HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Democrats Are Considering...

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:57 AM

Democrats Are Considering Dropping Superdelegates Altogether

Source: BuzzFeed News

Democratic officials are considering a new proposal to effectively eliminate all superdelegates, a move that would go beyond recommendations put forward late last year by the commission tasked with making the party's presidential nominating process more fair.

Under the current system for choosing a Democratic nominee, around 700 people called “superdelegates” are entitled to their own delegate to award to the candidate of their choosing, regardless of votes cast — making up about 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to clinch the party’s nomination. These superdelegates include members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic elected officials, and "distinguished" party leaders like former presidents and vice presidents. Superdelegates were a major point of contention during the 2016 primary — with many supporters of Bernie Sanders arguing the system unfairly favored Hillary Clinton.

The Unity Reform Commission, formed by Sanders and Clinton to review the party’s nominating process, has since proposed a new system to effectively reduce superdelegates by about 60%: Elected officials and distinguished party leaders would remain “unpledged” superdelegates, able to cast their vote for any candidate. The remaining superdelegates, namely the 447 members of the DNC, would have their delegates “bound” to the their state’s primary or caucus vote. (In the case of a second round of voting at a Democratic convention — historically a rare occurrence in the party’s presidential nominating process — all superdelegates would be unbound.)

The 21 members of the Unity Reform Commission agreed upon the superdelegates proposal at a meeting in early December, following four lengthy gatherings over the course of seven months. Those recommendations then moved to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, where members were given a period of six months to put forward a set of final proposals.Democratic officials are considering a new proposal to effectively eliminate all superdelegates, a move that would go beyond recommendations put forward late last year by the commission tasked with making the party's presidential nominating process more fair.

Read more: https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-are-weighing-a-proposal-to-eliminate?utm_term=.bxZEAWKXm#.ct3NpP3LM

404 replies, 18128 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 404 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democrats Are Considering Dropping Superdelegates Altogether (Original post)
demmiblue Mar 2018 OP
TheSmarterDog Mar 2018 #1
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #74
murielm99 Mar 2018 #77
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #78
murielm99 Mar 2018 #85
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #90
ehrnst Mar 2018 #192
George II Mar 2018 #243
George II Mar 2018 #345
Gothmog Mar 2018 #371
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #146
ehrnst Mar 2018 #188
mcar Mar 2018 #251
George II Mar 2018 #344
George II Mar 2018 #245
brush Mar 2018 #268
shanny Mar 2018 #326
LisaM Mar 2018 #176
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #98
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #103
murielm99 Mar 2018 #108
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #147
LisaM Mar 2018 #177
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #190
George II Mar 2018 #266
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #298
George II Mar 2018 #307
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #309
Gothmog Mar 2018 #372
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #381
Gothmog Mar 2018 #385
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #387
Gothmog Mar 2018 #391
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #393
Gothmog Mar 2018 #376
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #380
Gothmog Mar 2018 #383
appalachiablue Mar 2018 #389
ehrnst Mar 2018 #291
ehrnst Mar 2018 #198
LisaM Mar 2018 #215
ehrnst Mar 2018 #218
progressoid Mar 2018 #288
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #222
ehrnst Mar 2018 #226
R B Garr Mar 2018 #185
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #189
R B Garr Mar 2018 #194
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #195
R B Garr Mar 2018 #196
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #202
ehrnst Mar 2018 #207
R B Garr Mar 2018 #209
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #232
R B Garr Mar 2018 #238
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #311
R B Garr Mar 2018 #316
Gothmog Mar 2018 #323
R B Garr Mar 2018 #335
Gothmog Mar 2018 #342
Gothmog Mar 2018 #322
George II Mar 2018 #339
Gothmog Mar 2018 #341
Gothmog Mar 2018 #325
George II Mar 2018 #343
George II Mar 2018 #340
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #224
R B Garr Mar 2018 #240
ehrnst Mar 2018 #201
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #303
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #308
R B Garr Mar 2018 #314
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #320
shanny Mar 2018 #327
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #328
shanny Mar 2018 #331
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #337
mcar Mar 2018 #333
ehrnst Mar 2018 #191
ehrnst Mar 2018 #199
George II Mar 2018 #241
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #79
murielm99 Mar 2018 #87
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #89
ehrnst Mar 2018 #203
Gothmog Mar 2018 #348
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #99
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #101
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #105
murielm99 Mar 2018 #109
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #135
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #137
murielm99 Mar 2018 #139
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #141
murielm99 Mar 2018 #143
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #144
murielm99 Mar 2018 #151
ehrnst Mar 2018 #220
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #365
NBachers Mar 2018 #140
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #142
ehrnst Mar 2018 #211
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #229
murielm99 Mar 2018 #353
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #355
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #150
R B Garr Mar 2018 #174
ehrnst Mar 2018 #221
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #234
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #235
ehrnst Mar 2018 #301
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #305
KPN Mar 2018 #352
R B Garr Mar 2018 #317
George II Mar 2018 #347
R B Garr Mar 2018 #363
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #360
George II Mar 2018 #279
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #310
Gothmog Mar 2018 #349
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #350
Gothmog Mar 2018 #351
George II Mar 2018 #364
Gothmog Mar 2018 #329
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #330
Gothmog Mar 2018 #332
ehrnst Mar 2018 #216
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #225
mcar Mar 2018 #253
ehrnst Mar 2018 #210
ehrnst Mar 2018 #230
George II Mar 2018 #366
ehrnst Mar 2018 #206
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #227
mcar Mar 2018 #254
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #256
mcar Mar 2018 #257
lapucelle Mar 2018 #299
George II Mar 2018 #318
George II Mar 2018 #313
Gothmog Mar 2018 #116
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #153
Gothmog Mar 2018 #155
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #159
Gothmog Mar 2018 #165
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #181
Gothmog Mar 2018 #197
MichMan Mar 2018 #265
Gothmog Mar 2018 #278
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #312
LisaM Mar 2018 #178
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #179
LisaM Mar 2018 #183
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #193
LisaM Mar 2018 #205
Gothmog Mar 2018 #208
LisaM Mar 2018 #214
Gothmog Mar 2018 #239
LisaM Mar 2018 #248
Gothmog Mar 2018 #262
LisaM Mar 2018 #271
Gothmog Mar 2018 #275
LisaM Mar 2018 #280
Gothmog Mar 2018 #284
ehrnst Mar 2018 #302
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #160
Gothmog Mar 2018 #168
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #169
Gothmog Mar 2018 #172
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #173
Gothmog Mar 2018 #175
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #180
ehrnst Mar 2018 #187
Gothmog Mar 2018 #200
ehrnst Mar 2018 #217
Gothmog Mar 2018 #231
ehrnst Mar 2018 #186
MichMan Mar 2018 #267
ehrnst Mar 2018 #270
MichMan Mar 2018 #272
ehrnst Mar 2018 #274
MichMan Mar 2018 #276
ehrnst Mar 2018 #285
questionseverything Mar 2018 #378
Gothmog Mar 2018 #392
ehrnst Mar 2018 #212
TheSmarterDog Mar 2018 #223
rock Mar 2018 #110
Gothmog Mar 2018 #118
lagomorph777 Mar 2018 #122
Tiggeroshii Mar 2018 #149
mcar Mar 2018 #250
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #2
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2018 #283
marble falls Mar 2018 #3
NewJeffCT Mar 2018 #4
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #6
chwaliszewski Mar 2018 #17
brush Mar 2018 #61
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #66
brush Mar 2018 #70
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #72
brush Mar 2018 #73
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #75
brush Mar 2018 #81
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #88
brush Mar 2018 #92
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #95
brush Mar 2018 #100
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #106
brush Mar 2018 #138
Hortensis Mar 2018 #71
KPN Mar 2018 #91
brush Mar 2018 #94
Gothmog Mar 2018 #242
brush Mar 2018 #255
Gothmog Mar 2018 #258
Gothmog Mar 2018 #120
harun Mar 2018 #164
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2018 #286
karynnj Mar 2018 #36
Hortensis Mar 2018 #76
karynnj Mar 2018 #111
Hortensis Mar 2018 #119
karynnj Mar 2018 #128
StevieM Mar 2018 #304
karynnj Mar 2018 #346
Gothmog Mar 2018 #244
karynnj Mar 2018 #277
Gothmog Mar 2018 #282
LiberalArkie Mar 2018 #53
NewJeffCT Mar 2018 #57
Hortensis Mar 2018 #86
ehrnst Mar 2018 #233
George II Mar 2018 #247
Gothmog Mar 2018 #252
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2018 #67
NewJeffCT Mar 2018 #82
karynnj Mar 2018 #121
George II Mar 2018 #249
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2018 #295
ehrnst Mar 2018 #300
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2018 #334
ehrnst Mar 2018 #354
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2018 #367
ehrnst Mar 2018 #368
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2018 #369
Smitty63nnn Mar 2018 #5
CreekDog Mar 2018 #20
femmedem Mar 2018 #28
CreekDog Mar 2018 #39
Hortensis Mar 2018 #97
femmedem Mar 2018 #281
Hortensis Mar 2018 #379
KPN Mar 2018 #93
Gothmog Mar 2018 #246
lapucelle Mar 2018 #377
pnwmom Mar 2018 #7
Wwcd Mar 2018 #12
CreekDog Mar 2018 #21
MichMan Mar 2018 #40
LongTomH Mar 2018 #56
safeinOhio Mar 2018 #8
ehrnst Mar 2018 #11
Cha Mar 2018 #30
CreekDog Mar 2018 #41
angrychair Mar 2018 #59
Gothmog Mar 2018 #123
angrychair Mar 2018 #60
ehrnst Mar 2018 #104
angrychair Mar 2018 #114
ehrnst Mar 2018 #117
angrychair Mar 2018 #131
ehrnst Mar 2018 #133
angrychair Mar 2018 #148
tammywammy Mar 2018 #315
angrychair Mar 2018 #319
tammywammy Mar 2018 #321
angrychair Mar 2018 #338
PatrickforO Mar 2018 #52
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2018 #289
ehrnst Mar 2018 #9
Gothmog Mar 2018 #124
ehrnst Mar 2018 #125
Gothmog Mar 2018 #130
ehrnst Mar 2018 #134
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #396
lapucelle Mar 2018 #324
joshcryer Mar 2018 #158
Wwcd Mar 2018 #10
ehrnst Mar 2018 #13
progressoid Mar 2018 #26
leftofcool Mar 2018 #32
Wwcd Mar 2018 #38
leftynyc Mar 2018 #14
CreekDog Mar 2018 #23
leftynyc Mar 2018 #65
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2018 #15
Vinca Mar 2018 #16
dchill Mar 2018 #19
True Blue American Mar 2018 #24
Wwcd Mar 2018 #33
brush Mar 2018 #62
ehrnst Mar 2018 #213
Vinca Mar 2018 #260
ehrnst Mar 2018 #263
Vinca Mar 2018 #269
CreekDog Mar 2018 #18
CreekDog Mar 2018 #22
Gothmog Mar 2018 #127
CentralMass Mar 2018 #25
all american girl Mar 2018 #27
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #397
shanny Mar 2018 #29
The Wizard Mar 2018 #31
Wwcd Mar 2018 #37
tomp Mar 2018 #34
yallerdawg Mar 2018 #35
garybeck Mar 2018 #42
yallerdawg Mar 2018 #45
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #398
yallerdawg Mar 2018 #402
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #403
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2018 #287
Cha Mar 2018 #43
yallerdawg Mar 2018 #47
Cha Mar 2018 #48
murielm99 Mar 2018 #80
Gothmog Mar 2018 #126
still_one Mar 2018 #44
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #58
still_one Mar 2018 #102
NurseJackie Mar 2018 #46
Me. Mar 2018 #84
lunamagica Mar 2018 #163
Tarheel_Dem Mar 2018 #356
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #399
LovingA2andMI Mar 2018 #49
randr Mar 2018 #50
PatrickforO Mar 2018 #54
PatrickforO Mar 2018 #55
left-of-center2012 Mar 2018 #51
Devil Child Mar 2018 #63
Gothmog Mar 2018 #132
IADEMO2004 Mar 2018 #64
HopeAgain Mar 2018 #68
dembotoz Mar 2018 #69
Me. Mar 2018 #83
Wwcd Mar 2018 #113
Me. Mar 2018 #152
Wwcd Mar 2018 #154
Me. Mar 2018 #157
Me. Mar 2018 #156
Gothmog Mar 2018 #129
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #96
still_one Mar 2018 #112
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #359
Gothmog Mar 2018 #236
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #357
Gothmog Mar 2018 #361
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #362
Gothmog Mar 2018 #370
YOHABLO Mar 2018 #107
Gothmog Mar 2018 #115
KPN Mar 2018 #162
Gothmog Mar 2018 #166
KPN Mar 2018 #170
Gothmog Mar 2018 #171
KPN Mar 2018 #184
Gothmog Mar 2018 #237
KPN Mar 2018 #294
Gothmog Mar 2018 #373
KPN Mar 2018 #386
Gothmog Mar 2018 #394
KPN Mar 2018 #395
Zambero Mar 2018 #136
24601 Mar 2018 #161
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #145
Gothmog Mar 2018 #167
Devil Child Mar 2018 #219
Gothmog Mar 2018 #228
MichMan Mar 2018 #261
Gothmog Mar 2018 #290
questionseverything Mar 2018 #382
Gothmog Mar 2018 #384
questionseverything Mar 2018 #388
Gothmog Mar 2018 #390
sheshe2 Mar 2018 #400
questionseverything Mar 2018 #404
Orange Free State Mar 2018 #182
Gothmog Mar 2018 #204
Orange Free State Mar 2018 #264
Gothmog Mar 2018 #273
yurbud Mar 2018 #259
budkin Mar 2018 #292
lapucelle Mar 2018 #293
samnsara Mar 2018 #296
Orange Free State Mar 2018 #297
KPN Mar 2018 #306
Champion Jack Mar 2018 #336
Gothmog Mar 2018 #374
Tarheel_Dem Mar 2018 #358
Gothmog Mar 2018 #375
aikoaiko Mar 2018 #401

Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:59 AM

1. Bad idea

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSmarterDog (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:59 AM

74. How so?

Why should lobbyists have more say than actual voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:04 AM

77. Very bad idea.

And lobbyists have nothing to do with it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:06 AM

78. Many superdelegates are lobbyists

Either way you are arvitrarily deciding certain peoples' vote are much more powerful than an average voter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/democrats-plan-to-name-lobbyists-operatives-as-superdelegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:19 AM

85. Many?

The people cited in the article have long standing ties to the Democratic party. They have gone to work as lobbyists after running for office or holding office. They are still Democrats, who hold with the principles of our party. I find article slanted.

I could cite the same article and make objections to it because so many people being considered as super delegates have ties to Bernie Sanders, who is not a Democrat. Sanders and his people are the ones who made the big stink about super delegates. The system works just fine.

The problem is caucuses. We need to get rid of those. The states that have them are mostly fine with them because they are cheap. They do not want to have to pay for primaries, which cost more. Maybe more state parties will have to consider paying for primaries themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:25 AM

90. Really? Newscorps lobbyist has longtime ties to the democratic party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:20 PM

192. I guess you just can't trust candidates that have the support of lobbyists, can you?

Barack Obama refused donations from Lobbyists, but others, not so much.


https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/03/09/19405/lobbyists-who-love-bernie-sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:53 PM

243. Which Newscorp lobbyist is a super delegate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:49 PM

345. I think I've already asked this of you elsewhere, who is the "Newscorp lobbyist" who....

...is/was a super delegate?

Do you know how many super delegates are active lobbyists? The answer might shock and amaze you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #345)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 02:14 PM

371. Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:03 PM

146. Why end super-delegates?

 

Because they impeded growth and change in the Party. They represent the past, the status quo and sometimes very simply -- money.

Their votes push the Party into the past.

We need to be the Party of the future.

I think ending the super-delegates' power is a first step toward allowing change that is a natural part of politics to flourish in the Democratic Party.

No to super-delegates. We don't need them. They are part of our problem when it comes to winning elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #146)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:15 PM

188. Oh, the "status quo"

The label that no one seems to be able to define.

I guess the Black Congressional Caucus is the "status quo" now.

They'll be surprised to hear that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #188)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:11 PM

251. Or is the CBC "establishment?"

I tend to trust the CBC's POV on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #188)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:46 PM

344. Precisely, I've NEVER seen a definition of "status quo" around here. What is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #146)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:57 PM

245. How did super delegates impede growth and change? And here we go again with....

..."the status quo". What is the status quo that you refer to?

All these catch phrases and buzz words.

People should look into the rationale and reasoning behind why they were created in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #146)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:46 PM

268. That's such bs. Repug cheating is why we lost the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #268)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:50 PM

326. Crap. All this time I thought it was Jill Stein.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #85)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:50 PM

176. You are exactly right. Super delegates are not the problem. Caucuses are.

This news bothers me enormously. Super delegates provide a safety net. It also rewards long-time party activists.

The people who don't want super delegates probably also support open primaries and caucuses, and don't really want the party to pick its own candidate.

Eff this idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:44 AM

98. Give it arrest...some folks employed as lobbyist are Democrats. So pure...so going to lose

if we follow such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #98)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:51 AM

103. If they arent officuals in the party in any other capacity, why are they superdelegates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #103)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:56 AM

108. Some of them have long standing ties,

or have held office in the past. They may continue to be activists, like Dan Hynes, who was state comptroller here, and ran for other offices.

Our big bad terrible super delegates in Illinois include Barack Obama, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth. Such awful people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #108)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:05 PM

147. Who do they represent?

 

Not the voters.

Not the future.

They represent big money and the past. And we don't need them in the Democratic Party.

We need to be the Party of the future, of solutions to the problems that were created in the past. We need to be the Party of the people, not of money.

I do not want super delegates. I want to be the Party of the future, the party of solutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #147)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:52 PM

177. Elected officials don't represent the voters?

That's the most circular logic I ever heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #177)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:17 PM

190. Elected officials can lose their positions. They should have their one vote, and that

 

is it. The super delegates make our Party's conventions into a joke.

The elected officials represent themselves until the next election when their seat is up for a vote. They should have not special right to vote in the Democratic convention. They serve us, not us them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #190)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:43 PM

266. Jimmy Carter should not have a say in what my party does? Al Gore? Walter Mondale?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #266)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:58 PM

298. They should not be voting delegates at the nominating convention.

 

They can have a say in all kinds of ways including voting on other things. But they should not have a vote with regard to nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #298)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:45 PM

307. Actually they should, because according to the rules they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #307)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:50 PM

309. Rules are made to be changed.

 

The rules were changed after the Viet Nam War to allow super delegates. They can be changed back to rid our Party of them. We don't need them. They shouldn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #309)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 02:16 PM

372. No one but some splinter groups are pushing for these changes

You do realize that these rules changes will require the vote of two-thirds of the delegates at the DNC meeting. I personally consider the opinions of the CBC to be far more important compared to he views of the people pushing for this change. The real world is a nice place and I like living in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #372)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 04:13 PM

381. I'm a Democrat. I believe in change that leads to more inclusion.

 

If these rules had been followed in the 1960s, African-Americans would not have the voice they now have in the Democratic Party -- especially in the South.

The Democrats in the South at that time were in many cases, racists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #381)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 05:34 PM

385. I am very active in the party in the real world

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

In the real world the CBC and the voters the CBC represent are also Democrats. I care more about these groups compared to the fringe groups pushing this proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #385)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 05:40 PM

387. I'm 74 now but have been very active in my local Democratic Club and Party.

 

I care about the Democratic Party and want to see it become more inclusive.

Super delegates are a threat to democracy within the Democratic Party.

Being active in the Democratic Party does not entitle anyone to an extra voice.

I am reminded of the corruption in our government that Theodore Roosevelt fought.

Super delegates are a reminder of the way corruption justifies itself.

Super delegates are not needed and should not exist. They lend a putrid odor to the Democratic Party. They are a sign of corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #387)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 06:49 PM

391. You are totally wrong in your analysis

I have been very active in the party including attending several state conventions, helping run county/senate district conventions, being a national delegate, running war rooms for voter protection operations and working on state party committees on issues like voter protection and the rules committee. I have seen how hard people like Chairman Hinojosa and vice chair Fredericka Philips work. I have worked with Congressman Al Green on voter id and voter protection projects. I am friends with Sheila Jackson Lee (our sons were in school together) and other super delegates. There is a ton of work involved that helps the party.

Being a leader in the party takes a ton of work. I see nothing wrong with these party leaders having a role at the national convention. I live and work up close with people who are actual super delegates. I also value the opinion of the CBC and the voters who are represented by members of the CBC. I can tell you that alienating and insulting the CBC is not a good idea if you want support from African American voters. Again, Doug Jones won his senate race in deep red Alabama due to these voters https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570531505/black-votes-matter-african-americans-propel-jones-to-alabama-win

You dislike super delegates because some fringe groups think that some super delegates were mean to your candidate. That does not matter to me. The existence of super delegates is not corrupt as that term in used in the real world.

I would like to make the process better but the wholesale elimination of super delegates is something that I do not support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #391)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 07:32 PM

393. I am opposed to having a sort of elite in the Democratic Party, and the super delegates

 

form such an elite.

I think the strength of the Democratic Party is in its grassroots members.

Most people have to work and volunteer for Democratic Party in addition to their jobs.

TV is still very important, but it is decreasingly a means to communicate with voters. (It will gradually become less important than the internet when it comes to politics.) It is essential that the grassroots volunteers be the primary moving force in the Democratic Party because they can communicate one on one with voters and counter the conservative control of television and radio which will increase in time.

It is already a problem that unions have declined in numbers and influence. They used to be the bedrock support of the Democratic Party. I remember how, when it came close to elections, we in the local campaign headquarters were happy, excited even, when the union members joined us for canvassing. They could do so much. It was amazing.

I note that in 2016, a lot of people who would have voted for Democrats because of their union loyalties instead voted for Trump. That is an absolutely deplorable development for the Democratic Party.

The super delegates make it easier for "professional" political advisors to take over and lead the Party. The energy of union rank and file members is not so important if you have "competent" professional advisors running the show.

That is very dangerous for the Democratic Party as it leads to an "in-crowd" and an "out-crowd" at least in feeling, and it places unions and union members in a subordinate role in our party.

The Democratic Party needs to be the party of the people, especially of working people.

The elite class of super delegates makes a mockery of the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #309)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 03:24 PM

376. Democrats delay change to convention superdelegates

There are good reasons to keep the superdelegates http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377733-democrats-delay-change-to-convention-superdelegates

There are DNC members who want to remove superdelegates from the Democratic Convention’s first ballot altogether, allowing the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates earned through the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

Other DNC members believe they have earned their uncommitted vote through years of participation in the party.

Any proposal to change the power of superdelegates would need two-thirds support from the DNC’s 447 members to pass.

The committee has until June 2018 to complete its work, "which includes the crafting of any rules, bylaws, or charter amendments necessary to implement the major reforms agreed upon," according to a DNC press release. Those measures will then go to the full DNC for consideration this summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #376)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 04:11 PM

380. This will be a big test of the sincerity of the Democrats' belief in democracy.

 

Is it democracy or a system of rewards to the winners of past elections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #380)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 05:23 PM

383. Not in the real world

The only people in favor of this proposals are some fringe groups who supported sanders. Many regular democrats do not care about this so called issue.

I care far more about he opinions of the CBC compared to the opinions of these fringe groups

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #309)


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #190)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:32 PM

291. We don't serve them. Again, you seem to be confused. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #177)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:30 PM

198. You seem to be confused: Superdelegates only vote at the Convention - not on legislation.

Bernie Sanders was a Superdelegate, so he didn't always think that power was corrupt.

Superdelegates are unpledged delegates to the Democratic convention, meaning that they aren’t beholden to the results from primaries and the caucuses (the way pledged delegates are). They are, for the most part, current and former Democratic politicians. Former President Bill Clinton is a superdelegate; so is current Sen. Bernie Sanders.

They make up 15 percent of all delegates (714 out of 4,765) – down from 20 percent in 2008. And they are free to support the presidential candidate of their choice at the convention. According to NBC News’ latest count, Clinton leads Sanders in superdelegates, 460-38. One catch: Superdelegates have to be present at the convention for their vote to count.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/democrats-plan-to-name-lobbyists-operatives-as-superdelegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #198)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:00 PM

215. I'm not confused...

I was responding to someone who said super delegates don't represent voters, but, since many of them were elected by voters, I just beg to differ with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #215)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:10 PM

218. Got it: Superdelegates who are also reps don't represent their constituents at the convention.

The represent their own vote as a superdelegate.

Bernie Sanders didn't represent the choice of citizens of Vermont's choice when he voted as a Superdelegate at the Convention, he voted for who he wanted to be the candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #215)


Response to ehrnst (Reply #198)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:15 PM

222. So BERNIE SANDERS a super delegate, but supers are bad why now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #222)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:18 PM

226. Because REASONS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #147)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:06 PM

185. African American women ARE the base of the Party.

No reason to smear them with ludicrous falsities about them representing big money just because they are active members who dared to support someone other than Bernie. Those talking points lost big. You should take your own advice and move on — move on from the losing past of smearing good Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #185)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:15 PM

189. What do African-American women have to do with abolishing super delegates?

 

I'm all for African-American women being strong in the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #189)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:21 PM

194. You dont remember your post that attacked an African

American woman? That is just proof that these empty talking points are just platitudes. In your haste to attack super delegates, you didn’t really care who was the target. That is the problem with promoting empty rhetoric—just saying “big money” doesn’t make it true. It’s really just propaganda, which lost years ago now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #194)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:21 PM

195. What post?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #195)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:24 PM

196. That is exactly the point. You tried to pass off Revolution

platitudes as if they are one-size-fits-all and they are not. So your attacks on super delegates apparently are not well supported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #196)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:35 PM

202. What in the world are you talking about?

 

I think super delegates should be abolished.

They are a Tammany-Hall tradition. They bring corruption. They stink. I do not like super delegates.

I remember sitting on my father's lap listening to a Democratic national convention when I was nine. There were no super delegates. There was a lot of wheeling and dealing which my father explained to me. It hooked me on politics.

Here is some of the history of super delegates.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[15] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

The rules implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members.[15] As a result of this change the number of primaries more than doubled over the next three presidential election cycles, from 17 in 1968 to 35 in 1980.[15] Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carter resulting in landslide defeats.[15] Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle.[15]

Further soul-searching took place among party leaders, who argued that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making, with one May 1981 California white paper declaring that the Democratic Party had "lost its leadership, collective vision and ties with the past," resulting in the nomination of unelectable candidates.[16] A new 70-member commission headed by Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt was appointed to further refine the Democratic Party's nomination process, attempting to balance the wishes of rank-and-file Democrats with the collective wisdom of party leaders and to thereby avoid the nomination of insurgent candidates exemplified by the liberal McGovern or the anti-Washington conservative Carter and lessening the potential influence of single-issue politics in the selection process.[16]

Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission issued a report which recommended the set aside of unelected and unpledged delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs (so-called "superdelegates".[16] With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was finally implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at 14%.[17] Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Superdelegates are a method intended from the beginning to insure that the Democratic Party's candidate selection will not accurately reflect the forward-looking, liberal views of Democratic voters.

That may have been OK in pre-internet days.

But now that voters can communicate directly among themselves and with each other. Now that we have internet media, super delegates are holding the Democratic Party back.

I oppose super delegates. We need reform within the Democratic Party that brings it up to the standard of our new methods of communication and new ideas.

There is no way that we should have lost the electoral college to Trump. That we did tells us that the Democratic Party is way off the right track and needs reform. One of the reforms we need is doing away with super delegates. It's just one of many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #202)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:48 PM

207. You do know that Bernie was a Superdelegate last year, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #202)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:49 PM

209. You don't even know who your post #150 was addressing?? You smear her but don't

even know? This is just proof that your posts are empty platitudes from a losing campaign.

And now again with the complete inability to grasp the reality about the electoral college -- "There is no way we should have lost the electoral college to Trump." Did you vote for Hillary?? Wasn't there a national campaign to deny her the White House?? How could you not know the efforts made to turn voters away from the Democratic nominee?? Obviously there was awareness of how to deny Hillary the White House. It's all over the cable news -- every day -- numerous indictments and unprecedented news coverage of how a hostile foreign power hacked our elections, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Talk about being off track.....

Your spam about super delegates fails to cover one of the most important aspects -- the CBC. Why would someone omit that?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #209)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:21 PM

232. No. I didn't know and didn't care who the super delegate was.

 

I don't care what race she is. It is not relevant to the fact that if she or he is a super delegate, he or she was not elected to represent anyone at the convention, so he or she should not have a vote at the convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #232)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:39 PM

238. So you admit you did not know, but then smear

her anyways. Absolute proof of how utterly empty these attacks from the Revolution are. Your post #150 is sheer propaganda and just knee jerk criticism which you spam in an obvious effort to legitimize it. Your attacks are not well supported. This same tactic was used against Hillary, Biden, Feinstein and now super delegates, this one being a valued African American woman active in the party, which you say does not matter. Wow!

All you have to do is type “big money” with no proof or substance and everyone just needs to roll over and accept your divisive labeling. Uh, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #238)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:54 PM

311. I do not object to any specific super delegate. They are all fine people I am sure.

 

I object to the fact, the very existence of the category called "super delegates."

To phrase it in a positive way, I believe that ALL delegates to presidential conventions should be elected in primaries by the grass roots voters.

If politicians, elected past or present politicians want to be delegates rather than guests at presidential and state conventions, let them run for delegate positions.

The nominating conventions with regard to the voting should be organized so that we know that the nominees are chosen by the voting people not by the Party bureaucrats, currently serving politicians and have been politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #311)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:08 PM

316. You are implying corruption where there is none

simply over bitterness that more people preferred Hillary. She worked for others in the party, and people knew her and knew her capabilities. Bernie could have done the same for others, but he didn’t. This is not a difficult concept.

Nice back peddling, though, you definitely said that super delegates are big money elites. We need to focus on reality and not contrived scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #316)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:39 PM

323. No delegate to the national convention is ever selected at the grass roots level

The post that you are replying to does not understand the process and the system described is so far removed from how the process works that it is funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #323)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:15 PM

335. Thanks, Gothmog, your posts about the real processes

are very much appreciated. Those posts you referenced are getting more and more abstract. It’s a little scary to see that much effort into totally contrived talking points. Disturbing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #335)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:32 PM

342. I live and worked in the real world

Politics can be messy in the real world. No national delegates are elected by grass roots voters in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #311)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:37 PM

322. Have you ever attended a state convention or participated in delegate selection processs?

Your post is totally wrong as to the process. Delegates are never elected at the primary stage in the real world in most states. In the real world, voters vote for a candidate in the primary. Under Democratic Party rules, this vote is used to allocate delegates proportionally. Under GOP rules, it is possible for the delegates in some of the later contests to be awarded winner take all.

Actually delegates are then elected from persons who apply to be a delegate. In Texas, you file a form where you promise to support the nominee of the party in April and then you are vetted by the party and the campaign. In Texas you have to attend the county/senate district conventions that occur later in March (this year these conventions are March 24). Then one attends the state convention where a percentage of the national delegates are elected at the Senate District caucuses. For example. in my Senate District we elected three Clinton Delegates and one Sanders delegates. Other delegates are nominated on at large basis by the nominations committee. Along the way, each campaign or candidate has absolute veto rights on their delegates. I was on the committee that vetted Clinton delegates for my senate district.

The process you describe does not exist in the real world. In some states you vote on slates of delegates for a candidate but that only gets them to the state convention where they still have to be vetted and selected.

For the at large portion, state officials who are not super delegates get some preference. For example, the Texas delegation included a number of state senators including some of my friends. I had a friend who applied because she was a precinct chair and county party chair but she was not selected. I hate to break it to you but the at large delegates include the heavy hitters and donors.

I actually been through the process and I understand the process. Your description is so wrong that it is funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #322)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:43 PM

339. With some variations, that process is basically they way it works in other states AND....

...has been in effect for quite a long time.

People have to understand that they can't just show up out of nowhere and start changing a long-standing process. They have to work WITH the party for a while, get settled into it, and establish some credibility with the party before they start making demands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #339)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:29 PM

341. You are correct

I know people who were delegates selected in other states. The ptocess is basically the same in most states but it costs a great deal more to be a delegate from New York or Mass. The Texas delegation was seated behind the Mass. delegation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #232)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:41 PM

325. Please attend a state convention and watch the process in the real world

Your posts are really off as to how the process works. No national delegate is ever elected at the grassroots level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #325)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:44 PM

343. To take this one step further, no presidential candidate is ever "elected" at the state level.....

...and no candidate "wins" a particular state.

If one takes the time to read the ballot every four years, he/she is not voting for the Democratic or republican candidate, they're voting for electors to the electoral college. In December of the Presidential election year, they assemble and vote for a candidate. They are not bound, but can vote for any candidate they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #202)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:14 PM

340. Superdelegates "bring corruption"? How?

And to address something further down in your post, you say:

"Superdelegates are a method intended from the beginning to insure that the Democratic Party's candidate selection will not accurately reflect the forward-looking, liberal views of Democratic voters."

When have the super delegates ever determined the ultimate candidate for President? Unless I missed something, never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #194)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:16 PM

224. Posters active in this thread are writing from Russia, one way or another, and we have to say

so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #224)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:48 PM

240. Yup, and the very same exact JPR tactics and wording as before.

Completely unsubstantiated attacks on Democrats -- and usually the most recognizable Dems, or at least those up for election soon or considering 2020, hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #147)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:34 PM

201. Bernie Sanders was a Superdelegate. Why do you think he would do such a thing?

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Superdelegates are unpledged delegates to the Democratic convention, meaning that they aren’t beholden to the results from primaries and the caucuses (the way pledged delegates are). They are, for the most part, current and former Democratic politicians. Former President Bill Clinton is a superdelegate; so is current Sen. Bernie Sanders.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/how-do-superdelegates-work-here-s-what-you-need-know-n554136

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #147)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:33 PM

303. Bernie Sanders is a super delegate.

Sophia4
147. Who do they represent?

Not the voters.

Not the future.

They represent big money and the past. And we don't need them in the Democratic Party.

We need to be the Party of the future, of solutions to the problems that were created in the past. We need to be the Party of the people, not of money.

I do not want super delegates. I want to be the Party of the future, the party of solutions.


Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #303)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:49 PM

308. I stand by the statements in my post.

 

All delegates who vote for the presidential candidate at our conventions should be elected by the people in primaries.

Otherwise we stagnate as a party, don't represent our constituents, our voting members and lose elections.

The proof is in the pudding of the elections of past years that we lost.

The Republican philosophy and Party is utterly out of step with the American people and the needs and wishes of Americans, but they win elections because the Democratic Party is even more out of step with voters.

One of the reasons that the Democratic Party does not get its candidates elected is that it is too driven by party apparatchiks, by the bureaucrats and past elected officials of the party.

At least with regard to the nomination of of Democratic Party presidential candidates, it should be Democratic voters and not the Democratic elite represented as super delegates who decide.

Super delegates and the electoral college are undemocratic habits that we need to drop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #308)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:03 PM

314. This is just not even remotely true. To say the Democrats

are more out of touch than Republicans is utter fantasy. Democrats always win the popular vote. You don’t even know that you were attacking an African American super delegate who is active in the Party. You attacked her as “elite” and you didn’t even know who she was. There is no excuse for this kind of undermining and misinformation campaign,

Yet more propaganda from you about super delegates. Instead of smearing good people, you should just be honest about your anger and bitterness that more people preferred Hillary.

When are you going to acknowledge the current news that documents the hacking of our elections. Instead of smearing Democrats, you should educate yourself about Mueller’s indictments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #308)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:27 PM

320. So by your very own words.

Bernie was a Democrat when he became a Super Delegate, so all you say below you apply to him as well? He does not represent the voters? Not the future? He represents big money and the past?


I quote.

Sophia4
308. I stand by the statements in my post.




Sophia4
147. Who do they represent?

Not the voters.

Not the future.

They represent big money and the past. And we don't need them in the Democratic Party.

We need to be the Party of the future, of solutions to the problems that were created in the past. We need to be the Party of the people, not of money.

I do not want super delegates. I want to be the Party of the future, the party of solutions.

.......................

Sanders last year joined the ranks of former Presidents, House Speakers and Senate Leaders who can vote for White House nominees independent of how their home states cast ballots. All Democratic Senators are given that rank, and the Democratic National Committee gave Sanders that standing when after he chose to run in the Democratic primary. Sanders still considers himself a democratic socialist and his Senate office calls him an independent.

“When the Senator declared, he became eligible,” a Democratic official said. In doing so, he availed himself of the privilege of being among the party’s elite. He is listed between between fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy and former Vermont Governor and ex-DNC Chairman Howard Dean on page eight of the party’s roster. (Former President Bill Clinton is also there, on page six.)

http://time.com/4294398/bernie-sanders-superdelegate/


Hmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #320)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:54 PM

327. "All Democratic Senators are given that rank, and the Democratic National Committee gave Sanders

 

that standing...."

So he isn't one now, is he? and your point is moot.


Superdelegates are anti-small d-democratic. We shouldn't have them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #327)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:59 PM

328. He was then...

so all that was said applied to him as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #328)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:07 PM

331. That was the system then. Wasn't it?

 

The point is the system should be changed. Feel free to ask Bernie what he thinks about that, since you care so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #331)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:17 PM

337. I think the electoral college needs to be changed.

I am not the one that believes the super delegates need to change and see no reason to say the process is corrupt. Some may believe that, I am not one of them.

Not sure why you say...


The point is the system should be changed. Feel free to ask Bernie what he thinks about that, since you care so much.


I was just responding to a poster who said it was a very bad thing and listed her reasons why. I asked her meaning. No treason to attack me for that, shanny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #320)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:08 PM

333. I'd like to see an answer to these good questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:17 PM

191. You mean like a caucus member has a more powerful vote than an average voter?

Or the person in New Hampshire has a FAR more powerful vote via the Senate than a person in California?

And it's interesting how people change their tune on Superdelegates very, very quickly when SDs are the only chance a particular candidate has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:31 PM

199. Some Superdelegates are Senators - Like Bernie Sanders

Apparently his determination that Superdelegates are corrupt is rather recent.

Superdelegates are unpledged delegates to the Democratic convention, meaning that they aren’t beholden to the results from primaries and the caucuses (the way pledged delegates are). They are, for the most part, current and former Democratic politicians. Former President Bill Clinton is a superdelegate; so is current Sen. Bernie Sanders.

They make up 15 percent of all delegates (714 out of 4,765) – down from 20 percent in 2008. And they are free to support the presidential candidate of their choice at the convention. According to NBC News’ latest count, Clinton leads Sanders in superdelegates, 460-38. One catch: Superdelegates have to be present at the convention for their vote to count.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/democrats-plan-to-name-lobbyists-operatives-as-superdelegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:50 PM

241. ALL non-elected-official super delegates are DNC members and virtually all are Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:09 AM

79. "They include lobbyists from... Rupert Murdoch's news corp."

Fox news is given more say in our nominating process than a lifelong democratic voter? Seriously?

From the link above:

"They include lobbyists for Venezuela’s national petroleum company and for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:21 AM

87. And how many of them are there?

Have they been voted in yet? Too many people here are running around with their hair on fire over something that has not happened.

We have primaries coming up. It is time to GOTV and not fight over something else designed to divide us.

The super delegate system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:23 AM

89. Yes. They were chosen. That is what the article says.

I dont care ifbthere is only one, no fox news lobbyists should be considered more than a lifelong democratic voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #89)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:36 PM

203. Which Superdelegates are "lobbyists for FoxNews?"

Not seeing where there are any. Do you have names?

Can you provide your source?


Were they chosen by the same people that chose Bernie Sanders to be a superdelegate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #203)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 12:26 AM

348. The Silence is significant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:44 AM

99. They are registered Democrats and worked in the party for years...they work at Fox...

so now where people work is an issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:48 AM

101. They are registered lobbyists for newscorps

Big difference. If their vote wasnt worth hundreds of times more than an average primary voter, it wouldnt matter. Alas, thats not the case. Glad this crap is nearing its end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #101)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:52 AM

105. OMG

This person who ran for office as a Democrat and is a long time donor must be kicked out!!!!! Sarcasm...in case you missed it.

"One of the lobbyists is Joanne Dowdell, who’s registered as a federal lobbyist for News Corp., where she’s senior vice president for global government affairs. Dowdell ran for New Hampshire’s House seat as a Democrat in 2012 and is a party donor."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #105)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:01 PM

109. ROFL

The only people I have ever seen object to super delegates are the Bernie Sanders people and the spinoff organizations that came later. Largely, they don't know what they are talking about.

Sanders and his followers need to concentrate on helping, not criticizing, for the upcoming primaries. If they want to criticize, let them criticize trump and his antics. They need to get over their purity crap and help GOTV. This non-issue is a distraction. We do not need anything distracting from the upcoming primaries.

Why aren't they criticizing republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #109)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:45 PM

135. Sanders will never do that but his followers can be educated, maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #109)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:52 PM

137. The Democratic Party is ending superdelegates

I for one, am not criticizing the Democratic party for that. Others,apparently are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #137)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:54 PM

139. That has not happened yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #139)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:55 PM

141. It is a decision they are leaning towards and making clear is more likely than not.

They have already eliminated most of their superdelegates and tied the remaining to the votes of the states they represent.That's effectively getting rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #141)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:58 PM

143. What a shame, if that happens.

I hate to see us cave to pressure from purists and non-Democrats. The system is in place for a reason, and it works.

I am going to talk to both of my senators, and to the Democratic representative in my adjoining district, whom I support financially and with my presence at her events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #143)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:59 PM

144. Why criticize the party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #144)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:14 PM

151. WTF are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #137)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:12 PM

220. When did they say that they are ending superdelegates?

Considering it and having done it are two very different things.

After all Bernie Sanders became a Superdelegate, so not everyone thinks that they are a bad idea.

Well, at least all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 09:51 AM

365. The GOP doesn't have supers but they have winner take all primaries which are less Democratic in

my opinion than those based on percentages...but you will end up without a clear nominee in an number of cases if you lose supers...you need a certain number to reach the nominee threshold, and it has happened in the last two cycles that both nominees needed supers to put them over the top...there could be a bitter battle over the nomination if we don't have some mechanism to make sure one candidate can win the nomination within the system...no one except Sen. Sanders and some of his followers ever had issues with supers who vote for the candidate with the most votes. So, I see no need to do away with supers and believe under our current system, it could lead to chaos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #109)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:55 PM

140. I enthusiastically second this post. Look to where the super delegate scolding is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #140)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:57 PM

142. I for one raised thousands for Hillary and canvassed for her regularly

...with my wife. And yes, superdelegates are bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #142)


Response to murielm99 (Reply #109)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:20 PM

229. I am so sick of them...really. I would never vote for any Our Revolution candidate

in a primary...I would vote for a yellow dog in a general ...but if the GOP wins this epic battle, it will be because of folks like this who attack perfectly good Democrats and are fans of but one person as far as I can tell... I won't no part of this...wasn't 16 shitty enough for these folks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #229)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 01:19 AM

353. I agree.

And if Our Revolution endorses someone, I don't want them. If I have no choice, if they are the only Democrat, I will vote for them, but I won't support them. That is, I won't give them any money, phone bank, walk, etc.

There is no revolution, kids. There was a right-wing coup, aided and supported by an adversarial outside country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #353)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 08:05 AM

355. And the coup causes some to think that if only we ran a progressive...well first of

all Clinton was a progressive and second. Russ Feingold lost...some never examine the situation logically using facts. We need to accept moderates or we will never regain a Senate majority. The constant war between election reality and pure ideology has cost us much needed victories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #105)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:13 PM

150. She was not elected by Democratic voters. She should not be a delegate.

 


: a person acting for another: such as
a : a representative to a convention or conference

U.N. delegates from African nations

The nominee netted a handful of delegates in the state's caucus.

b government : a representative of a U.S. territory in the House of Representatives
c government : a member of the lower house of the legislature of Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delegate

The origin of the word:

delegate (n.)

late 15c., from Old French delegat or directly from Latin delegatus, past participle of delegare "to send as a representative," from de- "from, away" (see de-) + legare "send with a commission" (see legate).

delegate (v.)

1520s (early 15c. as a past-participle adjective), from delegate (n.). Related: Delegated; delegating.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/delegate

Who chooses the superdelegates? In other words, whom do they represent?

Not the voters. Not grassroots Democrats.

No. Some self-appointed elite that fears losing control of the Democratic Party to new candidates, new ideas, a new movement.

These super-delegates are one of the major reasons that Democrats lose so many elections and seem to be such a stodgy, old Party of the Past.

We should not have super-delegates in the Democratic Party. Not at all. No place for them in a Party that represents the people and not entities like Fox News.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:47 PM

174. Your whole degrading description of her isn't even remotely accurate.

She is an African American woman active in Democratic politics. She IS the base of the party. How dare you tell her she doesn't belong. She is not a "some self-appointed elite that fears losing control of the Democratic Party to new ideas, new candidates....." You keep typing platitudes that promote one man's losing campaign. Why keep denigrating Democrats with falsities. It's divisive, and the tired labels are absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:14 PM

221. You seem to be confused about how delegates get to be delegates.

Delegates to the national conventions are selected at the state level, according to rules and formulas determined by each political party's state committee. While these rules and formulas can change from state-to-state and from year-to-year, there remain two methods by which the states choose their delegates to the national conventions: the caucus and the primary.


https://www.thoughtco.com/how-party-convention-delegates-are-chosen-3320136

Bernie Sanders served as a Superdelegate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:23 PM

234. She is quite remarkable and has run for office and donates and as every right to be a delegate.

Bernie Sanders is a super delegate you know. Spare me there is but one man and his followers who object to supers...Obama beat Hillary in spite of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #234)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:23 PM

235. I oppose any and all super delegates.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #235)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:29 PM

301. Including Bernie Sanders? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #301)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:39 PM

305. silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #301)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 01:18 AM

352. Can I answer for/in place of her?

🙂

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #235)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:12 PM

317. Bernie Sanders is a super delegate.

As others have noted. Is he big money elite establishment? That’s how you characterized super delegates..,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #317)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 12:12 AM

347. WAS. Is no longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #347)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 09:46 AM

363. Good point. He is not a Democrat after all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #235)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 08:34 AM

360. And that means what...I like super delegates. It means we never get a 'Trump' and no

candidate can ever act like a jerk when he/she loses and go to court and all the other crap that could happen. You have an opinion and my opinion is different than yours...but the fact that you think your opinion alone should carry the day is interesting and somewhat alarming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:12 PM

279. Who chooses the super delegates? First, regardless of what you say....

....many ARE chosen by the voters.

All Democratic Governors, Representatives, and Senators, who were chosen BY THE VOTERS, are super delegates. Some are Democratic Mayors and state Democratic elected officials.

Each of those above actually were chosen by the voters.

Still others are ex-elected officials (like Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, even Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (oh, the horror! ) ) and others are state Democratic leaders like the chairs of the 50 state Democratic Committees.

The remainder are "chosen" in accordance with rules set up BY the Democratic National Committee long before any of the conventions are held. None are chosen by "self-appointed elite". You really should check into the actual roster of the super delegates.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #279)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:51 PM

310. All delegates to conventions that nominate candidates should be chosen in elections.

 

No super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #310)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 12:30 AM

349. This is not how the process works in the real world

No delegates to the national convention other than super delegates are elected by voters. The only delegate to the national convention who iare elected by the voters are super delegates such as the members of the CBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #349)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 12:33 AM

350. No super delegates.

 

The delegates are selected but the number of delegates per candidate in the primary is the product of the election.

The super delegates are on top of the delegates that really represent the votes of the voters.

No super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #350)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 01:18 AM

351. The real world is a nice place

I like living in the real world and i like understanding how the process works.

You do realize the national delegates are selected based on political considerations and not by the voters. Each and every delegate under Democratic party rules are able to vote for any candidate at the convention. The process works because in the real world campaigns carefully vet delegates. Each candidate has approval rights over the delegates allocated to that campaign.

I support the CBC snd the current system in large part because I understand how the process works in the real world.

The county/senate conventions for Texas take place in two weeks. I will be at my senate district convention because I like living in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #310)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 09:49 AM

364. All delegates to conventions that nominate candidates should be chosen in accordance....

....with the rules set forth by the party.

If that's not what someone wants, they should join the party, get involved, and work to change the rules. Or, find another party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:04 PM

329. Your posts show that you have no idea as to how the process works in the real world

No grassroots voter get to vote for any delegates to the national convention in almost all states. I have been through the process and helped two other people go through the process in 2008 and 2012. No national delegate is elected by any grass roots voter in the real world. The primary vote is used to allocate delegates between the candidates in almost all states. In the few states that you vote for delegates, those delegates still have to go to their state convention to select the eventual national delegates. There is no state where grassroots voters vote for national delegates in the real world. I hate to break it to you but my election as a national delegate in our senate district caucus was helped by my county cutting a deal with another county where we supported their National Convention candidate and that county supported our two National Convention candidates.

You seem to object to money playing a role. The fact that I was a maxed out donor helped me in my campaign to be elected a delegate. In most states, a significant portion of the national delegates are not selected by caucuses but by the at large process. The people selected by the at large nominations committee tend to be major donors or state party officials who were not super delegates. I sat next to a state senator and a state court district judge at the national convention. Texas had 12 state Senators who were democrats and all 12 were selected as national delegates. One of these state senators will likely be one of two new Latina congresswomen from the state of Texas. The at large nominations committee also selected a number of major donors.

The process does not involve grass roots voters every voting for a delegate. At best the grass roots voters determine the allocation of the delegates and the actual delegates are selected in a long process where it helps to be an elected official or to be a major donor.

I know how the process works because I actually attend state conventions and work inside the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #329)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:05 PM

330. Have you ever been a super delegate?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #330)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:08 PM

332. How is that relevant? LOL

I know seven or eight super delegates. Do you know any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #105)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:03 PM

216. And she's on the board of GREEN AMERICA!!! She must be a real sleaze...



About us
Our Mission

Green America harnesses economic power—the strength of consumers, businesses and the marketplace—to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. We provide the economic strategies, resources and organizing power to make lasting, systemic change on a range of critical issues faced today, including renewable energy, climate change, fair trade and labor, safe food, and responsible banking.


https://www.linkedin.com/in/joanne-dowdell-2249556/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #216)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:17 PM

225. Oh...well that is it ...green causes too...why why she must go of course. (Sarcasm)

Seriously people. Super delegates are party faithful...many could take a lesson from these didicate people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #216)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:17 PM

253. Status quo!!11 Establishment!! 11 Oligarch!!11

What buzz words am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #101)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:50 PM

210. So, why do you think Bernie Sanders agreed to be a Superdelegate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #99)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:21 PM

230. Actually, no she doesn't "work at Fox," that seems to be wild speculation by some here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #99)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 10:20 AM

366. I guess the person who sweeps the floor or cleans the bathrooms at Fox....

....and happens to be a Democrat should be disqualified from being a delegate and drummed out of the party.

And look at James Carville - he should be tarred and feathered, he SLEEPS with a right wing republican! The shame!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:45 PM

206. Oh look - here's that NewsCorp "FoxNews" Lobbyist.... She's evil, this one...




https://www.linkedin.com/in/joanne-dowdell-2249556/


Board Member

Company NameGreen America
Dates EmployedFeb 2016 – Present Employment Duration2 yrs 2 mos
LocationWashington D.C. Metro Area

Mission
Our mission is to harness economic power—the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace—to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society.

Vision
We work for a world where all people have enough, where all communities are healthy and safe, and where the bounty of the Earth is preserved for all the generations to come.

What Makes Green America Unique

We focus on economic strategies—economic action to solve social and environmental problems.

We mobilize people in their economic roles—as consumers, investors, workers, business leaders.

We empower people to take personal and collective action

We work on issues of social justice and environmental responsibility. We see these issues as completely linked in the quest for a sustainable world. It’s what we mean when we say “green.”

We work to stop abusive practices and to create healthy, just, and sustainable practices.
Our democratically-constituted board is elected by our members from our consumer, business, and staff stakeholders. Green America operates as a collaborative and participatory workplace, where staff members reach consensus through democratic decision-making processes on key strategic issues for the organization.

Green America: Growing the Green Economy for People and the Planet
Green America: Growing the Green Economy for People and the Planet
This media is a link
News Corp
Senior Vice President Global Government Affairs
Company NameNews Corp
Dates EmployedJul 2014 – Present Employment Duration3 yrs 9 mos
LocationWashington D.C. Metro Area
Delivering extraordinary experiences for our customers and consumers is at the heart of who we are.

Volunteer New Hampshire
Vice-Chair, Board of Directors
Company NameVolunteer New Hampshire
Dates EmployedOct 2012 – Jun 2014 Employment Duration1 yr 9 mos
LocationConcord, NH
New Hampshire Humanities Council
Board Director
Company NameNew Hampshire Humanities Council
Dates Employed2013 – 2014 Employment Duration1 yr
LocationConcord, New Hampshire
Dowdell for Congress
Candidate for Congress
Company NameDowdell for Congress
Dates EmployedApr 2011 – May 2012 Employment Duration1 yr 2 mos
LocationNew Hampshire
Democratic candidate in New Hampshire's First Congressional District. Race suspended Spring 2012.

Show more
Education
Howard University
Howard University
Degree NameBachelor's degree Field Of StudyPublic Relations/Journalism
Dates attended or expected graduation 1976 – 1980

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #206)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:18 PM

227. That's it, I am fucking DONE with the RUSSIAN ASSETS posting on DU.

Why has nobody APOLOGIZED for attacking this person?

FUCK FUCK FUCK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #227)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:18 PM

254. Shame on them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #254)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:21 PM

256. Guardian is now reporting Reddit full of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #256)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:27 PM

257. Reedit. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #206)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:02 PM

299. And there's this "evil lobbyist" as well...

"Harold McEwen Ickes was White House Deputy Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. He is the son of Harold L. Ickes, who was Secretary of the Interior under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ickes is a graduate of Stanford University (1964, AB, Economics) and Columbia Law School. Ickes was a student civil rights activist in the 1960s and took part in Freedom Summer. He has practiced labor law for many years in New York City.

He has been active in Democratic politics for over forty years, working in the presidential campaigns of Eugene McCarthy, Birch Bayh, Morris Udall, Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson. In 1989, he was a senior advisor to David Dinkins' successful campaign for mayor of New York City. Ickes is a registered lobbyist with the Ickes and Enright Group."

People have to stop taking The Intercept seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #206)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:15 PM

318. Funny how an employee of an organization becomes a "lobbyist" for that organization.

Forget that she's a member of the DNC who was chosen by the members of Democratic Party of the state of New Hampshire.

Almost as funny as someone here a while back, when he learned that I once worked in the IT department of a New York bank, called me a "bankster"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:01 PM

313. What delegate was a lobbyist for News Corp?

Do you know how many of the 4763 delegates at the convention were active lobbyists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:20 PM

116. Most superdelegates are elected officials and party leaders

The Congressional Black Caucus is strongly opposed to the elimination of superdelegates and I agree with their position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #116)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:16 PM

153. Superdelegates are not needed.

 

The Congressional Black Caucus will be just fine without them as long as they concern themselves with representing voters and listening and responding to voters -- which they do very well.

The superdelegates are a crutch, a way to put a thumb on the scales. They are not democratic. They represent the fear of the status quo about change. That is what is holding our Party back.

No to super-delegates. They make our conventions jokes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #153)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:23 PM

155. You are totally and utterly wrong

The CBC represents an important demographic in the party and I agree with the CBC on this. Do you know any members of the CBC? I do. They are not happy about this proposed change.

African American voters and African American women voters are key elements in the base and are far more important compared to the people who want to get rid of super delegates.

If you are concerned about democracy, lets get rid of caucuses. I know that one candidate did well in caucuses and so does not want these institutions eliminated. Caucuses need to go. I participated in the Texas two step in 2008 and there are ways to game the system that are so very very undemocratic.

BTW, I was a delegate to the National Convention in Philadelphia. I got to talk to Beto who was one of our super delegates at that convention. I disagree strongly with your positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #155)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:59 PM

159. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

We don't need superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #159)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:18 PM

165. But we do need African American voters

Why do you want to run them off? Do you know any members of the CBC? African American votes and African American women votes in particular are an important part of the Democratic base in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #165)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:01 PM

181. We need African-American voters.

 

Where were they in 2016?

If they had voted for Hillary like they did for Obama, Hillary would have won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #181)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:27 PM

197. So lets alienated these voters by adopting this rather dumb plan

Again, why do you want to run these voters away from the party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #197)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:42 PM

265. How about more people that worked in the trenches being allowed to be delegates

instead of elected officials. Might actually reward those who work tirelessly on the local levels get the opportunity. The state parties could appoint as many POC as they want to be delegates instead of a handful of politicians

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #265)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:08 PM

278. Few people in the trenches are pushing for this change

These proposals are being advanced by some splinter groups who supported a certain candidate. We are fortunate that these proposals will require a two-thirds vote at the DNC and I hope that the CBC and its allies have the votes to block this proposal.

I value the CBC far more that the people pushing this proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #181)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:58 PM

312. Actually...

They were voting.

So how did African-Americans vote in the 2016 election? Despite President Obama telling black voters that he would take it as a "personal insult" if they didn't cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton, 2016 black voters didn't coalesce behind Clinton the same way they did Obama, with Clinton earning 88% of their vote (to Trump's 8%) as compared to Obama's 93% in 2012. That being said, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans did show their support by voting for Clinton, particularly as compared to white Americans, who ultimately won Trump the election by giving him 58% of the white vote.


https://mic.com/articles/159402/here-s-a-break-down-of-how-african-americans-voted-in-the-2016-election#.WJp4dRywq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #159)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:56 PM

178. Do you support getting rid of caucuses and open primaries?

Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #178)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:59 PM

179. Caucuses yes. Open primaries yes.

 

End them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #179)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:02 PM

183. I don't understand your response, sorry.

Do you support getting rid of both of those?

I do support super delegates, and the fact that they are important to the Congressional Black Caucus matters a great deal to me. But super delegates have never been used - in my opinion they function as a safety net - while both caucuses and open primaries have caused a great deal of mischief. The caucuses in my state were a bloodbath and most of my Hillary-supporting friends declined to go because we remembered being bullied at the 2008 caucuses. It's an open wound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #183)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:21 PM

193. I support getting rid of caucuses that serve as primaries and super delegates.

 

I do not favor getting rid of caucuses when the term means Congressional Black Caucus or women's caucus.

We don't have open primaries in California. It should be easy for a voter who is undeclared as to party to get a Democratic ballot in the primary. In 2016, the primary polls were very confused. Too many people walked out with provisional ballots. We should encourage voters to vote in primaries. That increases the likelihood they will identify as Democrats and vote Democratic in the November election.

I do not approve of caucuses that substitute for primaries. They may be inexpensive but they lend themselves to corruption in too many cases.

I think we agree on all but the super delegates. I think they stop change and progress in the Democratic Party. That is why I oppose the super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #193)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:44 PM

205. I'll tell you why I support super delegates.

I have spent years, years in the trenches and my mother, who is in her 80s, has spent many more (and she still goes to weekly meetings). The fact that there is a contingent of people who don't want to reward party loyalists who've stayed with the party through all the ups and downs is bothersome to me.

While I naturally support efforts to bring in new blood - always - I do not and cannot support efforts to marginalize people who've provided decades of service to the Democrat party. I honor those who slog to ill-attended meetings in bad weather, who run as placeholders for a primary seat in elections they know they can't win, who've addressed thousand or millions of envelopes, who patiently listed to all comers running for office who want party endorsements, who've picked up a telephone with shaking hands to call on behalf of a candidate, who've knocked on doors, or circulated petitions. I honor those people, and I support efforts made by any party to do the same.

I dearly wish the GOP had super delegates, too, because they could have probably prevented a Trump nomination had a real functioning Republican worked hard to shore up support ahead of time and prevented the nonsense that went on (they could also ditch the winner-take-all system in some primaries while they're at it).

I strongly support a candidate's being able to make alliances and enter the field having created them, with some delegates in the bank, versus just swooping in as a latecomer - and sometimes not even a member of the party - thinking that you deserve to be handed a nomination on a platter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #205)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:48 PM

208. As one who has worked for years in the trenches, I love your post

We need to reward party loyalty. I ran and was elected as a delegate to Philadelphia in large part due to years of work inside the party including running voter protection efforts and a program to train persons to help voters get ids to vote in Texas.

Super delegates are elected party officials and elected members of congress. I am friends with a couple of CBC members and I support these members being super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #208)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:56 PM

214. Thanks. I feel very passionately about it.

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm tired of non-party members (and I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of that) swooping in to reap the spoils of people who've worked hard for a long time, and of diminishing their work.

The sight of a small group of committed older woman getting shouted down by people at a 2008 caucus will stick with me forever. These women supported Hillary on issues and, I think, because she represented something more to them, a validation of their years of service, and they were treated with ineffable rudeness. I left that caucus in tears and a total stranger ran up to me and comforted me. I'll never forget my own neighbor, who I'd liked up till then, screaming about Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress and getting all red in the face.

From what I heard, the 2016 caucus was a million times worse (and to add insult to injury, they held it on Easter weekend). I declined to go. I sent in an affidavit and called the state party to complain about caucuses!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #214)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:45 PM

239. In 2008, Texas had the Texas two step which was a combination of primary and caucus

I was part of the Obama voter protection team and attended the training for the caucus portion. There are so many games that can be played during the caucus system that it is sad. I really want to get rid of caucuses.

The DNC in 2016 told Texas to get rid of the Texas two step and the process in 2016 was cleaner other than some disruptions at the state convention. I do not miss the Texas two step and I strongly believe that we need to rid of the caucus system.

I am going to continue to work hard on the ground. We are making slow but steady process in turning Texas blue. According to demographic trends, Texas will be blue in 2022 or so. Trump may well accelerate the process.

Keep on being active. I find that working with local candidates to be worthwhile. I also have fun working on voter protection issues including spending several hours in the local county war room on primary day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #239)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:03 PM

248. Washington had primaries in 2008 and 2016 that didn't count, but they had to hold them by law.

Both times the results were markedly different from the caucuses. In 2008, Hillary just got a higher percentage than she did in the caucuses, which, as I've stated, were unpleasant (and inconvenient). In 2016, Hillary won the primary and there were two to three many times the participants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #248)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:38 PM

262. I saw that on the news

Hopefully these states will get rid of caucuses since they have primaries already

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #262)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:50 PM

271. They're attached to them for historical reasons, but they've changed.

My first one was in the 1990s, when I caucused for Tom Harken. We sat in a room at a school, there were about nine people, we represented about four different candidates (it was a crowded field that year), did several rounds of voting, and allotted our delegates. People from different precincts must have been in different rooms.

2000 was pretty much a shoe-in for Gore, and I didn't go.

2004 was, as someone described it, a "raucous caucus". It had significant more participation than previous ones. It was lively, and everyone was united against Bush. But the seeds of discontent were sowed. Kerry won our caucus fair and square, but the Dean people were not having it. They'd actively go to other precincts and try to change peoples' votes after each round. Later, on the radio call in shows, they'd call in and claim that the results were rigged and Kerry didn't win, but that his supporters were changing the count! That certainly wasn't the case at our location (and really doesn't gibe with how anyone Kerry supporter I knew would act), though the Dean people were clearly the loudest and most upset.

Both times, the district and state party planks were voted on, one at a time.

In 2008, all hell broke loose. There were now 1000 people at one location (remember I told you the first one I went to had 9?) They were mostly there to vote for Obama, and had no intention of voting by rounds. They also wouldn't sit still and vote for the party planks, as decreed by rule. Now, generally, they were nice people, clearly positive and excited about their candidate, but they were new to the party process and didn't want to deal with the tedium of sitting there while people spoke for or against the planks they'd worked so hard to draft. While I felt most of the voters were sincere, I didn't like their lack of focus on the other elements of the caucus, which goes beyond candidate selection. The people running our precinct lost control and ended up skipping that part of it, which still bugs me. Well, it's water under the bridge, I guess. I, too, hope they change it, and apologies for the long tale of woe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #271)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:05 PM

275. Texas was attached to the Texas two step but the DNC killed it

The Texas two step was a wonderfully complex plan that was fun to watch and participate in. I was at a training session when one of the trainers who had come to Texas straight from the Iowa caucuses was expressing amazement.

Hillary Clinton won the 2008 Texas primary portion of the process but President Obama ended up with a few more delegates due to the Texas two step. There were credentials challenges that could have affected a number of delegates that became moot when Hillary Clinton endorsed President Obama a couple of days prior to the Texas state convention. I had planned to go to the convention for the credentials fight but got a reprieve.

After the concession by Clinton, the fight was on the delegation selection process and that got nasty. There were far more delegates who wanted to go to Denver than there were slots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #275)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:14 PM

280. I've been to state conventions and they ARE fun.

My mother got named a delegate to the 2004 convention, mostly as a reward for her long years of service, and had the time of her life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #280)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:24 PM

284. I have been to several state conventions

This year's Texas state convention is in Fort Worth and all of my kids have told me that they are not going to go to Cowtown. We have county/senate district conventions on March 24 and I will be there with some resolutions.

For the 2014 convention, I got stuck on the Rules Committee which was 8 hours of dealing with lawyers. I hope to avoid that assignment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #205)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:30 PM

302. +1000 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #155)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:02 PM

160. Caucuses and superdelegates should both be eliminated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #160)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:21 PM

168. I agree with you on caucuses but I support the CBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #168)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:27 PM

169. undemocratic methods should not be included in our primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #169)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:36 PM

172. So letting elected party officials be delegates to the national convention is offensive

I was a delegate to the last national convention. The super delegates in our delegation were mainly members of congress and the state party chair. Why is allowing elected officials become delegates offensive or undemocratic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #172)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:37 PM

173. They were not elected as superdelegates to give a vote for their candidate

you, however, were elected. Your role was democratic and theirs was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #173)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:48 PM

175. You do realize that under party rules, I could change my vote at any time

Under party rules even pledged delegates like myself could change their vote at any time. The campaigns handle this by vetting all persons selected to be delegates. I was on the committee that vetted delegates for my state senate district. Under party rules, each candidate and campaign had the right to approve or reject delegates even elected pledged delegates. The people who got approved by the Clinton campaign were long time Democrats who have been active in Texas democratic politics for a long time. One of my fellow delegates complained that I got to be a delegate after only 12 years in state party politics and she had to be active for over 20 to get a shot.

At the national convention, I had some Sanders delegates curse and call my daughter (who was my guest) the C-word and told her that she was a traitor to her generation for not getting me to change my vote.

The process of being elected as a delegate is very political and it helped that I was a maxed out donor. You may consider that to be democratic but I understand the system and find that claim to be amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #175)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:00 PM

180. Well there would be

more uproar if you changed your vote -and you would likely be removed as a pledged delegate than if an unpledged superdelegate changed his vote -who was never elected to pledge his vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #180)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:13 PM

187. By what process would that pledged delegate be removed?

Not familiar with that policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #180)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:33 PM

200. Read the party rules

Once selected, I could not be removed for switching my vote. The final ballot for voting is done at the caucus breakfast and after you sign the ballot form, you cannot be removed.

I was part of the Texas delegation where we had a group of Sanders delegates walk into the delegation breakfast meeting and demand that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders despite our pledge. Not one member of the Clinton delegation changed their vote despite this demonstration.

I am still active in party politics and was in the local county voter protection war room on primary day. People who are long time party workers and activists do not change their minds simply because some other delegates attack and call their daughter the C-word because she would not get me to change my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #200)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:04 PM

217. Well, I guess that we shouldn't believe everything we think.

But that won't stop some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #217)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:21 PM

231. I ran and was elected as a delegate to the 2016 convention and so I paid attention to the rules

The party rules are important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #169)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:09 PM

186. Why do you think that the Congressional Black Caucus would want "undemocratic methods?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #186)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:43 PM

267. Well aren't they all super delegates themselves ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #267)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:47 PM

270. So was Bernie.

And no, they aren't all superdelegates.

Do you know why the BCC supports having Superdelegates? What do you think their motives are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #270)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:55 PM

272. Well if it isn't about giving up their status , it might be this.....

Is it because they think the state parties are racist and won't appoint African American's as regular delegates?

or something else....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #272)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:00 PM

274. So you don't know, but you are willing to assume certain motives

which seem to be "self serving."

Interesting.

Perhaps reading something about them, rather than speculating, might be helpful:

https://cbc.house.gov/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #274)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:07 PM

276. Are you a member of the CBC?

Please tell me what the motives are of all 38 members?

You asked what their motives were and I gave an answer; since I am not one of the 38, all I can do is speculate what it could be.

Nothing in your link specifically mentions why they support super delegates, so I don't know the purpose of posting it. Since I am not a delegate myself, I'm not sure why it is "self serving" to oppose a system where certain elite delegates votes are considered so much more important than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #276)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:24 PM

285. You were asked why you thought the Caucus supported keeping Superdelegates

And instead of of saying, "I don't know" or running a quick google to actually find out, you simply replied that they "are all superdelegates, aren't they?"

No one asked you about individual, personal motives of the members of the CBC, but you seemed to imply some pretty quickly, along with some displaying a mistaken assumption about their actual participation in the process.

That's what's pretty interesting.

That's why I posted the link to information about them.

And no, I'm not a member of the CBC.

I also have no idea why you think that I said that opposing Superdelegates is "self serving." Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in this thread?

I hope that clarifies things for you.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #155)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 03:42 PM

378. obama would never have won the nomination w/o caucuses

is that who you are complaining about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #378)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 06:51 PM

392. It was Obama and the DNC that eliminated the Texas Two Step in 2016

I attended the training by the Obama team from Iowa and there are ways to game the caucus system. We need to get rid of caucuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #153)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 03:52 PM

212. Talking about how the Black Congressional Caucus doesn't "understand" the system.

Why does this not surprise me whatsoever?

Bernie Sanders was a Superdelegate last year. Why do you think he would do such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:16 PM

223. Because any outside agency could literally take over the Party.

 

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Just because you agreed with the outsiders in 2016 doesn't make it any less dangerous. Next time it could be someone like Roger Stone running the show instead of Bernie Sanders.

And don't pretend that sort of thing couldn't happen. That's exactly what could happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSmarterDog (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:02 PM

110. Agreed

We really need to stop playing games with votes (even in the primary). This means dropping the electoral college. One person one vote. States have no more rights than the population within. Just my opinion. Other opinions may vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #110)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:25 PM

118. The we should eliminate caucuses which are very undemocratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #118)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:30 PM

122. Yes please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #118)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:12 PM

149. Agreed

Neither should be in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSmarterDog (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:05 PM

250. A very bad idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:01 AM

2. Good Idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:23 PM

283. Yes, glad to see they're following Bernie's lead on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:03 AM

3. Good idea when it was instituted. Good idea to drop totally now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:12 AM

4. Super delegates are really a non factor

Bernie fans complained that the superdelegate process was rigged against him.

In 2008, Obama & Edwards fans complained that the superdelegate process was rigged against them.

Obama went out and won the votes in 2008, though. Bernie did not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:15 AM

6. If a non factor, then why keep them?

It's certainly bad optics for a party that is supposed to embody democratic ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:47 AM

17. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:21 AM

61. One reason is so we don't get a trump. The repugs wish that they had had super delegates.

Reduce the number but keep some protection against a trump-like candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:38 AM

66. That's baloney -- We are not Republicans

And the Republicans got who the majority of their voters wanted. The vast majority of Republicans still support him. Limits on democracy (the Electoral College) made Trump President and handed many of the seats in Congress (gerrymandering) to the Republicans. I do not trust anyone who thinks they are above the test of true democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #66)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:46 AM

70. They support him because he's what the party came up with

It could happen in our party too. In fact it without Hillary's super delegate early lead, a non-Dem outsider could've gotten our nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:48 AM

72. And how did that work for us???

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:52 AM

73. We got the candidate who got the most votes in the primary and the general.

If you want to talk stolen election we can go there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #73)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:02 AM

75. Sure if you want to get way off the subject. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:14 AM

81. The subject was super delegates, right? Hillary got her early lead in them because Sanders...

didn't bother to campaign much in the southern primaries—seems those POC voters were deemed not that important.

Bad misread.

I say reduce the number or super delegates (make sure POCs are well represented among them), but keep some to guard against the rise of a trump-like candidate, which was the original intent of the super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:23 AM

88. And were off with Bernie Sanders and race (again)

I think there are much better ways to protect minorities than to establish an entrenched class of Democrats who are not obligated to vote in a way that protects anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #88)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:27 AM

92. Did you not get the part about making sure POCs are included in a reduced amont of...

super delegates who will, if needed, protect the Democratic Party against the rise of a trump-like candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #92)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:37 AM

95. Frankly, if we get a Trump-like

Candidate who can carry enough regular delegates to possibly win the nomination, I'm not going to stay a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #95)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:45 AM

100. I don't think that will happen. The super delegate structure was designed to protect against that.

I say reduce the number, with POCs represented, but keep some protection in place, especially in the open primary races where anyone, repugs included, can skew the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #100)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:55 AM

106. I just think there has to be a better way

to protect the minority vote without the "establishment' appearance of super-delegates. It's becoming an albatross around the the Democratic Party's image.

Every time I try to get my progressive (and very liberal) son to join the party, he points at Super Delegates as evidence that not unlike the Republicans, the party is really all about maintaining a privileged class. I'm not saying he's totally correct, I'm saying it should be abolished to show we are a party of inclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #106)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:52 PM

138. Your suggestion is to abolish it? Super delegates are not there to protect POC voters, they're...

there to protect the party from trump-like campaigns and non-Dems having a say in picking our candidates.

IMO there has to be some mechanism in place, at least until we get rid of undemocratic caucuses and open primaries (I'm good with a reduced number of super delegates).

Democrats and Democrats only should pick our candidates.

Independents are independents for a reason. They want to vote for any party they chose—Greens, Democrats, repugs, Libertarians, whoever—that's fine with me but as non-party members I don't think they should be helping to pick our candidates in our primaries.

Try explaining to your son the real purpose of super deletes is not to grant a privileged status to a few but to protect the party from a destructive candidate like trump.

And it actually worked in a way 2016 whether some want to believe it or not. Clinton got not just more votes than an outsider/non-Dem, she got more super delegates as well because the non-Dem didn't think the southern primaries, where many POCs voted, where important enough to campaign vigorously in. Not a smart move as it turned out. POCs are a big part of our base.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:47 AM

71. Exactly, protection against a disastrous Trump event.

Also, although our superdelegates have always supported the will of the majority, in 2016 a candidate our voters had decided against asked the superdelegates to overthrow the majority choice and appoint the candidate. This scheme had 0% chance of succeeding, of course, but that someone might even try it was alarming.

Those are two sides of the same coin, of course. How to give party leaders some control against Trumps without having too much more power than the party electorate?

We have some good people who are supporting some needed changes. This is not all about minority factions trying to create a path to victory over the wishes of the majority, and there are some sensible things we can do.

Last I had heard, DNC members, party officeholders and leaders would still get to attend the convention as voting delegates. But the DNC members would have to vote for whatever candidate their own states chose, thus substantially reducing the number of superdelegates. Thus, the 2016 scheme would be even less possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:26 AM

91. Knew this argument would be made.

I say BS -- our party would never pick a Trump or anyone even slightly similar to him in character, motivation or ability. Red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #91)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:36 AM

94. What do you think almost happened in 2016? A non-Dem who but for not campaigning...

in the early southern primaries (POC votes were deemed not that important), missed out on super delegates.

An attempt later on in the campaign was made to have super delegates switch their votes because said candidate made a mistake in not campaigning for sourthern POC votes.

I say reduce the number of super delegates (make sure POCs are well represented among the new number) but keep that protection against usurper candidates who attack the party and want to change party procedures to suit their campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #94)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:52 PM

242. That candidate did campaign in Texas even though he did poorly

One of my friends worked on his campaign in Texas. Some resources were committed but that candidate got little or no traction with key groups who make up the base of the Texas Democratic Party. There were a number of groups on the ground in Texas for that candidate because I ran into them. They were active and loud but were not successful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #242)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:19 PM

255. Texas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #255)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:30 PM

258. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:28 PM

120. Because key demographics groups like the CBC want to retain super delegates

The CBC is strongly opposed to the elimination of super delegates and the CBC is a key element in the base of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 02:16 PM

164. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:25 PM

286. Bingo!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:33 AM

36. In 2008, top political allies of Obama made the point that the superdelegates would respect and not

Overturn the choice of the pledged delegates. This includes Kennedy and Kerry who were repeatedly asked because Massachusetts went for Clinton. Additionally, there was a large block led by Pelosi who declared they would back whoever got the majority of the pledged delegates.

The talk about super delegates rose in the coverage if super Tuesday when Obama matched Clinton. The Clinton people then spoke of the ability of superdelegates to swing a result if the pledged delegates were close. They also spoke of the popular vote that never existed a national level in the primaries and greatly underweight primary states.

Note BOTH sides were giving politically acceptable answers that benefitted their side. Consider that Obama HAD to make the argument on winning the pledged delegates because there was no likelihood that the superdelegates would "take it away" from Clinton. It was a sign that the Clinton team knew they performed less well than planned on Super Tuesday that they brought up the idea that the superdelegates could give the nomination to a better candidate especially if she won the "popular vote"

In 2016, I was surprised that the Sanders people did not argue the issue exactly as Obama surrogates did. Arguing simply that it was unfair OR the super delegates could at the end give the nomination to Sanders was not politically smart at all.

I think the controversy in 2016 has made the entire concept of superdelegates with the ability to act as a bloc to change the results of the voters is toxic. I think this even though I was NOT surprised that the DNC officials would prefer Clinton, who most likely knew and many had likely worked for her or her husband over Sanders, who was not a party member and was far from the center.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:03 AM

76. Yes, the problem was 2016. Very interestingly, in 2008

Hillary did get the majority vote -- barely! -- but lost the delegate count, a situation which required her to consider if she had a duty to try to woo some superdelegates who'd switched to Obama back. But as a woman of principle and good sense, and with concern for the wellbeing of her party and her nation, she endorsed Obama and thereafter campaigned to elect him without reservation.

When we voters choose good, principled candidates, even an imperfect system will nevertheless work well for us because the candidates themselves will have the probity and judgement to do what is best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #76)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:06 PM

111. Except the majority vote makes no sense in the primaries

It is adding apples and oranges and thus down weights the primary states. If you tried to correct for that by weighting the states, you would get something near the pledged delegates.

The "popular vote" was never spoken of in 2004, 2000 or before. The first mention of it was in February 2008, when Clinton did less well than her team planned on superTuesday. They hoped to have her so far ahead then that she would have been the almost certain nominee. Instead, Obama and she were nearly tied. In addition, he was better positioned for the next group of states. Her team had been so confident in the I think 23 SuperTuesday states, they had not done much for the next states. Obama's team was fighting for a long shot victory and they knew every contest would matter.

This is why as soon as results came in, the Clinton team first saw they could lose the race. One response was to socialize the idea that the superdelegates could opt to give the nomination to the slightly behind in pledged delegates candidate. They simultaneously pushed that it could be justified if she won the popular vote. That discussion was to normalize that idea. They knew she very likely would have more votes because she won many big primaries.

However, it was a sign her team KNEW she was potentially going to lose. Note neither Gore or Kerry who won easily ever spoke of the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #111)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:26 PM

119. All teams know they can potentially lose. Obama's

and every other professional politician were running their own numbers.

The point is, in 2008 two good, honorable politicians handled a dicey situation with respect for the voters, the process, and democracy. They met the test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #119)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:38 PM

128. Of course

The point was the degree of confidence. From many post election sources, the Clinton team saw the 23 contests on one day as an effective barrier to anyone beating Clinton, who had far higher name recognition. Many accounts suggested that her team thought no other candidate would get the 15 percent needed to get delegates in California.

In reality, after the Kerry and then Caroline snd Ted Kennedy endorsements and the collapse of Edwatds, Obama got many delegates, even as HRC won.

Reading news accounts written at that time, you need to read between the lines. Of course, no one came out and said they were concerned, but the talk of superdelegates and popular vote showed a new concern that they might not have an easy time getting the pledged count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #111)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:34 PM

304. Clinton also talked about what might be called the electoral college map.

Looking at the primaries and caucuses through the prism of the electoral college and what it would do in the GE.

And she brought up the popular vote too. I thought both were reasonable points to make.

Remember, there have only been so many elections since the people started choosing the nominee in 1972. Most have been decisive wins. And when Mondale took the nomination in 1984 nobody suggested that he was automatically entitled to the nomination because of a PD victory.

So the sampling size is very small.

In any event, 2008 made it perfectly clear that HRC would not get the nomination if she didn't win the PDs. Bernie was never in danger of that happening. This was nothing but an attempt to belittle Hillary's candidacy and to cultivate a narrative that she was the choice of the establishment, rather than the choice of the voters.

And it was Bernie who tried to get SDs to give him the nomination. Can you imagine the vitriol that would have been spewed against HRC in 2008 if she had stayed in the race a month after the voting stopped and Obama had been declared the winner? She was skewered for not letting it be known that she would be suspending her campaign until 20 hours after the voting had concluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #304)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:38 PM

346. It is true there were not many elections after 1972 when the rules changed

2008 was by far the closest and basically showed the super delegates would not tilt the nomination even to a very entrenched politician over a relative newcomer. I think one obvious reason is that it would cause the party to fracture. Consider the anger over the DNC emails in 2016 that were far more innocuous preferences. 2016 was more like 1984 rather than 2000 or 2004 where the winner got over 50 percent of the pledged delegates long before many contests happened.

I think she made a clear effort to make the case as you note on the popular vote, the EC, and BILL even floated HRC as a VP, who would be almost a co president in the last months of the primaries. She conceded ONLY when it was clear she had nowhere near the support needed to get the superdelegates to support her.


I agree that she would have been attacked had she continued beyond when she did. There were some from her team who continued to suggest things could change, though not Clinton herself. Sanders claimed he was working to impact the platform.

I disagree with both the popular vote WHICH DOES NOT REALLY MAKE SENSE or the argument that it should be looked at through the EC map. In fact, doing that correctly means not looking at anything but the swing states because either Democrat wins all solid blue states and loses all solid red states. In 2008, Obama did better in many swing states. (Oddly, in 2016 Sanders, who had no reasonable claim to winning, did better in many swing states. ) The point is NEITHER were the rules for getting the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:56 PM

244. There were substantial efforts made to flip even pledged delegates by the Sanders people

I was a Clinton delegate to the national convention. We had sanders delegates attempt to flip us and one group of sanders delegates screamed at and called my daughter (who was my guest) the C-word because she would not try to convince me to change my vote. We had a group of Sanders delegates walked into the Texas delegation breakfast and demand that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for sanders. It was not a fun time. No pledged Clinton delegate changed their vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #244)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:07 PM

277. Pretty stupid derisive effort

By the convention, Clinton had a substantial edge in pledged delicates and was clearly the favorite for the vast majority of elected officials. There was no compelling reason to overturn the choice of the voters.

When you say "Sanders people" who do you mean? People working for Sanders? Pledged delegates? I was speaking of statements before the primaries were over and as I said I thought them politically stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #277)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:21 PM

282. I mean members of the Sanders delegation to the national convention

Members of the Sanders delegations screamed at me to get me to try to change my vote. Screaming at a lawyer is not effective. What made me mad was that these idiots yelled obscenities at my daughter and called her the C-word and told her that she was a traitor to her generation. My daughter ignored these idiots but I am still angry about the way that members of the Sanders delegation treated her. As a parent, I have trouble forgiving this conduct.

A group of thirty or so members of the Texas Sanders delegation marched in during the Tuesday breakfast meeting of the delegation and demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders. There was some fireworks due to this event. One of the older sanders delegates (a good union man) went around and apologized to the other delegates for this demonstration.

My daughter came back with some good swag from the convention and had fun at the meetings at the convention center. Planned Parenthood passed out birth control items with trump's face on them. She got a guest pass for the first night and got to hear Michele Obama speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:27 AM

53. I wonder what difference it made when after a couple of primaries

it was announced that Clinton had won since she had all the superdelegates and it was impossible for any of the other primary candidates to catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:57 AM

57. they announced that Clinton had won in 2008 as well

because she had such an overwhelming early lead in super delegates. How did that turn out again?

Barring an epic collapse or withdrawal for health issues (or that indictment that was coming "any day now" for 2+ years), Clinton wrapped up the nomination after the first Super Tuesday with just conventional delegates. Since Democratic delegates are almost always apportioned by percentage of the vote, all those southern states where she won big huge margins gave her an almost insurmountable lead. (Republicans have several "winner take all" states)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:20 AM

86. That alone wasn't why it was extremely unlikely for

others to win. She worked her butt off for years to become a great, electable candidate, and none of the others had. Virtually all Democratic professionals across the nation supporter her for good reasons, and almost none did most of the others for good reasons. Bernie started out with 0 support among his colleagues as you'll recall, the people who knew him best.

Another "wonder" is what difference the press's extremely distorted horse race coverage made. Clinton's advantages going in were overwhelming and Sanders never really came close, but a profitable horse race was created by fooling the electorate into believing it was much closer than it was. The very day there were no longer enough delegates unwon for Sanders to win, the NYT and many other media soft-pedaled that information. The NYT instead claimed Sanders got a surge from the previous day's vote in normal header type. The article below that with a header in tiny type disclosed the reality. Really!

Bad as that was, even more egregious was that voters were never informed that a significant portion of the vote for Sanders was Trump supporters acting as spoilers. Some were conservative members of the Democratic Party (in conservative KY or WV, I forget,exit polls showed these spoilers at 37% and 44% of all those who voted for Sanders!). Others were conservatives voting Democrat in open primaries. But all admitted they had no intention of voting for Sanders if he won and would vote Republican.

How many good Democrats supporting Sanders would have voted for him if they'd realized he had no chance of winning the Democratic primary, and that the numbers looked even worse for winning the GE? Hillary supporters of course would have voted for Sanders, but a significant percentage of his own primary voters would have gone to Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:22 PM

233. I think you may not be remembering things as they happened. "All the superdelegates?"

Bernie was a superdelegate, so clearly no, not "all the superdelegates."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:02 PM

247. I guess I missed that announcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:13 PM

252. Those claims are false

Clinton had a very large lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday. That lead never went down by any meaningful amount. I voted in the Texas primary and I had a friend who ran/worked on Sanders campaign. Sanders devoted people and resources to Texas and yet Clinton got 65% of the Texas delegates. With other Super Tuesday wins, this was a material lead in pledged delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:39 AM

67. Big difference in media coverage of SD's in 2008 and 2016

In 2016, media included the SD's in the running total of delegates needed for the nomination from the very first primary results, crafting a narrative of inevitability and an insurmountable lead for HRC.

In 2008, IIRC, the MSM highlighted only the totals of state delegates earned during primaries or caucuses, for the most part ignoring SD totals until just before the convention. This crafted a narrative that Obama had a fighting chance, and IMO, improved turnout for the later primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:14 AM

82. As I said above

Barring an epic collapse or withdrawal for health issues (or that indictment that was coming "any day now" for 2+ years), Clinton wrapped up the nomination after the first Super Tuesday with just conventional delegates. Since Democratic delegates are almost always apportioned by percentage of the vote, all those southern states where she won big huge margins gave her an almost insurmountable lead. (Republicans have several "winner take all" states)

Oh, and superdelegates pledged to Clinton was an issue for Democrats even before the Iowa Caucuses in 2008. it became bigger again later in the process because Clinton was narrowly behind Obama for the last 2 months of the campaign and some Clinton people brought up the idea of superdelegates overturning the results. After Super Tuesday 2016, Clinton was ahead by over 150 delegates, while in 2008, while Obama was only ahead by 27 delegates after the equivalent Super Tuesday.

By the end of March 2008, Obama was only ahead by 30 delegates, while in 2016, Clinton had extended her lead to about 200 delegates at the end of March. That it was a race was a creation of the media because it didn't look at the facts of what was happening - Sanders netting +14 delegates in Indiana, Rhode Island and West Virginia and doesn't come close to offsetting Clinton just winning Maryland and netting +25 delegates (60 for Clinton, 35 for Sanders)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:29 PM

121. Created a narrative or did not 100 percent buy the Clinton narrative?

BOTH were in the media after Super Tuesday. The Clinton team argued that the winner of pledged delegates would not necessarily win. The Obama surrogates, especially Kerry, argued that they could not see the superdelegates putting their finger on the scale against an acceptable candidate who won the popular vote.

Both arguments were heard and the superdelegates did what Kerry predicted, not what the Clinton team spoke of. The first sign that would happen is when many elected politicians said they would go with the winner of the pledged delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:04 PM

249. Virtually all the media reports I saw separated them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #249)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:51 PM

295. Not in 2016

While the text of an article may have made mention of how many in the delegate total were SD’s , the standard practice in 2016, which was quite striking to me, was to report the aggregate delegate totals in “horse race “ fashion, with a bar graphic showing how close each candidate was to crossing the “finish line” to cinching the nomination, with MAYBE and asterisk noting what portion was SD’s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:23 PM

300. "a narrative of inevitability and an insurmountable lead"

Along with magnifying every single possible "crooked Clinton" narrative, no matter how ficticious.

The fallout has followed a familiar pattern: Republicans seize on an inaccurate report — often one they pushed into the media in the first place — and Democrats point to what's wrong in the story to undermine what's right with it. Pretty soon, the narrative emanates out from the original source of the reporting to conservative and liberal television pundits and radio talk-show hosts, ensuring that the details, and the truth, will be casualties of the never-ending political war over Clinton.

That is, at some point it no longer matters whether she did anything wrong or whether there's any malice or misjudgment behind her actions. Indeed, the cloud around many big Clinton stories is so thick and toxic that it's hard to get to the bottom of whether she's the perpetrator or victim of bad deeds.



https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9059953/clinton-rules-new-york-times


So, yeah, the media wasn't her friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #300)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:09 PM

334. During the general, absolutely, but the MSM wanted HRC to be the nominee

The MSM wanted a Trump vs. Clinton matchup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #334)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 08:01 AM

354. I think you are ignoring the long history of biased media coverage against HRC.

And can you tell me how "the MSM" wanted her to be the Nominee?

I'm also curious as to what media you trust. What media do you rely on for information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #354)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 10:53 AM

367. I have no blanket trust in any particular media source

I tend to get information from original source reporting, such as Reuters, AP, Propublica, occasionally WaPo. Internationally, CBC, BBC and the Guardian are pretty good. Anything I see on DU or FB that interests or concerns me, I follow back to the original source. I like some of the front pagers at Daily Kos who link back to the original sources throughout their diaries.

Other than election returns and the odd natural disaster, I haven't willingly watched US televison news either network or cable, since 9/11 / start of the Iraq War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #367)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 11:03 AM

368. So Reuters, AP, Propublica, WaPo. CBC, BBC and the Guardian

don't fall under the umbrella "MSM" that "wanted a Hillary Trump election?"

Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #368)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 11:16 AM

369. I would say WaPo is certainly part of the MSM narrative crafting machine

Especially regarding how SD's were reported/calculated in crafting the "Horserace" narrative.

The MSM's goal is to sell advertising, and maximize readership/viewers to maximize ad revenue. Horserace reporting (along with gaffe and scandal-of-the-day) is preferred by publishers/producers over substantive, issue based reporting for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:14 AM

5. WOW - A change?

 

It's about time our party starts to eliminate the corruption. Maybe more people will vote now. No one likes to play against people that have a stacked deck. Fair is fair. I think this may actually save the party. Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smitty63nnn (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:55 AM

20. except that it's not a stacked deck, superdelegates have never overturned the voters

they've always simply gone with the result created by the voters in the primaries and caucuses.

that said, that is one of the reasons i'm fine with not letting them have voting power, but the idea they've used their voting power to change election results --it just hasn't happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:13 AM

28. But they could conceivably influence turnout or who people vote for.

Once a candidate reaches the nomination threshold with superdelegates, people could feel less inclined to turn out for a primary.

And if a candidate has a substantial number of superdelegates supporting them, they could be seen as the overwhelming frontrunner before many votes are cast, and get different media coverage as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmedem (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:41 AM

39. it could conceivably do that, but it hasn't done it yet

the only thing we've seen in recent years is the superdelegates being called on to overrule the results of the primary and caucus process.

thankfully they didn't. but the idea that they could is problematic for me.

so my admittedly non expert opinion is that even this possibility and its discussion is harmful to the party and the legitimacy of the process, only the pledged delegates should vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmedem (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:43 AM

97. Femmedem, conversely 0 of Sanders colleagues endorsed him.

Almost none of the delegates would commit to him, and he asked hundreds. The people who'd worked with him for years and knew him best. Are you suggesting that democracy can only be served well by voters not knowing what people in the know think of our candidates?

I suggest that knowing who and what Democratic professionals support, and above all WHY, is a very good thing. The reasons, good and bad, why our most knowledgeable, involved people made the choices they did should always be examined before then agreeing or dismissing them as we choose.

Some people, like Smitty just now, always choose to imagine that our party is riddled with and driven by corruption. And of course, if those who care enough to spend their lives in politics don't support those people's favored candidates, corruption becomes their no-brainer answer. That's not the route to wise, informed decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #97)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:18 PM

281. No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Anyone who has worked with and knows a candidate should be free to make any endorsements or public statements that he or she wants.

But I am suggesting that democracy can be well served by the principle of one person, one vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmedem (Reply #281)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 04:08 PM

379. Seems to me you wanted to erase advantage of

good opinion that some candidates coming into campaigns have so that advantage doesn't influence voters. Should we keep the press from talking about candidates lest they inadvertently influence voters?

Femmedem: "But they could conceivably influence turnout or who people vote for. Once a candidate reaches the nomination threshold with superdelegates, people could feel less inclined to turn out for a primary."


Note that this goes both ways. Rejection of a candidate by all who worked with that candidate and by most knew something about that one was actually considered a plus by many who became ardent supporters in part because of it.

Takes all kinds. But all need information, and the freedom comes with what we all make of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:34 AM

93. Good argument for getting rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smitty63nnn (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 04:59 PM

246. This is a proposal only and has not been adopted

To change the rules, two-thirds of the members of the DNC will have to vote for this change.

I support the Congressional Black Caucus which is opposed to this proposed change. The CBC hopefuly have the votes to block this change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smitty63nnn (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 03:36 PM

377. What are you even talking about? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:16 AM

7. How are they going to accomplish one of the goals -- which was to make sure that POC

were adequately represented among delegates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:26 AM

12. All you'll get on that question is dead silence.

 

Some issues are meant to be ignored

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:57 AM

21. call superdelegates non-voting guests of the convention

this way they don't crowd out the lay party people at the local level, yet they still get invites to the convention and they don't vote.

our party is much more diverse at the elected level than in the past so it wouldn't be as bad as it was when the superdelegate system was created, but it could still be a problem obviously.

problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:43 AM

40. I dunno, maybe just select POC as regular delegates?

Want more POC as delegates, why not just select them when choosing the regular delegates?

Why is it necessary to have a separate super delegate system for that? Unless you are suggesting that the blue state Democratic party leadership is somehow inherently racist ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:47 AM

56. Winner!

State parties can, and should, consider diversity as one of the requirements for selecting their delegates to the national convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:20 AM

8. Make the Democratic party

Democratic.

All barnyard animals are equal, but pigs are more equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:26 AM

11. I agree. We need to get rid of caucuses. No question, they're the least Democratic way to choose a

candidate.

That should be a big push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:17 AM

30. YES, get rid of the damn caucuses..

NOT Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:45 AM

41. i think we should shift to primaries where they're available, though many places they aren't

we're at the mercy of states scheduling their primaries early enough for our presidential nominating process.

in that case, especially in red states, some of them simply won't schedule a primary for early in a presidential year, certainly not just because Democrats insist on it.

in those cases we'll be stuck with caucuses and also for Iowa because the caucus process has a huge amount of support in that state, i don't think that one's going away for quite a while.

but for state with primaries that don't use them to select delegates --Hawaii, Washington state, etc., the primary should be used, it's fairer and allows more people to participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:09 AM

59. You mentioned Washington

We have a caucus early on that selects delegates and our state party pays for it ourselves. The primary is non-binding because of the aforementioned scheduling issues.

I’ve been in primary and caucus states and both have their pluses and minuses.

The time it takes is hardly a factor if you have to physically go to a polling station to vote as that can take an hour or more as well.

I do agree it is a long, drawn out process that many don’t appreciate or have the patience for but to a certain extent isn’t that the problem?
Our options are to make people stop and think or mindlessly check a box (in far to many cases see congressional approval ratings vs. incumbency rate) and walk away.
There has to be a happy medium. A much longer conversation than I’m willing to type or many would be willing to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:31 PM

123. Caucuses are not democratic and are easy to game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:17 AM

60. Not necessarily

I do agree the caucus process is a long, drawn out process that many don’t appreciate or have the patience for but to a certain extent isn’t that the problem?
At least a caucus can get someone to stop and think and even be converted to another candidate’s side. We need a national voting holiday, which would help a lot with time availability and streamline the process a little and ensure military and other absentee voters have input.
To many see voting as just something they do, almost mindlessly checking a box (in far to many cases see congressional approval ratings vs. incumbency rate) and walk away.
A much longer conversation really but I still think caucusing serves a valid purpose, it just needs tweaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:51 AM

104. It saves the state money - that's the purpose.

And it allows a small group of very enthusiastic and loud group of people to bully others in the room to choose their candidate, even though a majority of residents don't support that candidate.


Low voter turn out

It’s common knowledge that voter turnout in America is lower than most nations, but compare the numbers of voters who vote in primary systems to those who vote in caucus systems and it’s hard not to conclude that the process of the caucus system fosters lower voter turnout. In the all- important Iowa Caucus, heralded for its importance in deciding who ends up winning the nomination, a mere 16.1 percent of the voting eligible population took part in the last presidential election, whereas the equally important New Hampshire primary election had a voter turnout of 53.6 percent.

Fringe groups control the process

With so much time being required to fully participate in caucuses it would make sense that those that choose to participate are those that are most passionate about politics. And those who are most passionate often have views that differ from the general populace. With such a small amount of the voting populace participating in the system it is easy to conceive that a small radical group would be able to commit the time needed to pick delegates and candidates whose viewpoints would appease their own, but likely differ from the views of the majority of people. While some would argue that it is their reward for taking the time to participate, looking at the numbers of those who participate in primary elections it can be fathomed that the caucus system itself discourage the average voter more so than the primary system.


https://www.ksl.com/?nid=599&sid=17982638

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #104)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:17 PM

114. You link only re-enforces my points

We need a national voting holiday.

Sorry, the second point about “fringe groups” is garbage. It’s criticism is that caucuses are only attended by passionate voters so we should do away with them is faulty reasoning. Because people don’t care enough about who gets elected we should penalize and criticize those that do? That’s a seriously jaded perspective.
I’d rather the people that actually care make the choices than the jaded and apathetic. It’s that very perspective that creates that awkward dichotomy of super low approval ratings for congress but 97% incumbency rates and people that do little to nothing but spend 30 years in DC.

I’m not saying the caucus process is better or worse. As I stated, it needs tweaking and we need a national voting holiday. The thing is we need to start playing toward our better traits and discouraging the bad traits. Meaning we should not be so jaded about the political process that we cater to the apathetic and clueless voter.

The caucus process ensures that, at least at some level, we have active and involved voter participation and we need more of that and not less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #114)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:20 PM

117. I think it's worse.

And at the very least we need to transfer all of them to "firehouse caucuses."

Currently caucuses disenfranchise voters, and actual caucus participants who are not young or healthy enough for marathon sessions, have jobs that are hourly or otherwise don't allow for time off, don't have transportation to the caucus location.

And yes, they give fringe candidates a leg up if they can get mobilize caucus delegates who are not in the above categories.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #117)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:39 PM

131. Clarification

Currently caucuses disenfranchise voters


I helped run a couple of caucuses here in Washington (just over the last several years but a lot more experience with primaries) and I definitely didn’t see that.
I think the time and process is a factor, I get that, but so is standing in a line for two hours to vote.
I think that is unfairly loaded language as I can attest that everyone at my caucus had a right to talk and vote how they wanted.

For the record, I am perfectly fine with a firehouse caucus as long as we get a national voter holiday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #131)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:42 PM

133. I'm not arguing against a voter holiday... why do you think I am? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #133)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:07 PM

148. I dont think that you are necessarily

But at least some of the problems you referenced are not inherently the fault of the caucus process per se but more a symptom of the jaded and apathetic approach we take toward voting, of which a national voting holiday is a key component to fixing it.

The objective to fixing this problem should be to get voters engaged and to care about who they send to DC or their state capital.
Im not saying you are against that only making a broader point that the problem isn’t caucuses, the problem is how we do voting in this country period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #114)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:04 PM

315. A federal election holiday only applies to federal employees.

State holiday applies only to state employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #315)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:23 PM

319. A federal holiday is a federal holiday

Meaning a holiday no different than Presidents Day or Thanksgiving

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #319)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:36 PM

321. Exactly which is why making voting a holiday doesnt solve anything.

Private employers are under no obligation to give those days off to employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #321)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:33 PM

338. Were obviously talking to cross purposes

Turning that Tuesday into a national holiday is definitely part of the solution.

Yes, just as employers are free to ignore Independence Day or Thanksgiving, they could just as well ignore this one. That really isn’t the point. It would likely make it things easier and possibly let their employees have it as a holiday and make it that much easier to get out and vote with a little less stress and worry.

It is better than nothing which is what we have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:26 AM

52. I agree with that. Primaries with a nice, long voting period and easy drop-off ballots would

encourage more voters to actually fill out their ballots and turn them in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:27 PM

289. Now THERE'S a concept!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:22 AM

9. I guess they've decided to ignore the Black Congressional Caucus.

What does that say about the proposal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:35 PM

124. Sanders collides with black lawmakers

The CBC is against this proposal https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. "The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process."

The letter — which was also sent to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz — follows a Wednesday CBC meeting where members discussed for over an hour the impact of eliminating superdelegates on the African-American community, according to CBC Chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.).

"We passed a resolution in our caucus that we would vehemently oppose any change in the superdelegate system because members of the CBC might want to participate in the Democratic convention as delegates but if we would have to run for the delegate slot at the county level or state level or district level, we would be running against our constituents and we're not going to do that,” said Butterfield. “But we want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents."

The opposition to open primaries is based on the fear that allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in Democratic primaries would dilute minority voting strength in many places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #124)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:36 PM

125. Not going to see many Black Caucus Members from Vermont. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #125)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:39 PM

130. That may explain a great deal as to why one group wants to get rid of superdelegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #130)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:42 PM

134. Yep. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #130)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 09:40 PM

396. I think that it does. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #124)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:40 PM

324. I'm glad the CBC also addressed the abuse of the open primary system.

We had a Republican who primaried a Democrat in my county this year. (The candidate in the Republican primary ran unopposed.) If my state did not have closed primaries, we could have hafd two Republicans running in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:37 PM

158. The snowflakes are winning.

That's what this says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:23 AM

10. This move has the lingering stench of Tad Devine.

 

Paul & Tad ~ global electioneers with a well written script

Makes me cringe to watch the intentional erosion of democray's protections and the ever convincing polished spin it takes to pull off the subtle shift away from one of the few firewall's we have left.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wwcd (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:28 AM

13. ...

Very much so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink