Hillary's delegates stymied former head of NAACP's anti-TPP platform amendment

[brentspeak]

That's very strange considering HRC's claim to be against the TPP.

There were 800,000 anti-TPP signatures delivered to the platform committee -- signatures including those of Clinton supporters Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ) and Dayton, OH mayor Nan Whaley.

My guess on the number of pro-TPP signatures: probably no more than 8.

[msongs]

1. not likely to happen when the head of the party favors TPP now, is it? nt

[brentspeak]

3. Is there something written in stone that mandates that the President writes the party's platform?

That the party platform committee is nothing more a rubber stamp? Is that in the party's bylines somewhere?

[840high]

27. Absolutely not.

NO TPP. I won't budge on this.

[bravenak]

2. Her delegates are democrats who have their own minds

The Democratic president did not want anti tpp in the platform. Signatures have nothing to do with the platform. To get changes in a party takes more than outrage and signing a paper. It takes years of work with party members and a large enough coalition to outvote the other side. Your side lacked enoughvotes on the platform committe. I have nothing to say about him being a former head of the naacp. Have no idea what that has to do with anything.

[riversedge]

4. What does 'former head of NAACP" have to do with this issue??

[brentspeak]

5. From the Washington Post article:

Ben Jealous, the former NAACP president who introduced the brief amendment to the compromise language, argued that the Democratic Party would give away an electoral advantage if it was too slippery about trade. He warned that Republicans were likely to reflect Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, and oppose the TPP in their own platform, creating an opening for the GOP — "a Republican opponent who intends to run clearly against bad trade deals" — that had never existed before.

"The majority of Democrats, like the majority of Americans, are against the TPP," Jealous said. "Hillary is against the TPP. Bernie is against the TPP. Let’s not be bureaucrats — let’s be leaders."

Jealous's amendment failed, winning just 74 votes, as cries of "shame!" and "you're giving Trump the vote!" arose from the back of the room.

[JoePhilly]

14. Can you show that the "majority of Democrats" are "against" the TPP?

From what I have seen, that is not the case

Maybe you or Ben have some more recent data on that point?

Got a link to it?

[Ken Burch]

17. Uh...every poll taken on the subject?

I've never seen a single opinion poll that showed the majority of Dems supporting TPP.

If you've got a link to such a poll, post it.

[JoePhilly]

22. Its was not my claim ... the person I responded to maid a claim ...

... that does not match what I heard.

... if YOU have polls to reference, post them.

[TheFarseer]

37. I'm guessing most democrats that are for TPP

Are for it because they heard Obama was for it. If they actually looked into it, most of those people would say "hell no. I'm not for that"

[pampango]

23. Here are a few.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/20/what-canadas-new-government-might-mean-for-u-s-relations/ft_15-10-15_canadapartisan2_ttp-3/



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Initial TPP Ballot (of Democrats only)
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/republicans-especially-trump-supporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/

[brentspeak]

24. Warning: Bull$hit propaganda alert

At least one of Pampango's "sources" -- the static1.squarespace link -- and which he has tried several times in the past to push on unsuspecting DU members, is from a push-poll coordinated by a corporate-funded astroturf front group called the "Progressive Coalition for American Jobs", which was by created the beltway PR firm, 270 Strategies, operated by Obama campaign alumni. It is simply phony numbers.

Don't be misled -- for all practical purposes, there are no actual rank-and-file Democrats who are advocating for TPP to be passed. The propaganda pushing for TPP smells like bull$hit because it is bull$hit.

[840high]

28. Thanks.

[pampango]

34. "I've never seen a single opinion poll that showed the majority of Dems supporting TPP."

Because all polls that show that don't count.

... there are no actual rank-and-file Democrats who are advocating for TPP to be passed.

Because all REAL rank-and-file Democrats must agree with you. Got it.

I will agree that, "for all practical purposes", all rank-and-file republicans oppose TPP along with all of our other trade and other international agreements. ALL the polls show that.

[mia]

25. Agree with Jealous

Trump will run with this.

[riversedge]

33. In other words. NOTHING!

[w4rma]

6. He championed the amendment. (nt)

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. You know ... He's Black! ...

Yet, another betrayal of Black folks by HRC!!!!

{Yes ... that was sarcasm ... I think.}

[BainsBane]

7. All this angst over the platform

When it affects absolutely nothing. Such wasted energy that could be spent working to get actual legislation passed.

[Ken Burch]

20. You can't get actual legislation passed if you start with a bland platform.

Politicians always have to be forced from below to do anything specific and far-reaching.

And again...if the platform affects nothing, you've made the case for not trying to keep the platform vague.

What matters is making sure we don't give Trump something real to attack us on...not whether or not the outgoing president likes the platform.

It was a tragic mistake, for example, for the party in 1968 to insist on adopting a Vietnam plank in the platform that didn't disagree with LBJ. That insistence is the only reason Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon. Once Humphrey broke with Johnson on Vietnam, he closed a 13-point deficit in the polls to a dead heat. It's just that he was forced to wait until it was too late for that polling surge to be enough.

President Obama is a good man and has been a good president, but he shouldn't be insisting on keeping the party from opposing TPP in the platform. It simply serves no purpose and makes it harder for us to win.

[BainsBane]

26. Okay, tell me how the platform

differed between 2000, 2008, or 2012?

Humphrey didn't lose because the platform didn't contain the plank. He lost because he was tethered to LBJ, who wouldn't even permit him to criticize the war. The chaos at the convention certainly didn't help either.

This platform is a perfect way to pretend to do something while accomplishing nothing. That seems to be the goal in certain quarters because passing legislation requires working, building relationships and coalitions.

But on the other hand I realize the point of the whole exercise is to make it look like Bernie won something for his supporters, so I should just keep quiet. I suppose it's a fitting end to his campaign.

[Ken Burch]

31. The plank was crucial in 1968.

There was a televised debate about the plank during the convention(limited, amazingly, to a total of 30 minutes for each side to argue its point. Humphrey was forced to make his delegates vote for the "keep the war going forever" plank that LBJ wanted. The chaos at that convention was largely caused by Johnson's arrogant insistence that the party not deviate from his position on the war. That was the defining issue of Democratic politics in '68.

Yes, Humphrey was tethered to LBJ...and Vietnam was what tethered him.

BTW...is it really that horrible a thought for you that Bernie and his supporters had influence in the platform? What is so inadmissible for you about the idea that the Sanders campaign achieved some things? I know you didn't support us, but why are you so adamant about seeing nothing good at all in Bernie's presence in this race? Why is it is so crucial to see the Sanders campaign as a pointless waste of time? Clearly, nothing would be better for the party if HRC had been nominated without serious opposition. In years where the nomination gets locked up early, the party ends up standing for nothing(as it did in 2000 and, to at least some degree 2004)and we usually end up losing. What's to LIKE about an early coronation?

In any case...you know perfectly well Bernie would have done everything he did this year in exactly the same way if the other main Democratic primary candidate had been male. None of it was disrespect for HRC because she's a woman.

[choie]

32. The platform is supposed to

inform people what the Democrats stand for - or doesn't that matter anymore?

[JaneyVee]

8. TPP was already negotiated on...

America needs to lead on trade or get steamrolled by China.

[Ken Burch]

18. China's economy is in decline now. The "threat", if one existed, is fading.

TPP would do nothing to stop China anyway. Corporations wanting access to the Chinese market would still make sweetheart deals with Beijing(as Google did in agreeing to censor internet searches from Chinese IP's)no matter what.

Opposition to TPP is not disrespect to Obama. It's simply a recognition that the next president needs a free hand to negotiate a new trade deal that doesn't pit workers against each other.

[JaneyVee]

19. It's not about stopping China from trading...

It's about stopping China from writing the rules and cornering the market.

[Ken Burch]

21. It's too late to bother. China has already written the rules for the moment.

Nothing in TPP stops China from doing anything.

We need to just wait a few years and then China's economy will be too weak to call the tune.

[TheFarseer]

38. Steamrolled in what way?

Is it so we can out-export them or buy cheep goods even cheaper or send more jobs overseas or make stock prices of US companies go higher than Chinese companies? What are we talking about? Serious question

[annavictorious]

9. Do the math and reassess your claim.

The party platform includes anti-trade agreement language, and it does so without embarrassing a sitting present and without handing the Republicans a divided party narrative.

Since the vote on Jealous's amendment was 116-64, only 36% of the delegates supported his language. The remaining 64% who did not support his language were not all Hillary delegates.

Clinton has 90 delegates
Sanders has 72 delegates
The Democratic party has 25 uncommitted.

If the Jealous amendment had only 64 yea votes, then (given the final tally) at least some of the Sanders delegates voted against Jealous's measure.

What this means is that there were Sanders delegates who also stymied former head of NAACP's anti-TPP platform amendment.

[joshcryer]

10. That's fascinating.

Wonder how that went down.

[brentspeak]

12. A gigantic total of 8 Sanders delegates voted against it as a show of "unity"

When it became clear the vote was going against passage.

Their votes had absolutely nothing to do with the amendment's failure; Clinton's delegates votes, on the other hand, did.

[TwilightZone]

16. They all count.

Funny how Sanders' delegates' votes were somehow symbolic, but Clinton's weren't.

Some trick, that.

[annavictorious]

35. That's assuming the minimum number of Sanders votes.

You cannot reach a conclusion about a "grand total" based on the assumption you're making. "At least 8" is not the same thing as "exactly 8".

It was reported today that the Obama faction of delegates voted overwhelmingly against the measure.

The truth is that a coalition made up of delegates from all three factions stymied the amendment.

[brentspeak]

36. 116 - 8 = 108

More than enough to kill the amendment.

You said 'do the math', so I'm doing the math. Eight Sanders delegates voted symbolically to vote against the measure. And yes, we can safely assume that just about all the Sanders delegates voted in favor of the amendment -- you can cut the crap, thanks.

The amendment died because of both Obama and Hillary delegates voted against it. Had the majority of Hillary delegates voted for it, the amendment would have passed.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Anyone who supports TPP and claims to care about human rights is full of shit.

Watching this country legitimize actual capital punishment for LGBT while it postures about being against bigotry and violence is very hard to take. Very hard to take. Hypocrites never learn.

[840high]

29. ...!100++++

[Bluenorthwest]

15. TPP = Trading with nations that abuse the human rights of LGBTQ citizens

"The governments in Brunei and Malaysia are two of the most repressive regimes in the world. In Malaysia, being convicted of “gross indecency with another male person” can lead to fines, corporal punishment, and/or 20 years in prison. Malaysia is also what some call a modern-day slave port. Until last year, it was listed as a Tier 3 human trafficking nation by the U.S. State Department – the worst classification. Nothing has changed in Malaysia, but they were upgraded to Tier 2 last year seemingly to smooth the path for TPP.

In 2014, Brunei began the phased implementation of a strict penal code that is particularly cruel for LGBTQ people and women who survive rape or incest. Once fully implemented, any person convicted of having a sexual relationship with the same gender or any woman convicted of extramarital sex could face death by stoning. (Stoning is a barbaric form of capital punishment in which a person is buried up to their neck in the ground and then pelted to death with stones.)

We should not give preferential trade status to countries with such inhumane laws and human rights records."
http://www.prideatwork.org/issues/stop-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/

I know that not one of the straight, affluent TPP promoters on DU will give a shit about this and so none will even attempt to defend their position. They just don't care.
I am grateful for men like Ben Jealous.

[Armstead]

30. Human rights apparently don't matter when money is involved