn't doing - working to end caucus anywhere.

[Android3.14]

5. Look at what it might put on our ticket

You're damn right it's dumb. So dumb it will cost us the general election.

[Chicago1980]

67. It'll only cost us in the general if people don't get over their superiority complex.

Dumb or not, it's not a new system that was created yesterday.

That dumb system gave us President Obama. He was able to overcome and didn't bitch and moan.

There are too many people around here with faux butthurt syndrome.

[Android3.14]

74. A bad leader blames the voters for their poor showing

When the only two things on the menu are a choice between a turd burger or a shit sandwich, only an idiot blames the diners when the business fails.

'Nuff said.

[LuvLoogie]

86. President Obama won landslide victories. Hillary is ahead by 3 million votes and 270 delegates.

[Android3.14]

87. And all it took was a little corporate fascism.

[LuvLoogie]

89. Nope. You want a say in what's on the menu? Get in the kitchen and start chopping.

And the cold cuts are in the fridge. Make your own damn sandwich.

[Chicago1980]

103. Hell of an analogy.

[Chicago1980]

102. Like the corporate money that got Obama elected?

If you don't like it then fight for the overturn of Citizens United.

[oberliner]

6. Closed primaries are not dumb

The Green Party has them too. Members of a political party should choose the nominee of the party. It seems pretty intuitive. When you register to vote, there is nothing preventing anyone from choosing a party and getting to vote in their primary.

[dlwickham]

7. will he just shut the fuck up!

I've heard less whining from 5 year old children

[Henhouse]

25. Alerters on the prowl....

On Sat May 28, 2016, 10:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

will he just shut the fuck up!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1469137

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Telling a democratic candidate to "shut the fuck up" is not speech that should be condoned here, to let it stand is to contribute to the division that has grown in the party.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 28, 2016, 10:37 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No TOS violation
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not my style but i reserve the right to tell any candidate to shut up....or shut their big yaps...or hush. This is not hide worthy
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[liberalnarb]

44. Alerters on the prowl?

It wasn't exactly a completely innocent post?

[Henhouse]

48. Just giving a fellow poster a heads up...n/t

[dlwickham]

75. Thanks

[brush]

31. He and many of his supporters have been yelling "rigged" for months now they're walking it back

That's a really nasty charge.

After yelling and accusing the party's race being rigged, now you say, "never mind", it's just dumb.

Why?

Guess the push back on his continual attacks on the party is sinking in.

How do you join a party and continually attack it publicly, yet want the party to change rules you knew were in place when you joined?

[askeptic]

61. This democracy crap is really starting to bother you, I see.

[dlwickham]

76. That must be it

[beastie boy]

8. When did this momentous change of mind happen?

Perhaps as soon as everybody in the Bernie camp realized that screaming "rigged!" at every opportunity is DUMB???

[askeptic]

64. It's really not as "momentous" as Hillary changing her mind on gay marriage

now THAT was a change lots of folks were waiting for. But I guess she should have stuck with that position so she wouldn't be accused of being wishy-washy

[tarheelsunc]

10. Wanna know what's really "dumb", Bernie? Caucuses.

Also is pretty "dumb" for a PARTY to allow outsiders to choose the nominee of the PARTY.

[Ed Suspicious]

24. Did Bernie implement the caucus system in the Democratic primary?

I thought the party did that well before Bernie's run.

[SunSeeker]

49. And yet he didn't complain about caucuses, the one really dumb part of primaries.

Caucuses suppress votes. But Bernie apparently likes them because he benefits from them, because his supporters tend to be younger, without kids. Caucuses suppress the votes of parents with young kids, or anyone who can't devote 12 hours to what should be a 5 minute task. Now THAT is dumb.

[Maedhros]

29. One should look at the bigger picture.

Huge numbers of young, progressive voters who are NOT registered Democrats were mobilized and energized by the Sanders campaign. Young, progressive voters by nature want to nominate a progressive candidate, and when energized (cf. Obama's election) can do amazing things.

What is wrong with letting those young, progressive, non-affiliated voters help choose the nominee? It's somewhat petulant and short-sighted to snidely disregard them because they aren't a member of the tribe.

Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to welcome them and nurture their support than to castigate them and shut them out of the decision-making process?

What's more important, the future of the country or Party tribalism?

[elljay]

33. Yes!

And why front load Red States who will have zero influence in the election? California and New Jersey are major Blue States. Why are they not at the front so the millions of Democratic voters in these states have more influence than the small number of Southern Democrats?

[Maedhros]

50. The people that don't want independents selecting the Democratic Party nominee

are the people that don't want a liberal/progressive nominee at all - they want a Democratic Reagan.

[elljay]

72. Correct.

Even if they make it difficult for Indys to register as Dems and then participate in the primary, as they do in NY, we Californians are much more progressive than most Southern Dems. Apparently that makes us dangerous.

[billhicks76]

35. Welcome Back

[askeptic]

62. Bernie "dumb" about caucuses but Hillary obviously brilliant

So I guess Hillary has taken a position that the caucus system should be eliminated, and that's why you are criticizing Bernie for not taking the same principled approach?

[Kingofalldems]

11. Democratic primaries for Democrats only!!!

He wants to let republicans help pick our nominee.

Never.

[Beacool]

12. Dumb = Registered Democrats voted for my opponent in greater numbers than for me.

It is called the "Democratic" primary for something, it is not the "Independent" primary. Why should Independents, some of them Republican leaning, have a say on who the Democratic party chooses as their standard bearer? If Independents want to have a say in the primaries, then they should choose a party and join it. Let them have some skin in the game. If not, they can bloody well wait until the general election and vote for one of the two choices, or vote third party.

If Sanders doesn't approve of the Democratic party's primary process, he could have always stayed an Independent.

[Sunlei]

13. I'm pleased Sanders will take us through the entire process. We'd never know if Clinton ran alone.

[msongs]

14. well a certain bunch of people have been undermined and will have to give up this line of reason nt

[riversedge]

17. It is so odd, after months of telling all in his stump speeches that the process is rigged, just

to out of the blue--say no, not rigged, its dumb. Dumb is an odd word to say also.


Oh, what to do with the word 'rigged' now that Sanders says it is not rigged. cognitive dissidence IMHO

[liberal N proud]

16. Yesterday it was rigged

[Hoyt]

18. Now he's flip-flopping on a major tenet of his campaign?

[davidthegnome]

19. Hmm.

Had to do a double take, for a second I was certain this was the Clinton group. Apparently LBN is the new place to shit all over Bernie though.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Sanders, the process is both rigged AND dumb.

""You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign.""

That goes a little bit beyond dumb. Super delegates have no place in a democratic process. The process as it is now... yes, both dumb and rigged. I expect Clinton to ultimately carry the nomination - and she'll have my support if and when she does. However, this whole process has stunk, it's been a circus, a mess, a disaster, a really bad joke directed at democracy and our election system as a whole. I absolutely stand with Sanders in criticizing the hell out of it.

Sanders has behaved with integrity and decency - and his complaints are well justified. Were the shoe on the other foot in regards to the super delegates, I don't imagine that Clinton supporters would just smile and nod, either.

Time to go back to actually being a democracy - remove the dirty money, remove the super delegates, remove the people and the methods that cheat the system.

[Beacool]

21. Sanders is losing, not due to the super delegates, but to voters.

It is disingenuous to keep calling out the super delegates when he knows full well that he won't be the nominee for the simple reason that Hillary has a large pledged delegate advantage, and is also far ahead in the popular vote.

It's also quite ballsy to keep criticizing the nominating process, yet expect the super delegates to go against the will of the majority of voters and nominate the losing candidate because of some match-up polls.

Come on, which campaign is the one that's really trying to rig the process?

[davidthegnome]

45. People have been calling out the super delegates...

since the ball got rolling. Heck, they've been calling them out for years. It's not just Bernie, either. Yes, Clinton does have a lead in pledged delegates, no one is denying that - chances are she will have a higher number of pledged delegates in the end. I will say though, that I think the immediate 400+ boost did her campaign some good, giving her an advantage to begin with that definitely made it more of an uphill fight. Voters certainly respond to that - particularly voters who want to be sure they back the winning candidate.

The nominating process deserves heavy criticism. We've both seen the results of the same caucuses and primaries - particularly the caucuses, that were, frankly, disastrous and idiotic in truly epic proportions. No, I certainly don't expect the super delegates to go against the nominee with the most pledged delegates - if it were, however, truly representative of some form of democratic process, I do believe they would vote with their districts - and not, say, immediately leap to the candidate of their particular choice. A vote from you or I is one thing... but how many votes does a super delegate vote count for? Not pledged, not bound, able to vote for whom ever they damn well please with votes that are worthy hundreds and even thousands of votes when you put it all together. The popular vote, I believe, should determine the nominee - which should not be an issue for Clinton supporters, as she is winning in any event.

I don't see Mr. Sanders trying to rig the process here. I think he has some very valid criticism of a system though, that has proven undemocratic in a variety of ways - as well as ineffective, unorganized and often disastrous. This is not the way our nominee and/or eventual President should be chosen. Get rid of the super delegates, determine the nominee by the popular vote - and you will have far fewer complaints from me, regardless of the victor.

I also do not accuse Clinton of trying to rig the process. I accuse the process itself and the idiotic way in which it is managed by the party elites and their corporate allies.

[Beacool]

111. I think that what Sanders and Devine & Weaver are proposing is undemocratic.

Hillary's pledged delegate advantage is almost triple what Obama had in 2008. She's also far ahead in the popular vote. To suggest that, based on match-up polls that mean very little this early on, the super delegates should switch to Sanders is outrageous. How dare they suggest that the will of the people be ignored and the losing candidate be given the nomination???? That strategy has infuriated me to the point that, if the super delegates were to lose their collective minds and nominate Sanders, I would not vote for him.

[AgadorSparticus]

91. Your post needs to be reposted all over DU.

[pnwmom]

22. You can blame Tad Devine -- he was instrumental in creating the super delegate system.

So maybe they thought they could make it work for Bernie, getting all the Supers to flip -- once it was demonstrated to them how infinitely superior a candidate Bernie would be.



Elitist, anti-democratic caucuses REALLY have no place in a democracy. Yet I don't hear Bernie or his supporters complaining about them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/super-delegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

The superdelegates became part of the Democratic nominating process in 1982 to ensure the Democratic party has input on who the nominee is. They wanted to prevent another election like 1972's when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination, but lost every state minus one.

Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.

"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.

[davidthegnome]

46. My point is that it is undemocratic.

I won't disagree that caucuses should go, either. Everything should be done by primary vote, state by state, with the popular vote determining the victor. That is what democracy is.

It is too late for Sanders to win at this point, but I do think that future generations of voters would have a chance at fairer, more balanced elections if we made a few simple, reasonable changes in favor of democracy, justice - and fairness. No, I do not think those changes would have made Sanders the victor in this case. He is losing - and will shortly have lost. That does not mean we should not still consider the future of the democratic party... and whether we want to have a system that resembles something fair, or whether money, elitism, power and position, etc. should be what ultimately determines our nominee?

This is not the election in which super delegates will turn the tide - but they can, and ultimately will. When that happens, it will be well beyond wrong. Super delegates have no place in a democrat process... I can't say it any plainer than that - that is my own opinion, regardless of what Tad Devine, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, the Queen of England, the Pope, or anyone else has to say about it.

[timdog44]

65. I have a question.

I wonder that Tad Devine was "instrumental" in creating the super delegate system. It was begun in the early 1980s when Devine was finishing college and working as a law clerk. If what I think I have discovered is true, I don't see the relevance of him being a creator of the super delegate system and a top advisor to Bernie Sanders. If I am wrong, I do retract this.

[ananda]

20. Sounds rigged to me!

Completely rigged!

Conservative corporatists like Clinton would not win
in an unrigged, open primary.

[pnwmom]

23. Hillary won all but four of the open primaries. That wasn't Bernie's problem.

His problem was he wasn't appealing enough to women (except for the youngest) and people of color.

[MisterP]

26. "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" was on last night

this is your way of coping, I presume

[silvershadow]

27. I agree. It is dumb for democracy. nt

[Trust Buster]

28. Sanders has been talking down to minority groups and southern voters all along. What arrogance.

[billhicks76]

34. That's Total BS and You Know It

I dont know you and Im glad I don't but lying gets you nowhere. Bernie wants to campaign in all 50 states unlike other democratic candidates who gave up on the South. And he wants to end the Drug War and civil rights violation that have been screwing minorities forever. Clinton would only go as far as rescheduling cannabis for research...allowing only BigPharma to participate in the market and keep recreational users in jail.

[Surya Gayatri]

30. Massive K & R for the dose of reality...

[billhicks76]

32. Evolved? So Typical To Continue Your Condescending Tone

More like he's being polite...a concept you have yet to grasp. Kudos to Bernie for being a class act amongst the insults when talking Truth To Power.

[JDPriestly]

39. Bernie rightfully says the system is rigged. The superdelegates in the Democratic Party system

Exist specifically so that the system can be rigged.

We do have a very rigged system.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Is that why Bernie plans to ...

... plead with the SDs - the people who "rig the system" - to give him the nomination even though he lost?

[anotherproletariat]

51. Is this his way of backing down? Interesting. nt

[Thinkingabout]

52. Sound like a page out of Trump speech, he claimed it was rigged against him,

and it is only rigged when Sanders did not win.

[urbuddha]

53. Satan would be better than Hillary. Bernie or Bust !

Feel the Bern !

[geek tragedy]

96. This post is the essence of the Bernie or Bust crowd.

This is who they are.

[Raine1967]

97. and that post survived the alert.

On Sun May 29, 2016, 09:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Satan would be better than Hillary. Bernie or Bust !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1469358

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Saying Hillary Clinton is worse than Satan is extreme trolling. Posted should be banned.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 29, 2016, 09:29 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: So tired of these BoB posts. Glad to vote for a hide.


Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My impression is the poster is just trying to be facetious.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't be afraid to discuss.

[geek tragedy]

98. Skinner is nuking the jury system because of stuff like this nt

[Raine1967]

99. yup.

I think (not sure, just a feeling) that the host system will be changed as well.

I am fine with it. This is getting ridiculous.

[lunamagica]

55. "Not rigged, just dumb" He sure has a way with words, lol

[joealexander]

63. He didn't say that.

The original poster took words from his quote and recreated a brand new statement in the title--which is what everyone is replying to.

By that formula I could have titled this:

Bernie Sanders says, "Democrats" are "dumb" and "Republicans" are "super"!

Holy shit--did Bernie just say that?! I'm not going to use any critical thinking skills and just reply with my gut!

[Raine1967]

100. He did say it.

please proceed.

[Thor_MN]

56. Don't worry the Trump trolls will more than make up with cries of "cheating" and "rigged"

Their goal is to cause discord and strife. And they walk among us. Don't get me wrong, there are some true believers of Sanders who still insist he is going to win, but many of those will be still claiming he has a chance next January.

[askeptic]

59. Hillary's supporters consistently miss the point

If Mrs. Clinton is really such a strong candidate, why has Bernie done so well against her? Not just her supporters but the campaign itself seems to be blind to the underlying realities. Even if she wins the nomination, nearly half of Dems and progressives are choosing Bernie's message. Why after all these months, hasn't Hillary's message changed to attract these voters? Trying to shrug off the fact that she is still barely winning California! At this stage of the game! And the Hillary supporters are being so vacuous as to blame Bernie for Hillary's baggage and her inability to resonate with a lot of voters. If you think Hillary can be destroyed by Bernie simply telling the truth, you should be very concerned at what Trump can do.

I am worried that it doesn't trouble Hillary's supporters that a very high percentage of progressives and democrats don't want her. She has said herself she is the status quo candidate - in an election campaign where the status quo is not very well liked by huge numbers of people. People willing to put in a con man who's never held elective office in order to get change, along with the success of Bernie's candidacy, should be a big sign to Hillary that the status quo isn't cutting it. And all Hillary supporters here can do is criticize Sanders for toning it down? They don't thank him for bringing thousands of progressives into the election that wouldn't be interested without him? Hillary says she's a progressive. She's going to have to actually start taking progressive positions to get progressive votes. I think the party and Hillary supporters take progressive votes for granted.

I'm worried that Hillary's supporters are so blind they don't even try to make nice with the Bernie supporters they will need in the fall. There are more than 2 parties putting up candidates this election. What if Bernie's supporters get treated so badly and are so put off they decide that go with the Greens, or run a write-in campaign? What if Hillary treats Bernie and his supporters SO badly, that they mount an independent run? Is that what you Hillary supporters want?


When Bernie talks about the Democratic primary rules, he gets a lot of agreement from insiders. And he gets a lot of agreement on superdelegates having such inordinate say in deciding the candidate. But the Hillary supporters act like Bernie's views are just contemptible, and Bernie supporters, too, should be hated and publicly reviled at every turn. Is this how Hillary plans to win?

[bucolic_frolic]

66. Which is to miss the point as to why the system is in place

and that is that both parties in order to appeal to the center of the political
spectrum where most of the voters are, and to avoid "radical" or "fringe"
candidates, have systems in place to filter delegate selection toward
more moderate candidates.

Not to say all the Republicans are not radicals or nearly so these days.

Nor to characterize Bernie as fringe or left of center, he is most of all an FDR Democrat.

But for Democrats these rules were adopted after the McGovern debacle, he was
left of center.

And Bernie supporters do seem to hate Hillary Clinton, and do seem nonchalant at electing
Trump instead, even though Trump will end many of Bernie's career long positions. EPA, National
parks and forests, clean energy - ALL will be gone if Trump is elected.

So in your bubble of Bernie support, keep an eye open to the larger picture.

[askeptic]

70. The bigger picture...

Hillary needs Bernie supporters

Bubble of Bernie support? Really? You can't even seem to close out what appeared to be a fairly rational post without at least just a little disrespect. I'm just so crazy to believe in progressive politics and supporting a progressive candidate is somehow just stupid - a Bernie bubble. Your telling me that Hillary doesn't support such nonsense and HER supporters are therefore not in some unrealistic bubble like Bernie supporters. Right?

Somehow you seem to believe I don't understand the intent - to keep the status quo forever. It's the same reason there's an electoral college that can totally ignore what the electorate want. The question is whether the party should try to overrule the people's desires as well. How many "normalizing" methods do we need? We still got W.

So, I don't want continuous middle east war. I don't want gazillions more going to the MI complex. I don't want a continuous nuclear arms race. I'd like to see the ACA evolve to more than a corporate insurance support program. I think the Terrorist Watch List is unConstitutional. I don't like the way elections have become events totally sponsored by rich people and corporations. I don't think the Wall Street bankers should be getting passes for pulling 2 of the biggest frauds of the past century (savings and loan and mortgage fraud). A Constitutional Amendment that simply says:

Corporations are not people. This Constitution and the rights described within shall only apply to natural-born persons.

This would end citizens united, hobby lobby and a host of other corporate shenanigans.

These are things much of the electorate are truly concerned about, along with a whole host of others. Where is Hillary on these things? If I vote for Hillary, I'll have to hold my nose knowing that many of my main priorities will not be addressed, and that the wars will continue. If you want to call that a bubble, then a little self-examination might be in order

[Redness]

68. Why caucuses are good and closed primaries bad

The establishment has been peddling the idea that caucuses are even more closed than closed primaries, which is complete nonsense. Caucuses, like primaries, can be open or closed, and Bernie has done much better in open caucuses (winning all of them in landslides) than closed caucuses.

Nor is it a convincing argument that caucuses' duration or requirement of presentness effectively disenfranchises certain people. The difference in turnout between primaries and caucuses is not sufficiently explained by shift work. As a previous poster admitted, caucuses are simply not his idea of a party. Preferring constant partying to sacrificing an hour once every four years to participate in democracy, he's disenfranchised himself, which is a good thing, because it's unlikely that he's found the time, what with his partying commitments, to properly inform himself. Luckily, caucuses' weeding out of such practically indifferent lever-pullers gives the remaining electorate that much more return on their time investment.

The advantages of caucuses, open or closed, besides their aforementioned test of strength of preference, are deliberation and realignment. A passive consumer of media might be deceived that Hillary's shameful "experience" or possession of a second X-chromosome makes her a better candidate than Sanders, and debates scheduled so that they won't be watched are unlikely to put a dent in such misconceptions. But when neighbors have the opportunity of engaging each other on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in regard to their own shared interests, memes such as that Bernie's proposals are "unrealistic" (when he's basically advocating the quite real Scandinavian system) have a way of disintegrating.

Realignment is perhaps the most overlooked advantage of caucuses. In a primary, one has no idea whether one's vote will be decisive of an additional delegate for their candidate, but only that it almost certainly will not. One has an incentive to vote tactically, of course, but can only guess what the tactically correct vote is. Caucuses, on the other hand, allow one to first express one's first choice without fear of wasting one's vote, and then to realign, now knowing the distribution of first choices, so that one's subsequent preferences are taken into account if their first choice is irrelevant.

As for the notion that open elections only allow Republicans to sabotage Democrats, it's unrealistic. If one wanted to do so, it would be little trouble to change one's registration election-to-election. But the real difference between open and closed elections is unaffiliated swing voters and new voters, who overwhelmingly prefer Sanders and are the best predictor of a candidate's ability to win the general election.

[apnu]

69. That, I can understand.

What's going on in the Dem Primary isn't 'rigging', it is simply a shitty and inadequate system. We are seen its defeiencies play out before our eyes.

[FairWinds]

71. By far the most "rigged" aspect of the campaign . .

has not been mentioned, and has little to do with the
Democratic Party . .

It is the the MEDIA has given HRC ten times more coverage
than Bernie, especially early in the campaign.

And that is no accident.

[WhiteTara]

79. bwahahaha nt

[FairWinds]

108. some observation . .

Mr. Murdoch

[WhiteTara]

109. name calling

that's the best you've got? That is really Trumpian.

Some things are really just funny and that statement of Bernie not getting coverage is one of them. Every time I turn on the teevee there is his mug and wagging finger. I saw him jab his finger into the face of Chris Jansing this morning. He was on Bill Maher last night he was on and on and on and on and on.

But you seem new here so perhaps you don't pay attention to the outside world and are just parroting the complaints of others.

[FairWinds]

113. Ok, so you are reasoning by anecdote . .

never a good idea.

Facts are facts, however uncomfortable they may be for you.

Bernie has had far fewer "media mentions" on all the TV networks & major newspapers - FAR FEWER

[WhiteTara]

114. great little pie chart

but it seems very out of date and from unknown origins.

[Blandocyte]

88. Thanks for dividing the party, dumbass.

Just quit already.

[geek tragedy]

95. In 15 more days the process will be over for him nt