"...If this were any other country, we’d be quick to call this a CORRUPT ELECTION."

[RiverLover]

February 26, 2016
Common Dreams
Antidote to DNC Bias Against Bernie Is Massive Grassroots Turnout
by Howard Friel

Before supporters of Bernie Sanders vote in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, their candidate will already be behind Hillary Clinton in the participating states.

This is because the superdelegate count in those states already favors Clinton over Sanders as follows: Alabama (3 to 0), Arkansas (5 to 0), Colorado (10 to 0), Georgia (11 to 0), Massachusetts (17 to 1), Minnesota (11 to 1), Oklahoma (1-1), Tennessee (6 to 0), Texas (18 to 0), Vermont (4 to 3), and Virginia (11 to 0).

Even in his home state of Vermont, where Sanders holds a 75 point lead in the polls, he is behind in the superdelegate count.

In Massachusetts, where Sanders leads in the polls by 3.5 points, Clinton leads in superdelegates by 17 to 1.



.....Who are the superdelegates, exactly? A recent New York Times’ editorial identified them as “party bigwigs—712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors, and the like.”

But that’s not the whole story. The majority of superdelegates are actually DNC members. And the DNC superdelegates (432) outnumber senators (46), members of the House of Representatives (193), governors (20), and “distinguished members” (21) combined. In fact, all DNC members—that is, the unelected political apparatus of the Democratic party—are voting superdelegates.

Lee Fang at The Intercept has identified a number of DNC superdelegates: one works for the Clinton campaign and is a former lobbyist for a private prison group and for TransCanada to build support for the Keystone XL pipeline; another works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation; three DNC superdelegates, writes Fang, are officials at “a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record.”

Fang also reported that the same firm “was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage,” and that the firm had “previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.”

Another DNC superdelegate is a lobbyist registered to work on behalf of “the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.”

This is a small number of DNC superdelegates (although Fang lists more). But it’s difficult to find out what the other 400-plus DNC superdelegates actually do—either inside or outside the DNC.

Clinton’s huge advantage in superdelegates reflects a playing field tilted against Sanders by party officials who have a say in both the superdelegate vote and the conduct of primary elections, especially caucuses.

“One of the main differences between a caucus and a primary is that a caucus is organized by the political parties, whereas a primary is organized usually by the state board of elections as a regular election would be.” This statement comes from a 2016 New Hampshire state public service announcement, and it may explain why two of the first three momentum-generating primary elections are caucuses.

In the Iowa Democratic caucus, six of the seven Iowa state DNC members were listed as Clinton supporters, with one uncommitted. How is that a fair distribution of DNC officials?

In Nevada two of six DNC members were listed as Clinton supporters, with one supporting Sanders and three uncommitted. That might seem a little fairer. Then again, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a superdelegate, was also officially listed as uncommitted.

Yet, one day after the Nevada caucus on February 20, a veteran Nevada political reporter wrote a piece for USA Today titled, “Harry Reid Delivers for Hillary Clinton: Nevada's ‘Neutral’ Power Players May Have Saved a Campaign and Changed History.” It describes Reid’s interventions on Clinton’s behalf in Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, and which was the county that tipped a close caucus election to Clinton.


(I'm adding a discussion of the rigging of Nevada on Morning Joe~)

In short, caucuses, as opposed to straightforward elections, permit the party apparatus to exercise more influence. And the DNC—which features dual-role DNC members as superdelegate voters and election apparatchiks—clearly favors Clinton.

Perhaps the best way to literally see and hear the undemocratic essence of the DNC’s superdelegate voting system is to view two must-see short videos of party leaders directly involved in currently overseeing (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) and bringing (Harry Reid) this arrangement to the Democratic party.

In a televised interview with Fox News on February 12, the DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz, was asked to explain the fairness of the disparity between the actual votes in Iowa and New Hampshire that together favor Sanders and the delegate count afterwards favoring Clinton.

Wasserman-Schultz’s response was evasive and incoherent. (The relevant portion begins 1:50 into the interview.)

Wasserman Schultz: We Separate Superdelegates From The Voting Process So Party Doesn't Interfere With Voters

Likewise, in a televised interview with Reid, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked a similar question. Reid was as evasive in his response as Wasserman-Schultz was in hers.



It seems that the indefensible influence of the superdelegates is literally indefensible.

As of this writing, Sanders and Clinton are tied in the delegate count due to actual votes. Sanders and Clinton are essentially tied in the two most recent national polls reported at Real Clear Politics. And a February 23 poll by Reuters had Sanders ahead of Clinton nationally by six points.

Yet the tsunami of Clinton’s undemocratic superdelegate support has emerged as the dominant force in the election.

Recently, with media feedback, it has functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy for a Clinton victory, while sweeping away the legitimate votes for Sanders.

If this were any other country, we’d be quick to call this a corrupt election.


The only available antidote is a massive turnout for Sanders on Super Tuesday and in every primary state afterwards.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/26/antidote-dnc-bias-against-bernie-massive-grassroots-turnout

Not very Democratic of the Democratic Party......

[daleanime]

1. Massive K&R.....

[newfie11]

2. The founding fathers wouldn't recognize this government today

I'm not sure anyone can be elected without being obligated to various corporations, MIC, etc.

Our news media/papers are owned by a few corporations and choose what the public is allowed to see/hear.

Gerrymandering has eliminated votes as well as the strict rules of identifying who you are in order to register to vote.

This does not indicate a heathy government/country. If trump wins that will finish off America.

[RiverLover]

5. This isn't what they had in mind, that's for sure.

Trump isn't taking SuperPAC money, and he's speaks to conservative populism, but that doesn't mean if he were elected, the powerful interests pulling the strings in the other 2 branches won't corrupt him. He seems easily corruptible. Unlike Bernie.

[GummyBearz]

38. "He seems easily corruptible"

To me he seems like he is going to either be easily corruptible as you say, or he is going to be the type that wants to just impose his will on everyone. Which may mean telling anyone who tries to pull his strings to go eff off (good), but at the same time, the things he says that he will impose on every day people are pretty ugly (bad). I guess its bad either way

[thesquanderer]

11. I'm not sure the founding fathers would be upset.

Not all of them anyway.

They seemed to be fine with blacks and women being unable to vote. And you often had to be a land owner.

Giving power to the rich white males is an American tradition.

[Adrahil]

41. You're right. They would have been appalled....

... At the idea of primary elections where people actually had a voice at all.

Primary elections did not even exist until the 20th century. Before that, candidates were selected by party bosses and/or a convention with delegates representing state party apparatuses.

[1939]

61. If you read the correspondence leading up to the Constitution

They thought that the Electoral College would be a nominating process and that the House would elect the president from the candidates offered up by the EC.

[Chicago1980]

102. They wouldn't recognize that black people are free or that women could vote either.

[Vinca]

3. We've never had an election where they've made such a difference and, now that we have,

it's clearly VERY undemocratic. Even the Republicans got rid of them which should be disturbing to Democrats.

[RiverLover]

4. Very disturbing. Along with us becoming the Party of Wall Street & War, can the poison

of Moneyed Interests controlling our govt & the sham of calling our system a Democracy be any more apparent?

Our votes, our principles, mean nothing to them.

And when the republicans are more democratic than the Democratic Party, that's a WAKE UP call if there ever was one.

[EndElectoral]

6. Well, the superdelegate issue is not very democratic of the Democratic party. Never has been.

[scscholar]

80. So you want to take the voice of the Young Democrats of America?

By taking their two delegates. Taking their two delegates.

[TM99]

98. Why should an organization have delegates.

It is not a person. Oh wait, yes to you neoliberals corporations ARE people. I forgot.

[beac]

7. My favorite BS line about why these people get to be superdelegates:

"They've worked hard for the party for years!"

Uh huh, and so someone who hasn't had time to "work for the party" because they've had to hold down three shitty jobs, or have been caring for a sick family member, or are a single parent because their partner got fed to the for-profit prison system or any number of a thousand reasons that people don't have time to "work for the party" will only ever get to cast a lesser vote.

One person, ONE VOTE. Anything else is NOT DEMOCRACY.


And feeling the best thing for America and democracy is keeping the vile and inept DWS out of any future Cabinet is just one more reason I will not be voting for Hillary on Tuesday.

[ybbor]

10. Exactly!

I totally agree with everything you said.

Super delegates are an elitist insurance chip to play when the peasants begin to show unrest.

They are the electoral college of the Party.

[ybbor]

8. Let's let it all play out

Let me start by saying DWS is a horrible leader of the DNC!

Since she took the reins, the party has seen historical loss of seats from the US congress, to state houses, to the local school boards.

As has been stated multiple times here, the super delegates don't mean anything until the convention. When Bernie arrives with more votes, no matter how close, they will go to him. If not, all hell will break loose.

It's 52-51 currently and I assume it will still be tight after today.

Stay calm people. Bernie is rowing against a strong current, but we have a shitload of oars in our boat. He's doing very well.

[RiverLover]

13. Thank you.

It IS an incredibly strong current we're going up against. Astounding in strength, really.

But there are plenty of us out there. I saw 3 Bernie bumper stickers yesterday, and so far this year I haven't seen many of those for any candidate....we're not just on DU like so many here like to pretend.

[ybbor]

28. You're right

I'm the only one I know who reads DU, but 90% of the people I know are for Bernie, the rest are repugs.

We are not a bubble, we are a wave!

[sprts]

100. This is true

Superdelegates are by definition uncommitted delegates. The media counting these in current news (propaganda) totals is a lie. The superdelegates will not over rule the legitimate voters.

[kristopher]

9. Let's not forget suppression of Sander's message by media - fm Melissa Harris Perry

...I have stayed in the same hotels where MSNBC has been broadcasting in Iowa, in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina, yet I have been shut out from coverage. I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation’s top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars. I have hosted a weekly program on this network for four years and contributed to election coverage on this network for nearly eight years, but no one on the third floor has even returned an email, called me, or initiated or responded to any communication of any kind from me for nearly a month. It is profoundly hurtful to realize that I work for people who find my considerable expertise and editorial judgment valueless to the coverage they are creating....

https://medium.com/@JamilSmith/melissa-harris-perry-s-email-to-her-nerdland-staff-11292bdc27cb#.uqzk4xkdf

[RiverLover]

12. Dissension ag corporate rule is muted at MSNBC, again....She's my new hero, btw.

Thanks for including that on this thread, kristopher. It's a great example of what is going on here.

So sad that just attempting to have the will of the people matter, it's aptly referred to as a "revolution". That's how far we've fallen.

[tularetom]

78. I don't see anything in that email about Sanders

I'm not disagreeing that his message has been suppressed by the media. This seems to be a personal issue between the godawful MSNBC network and one of its employees.

If she is claiming that she is being stifled for supporting Sanders, she isn't very vocal about it.

[Enthusiast]

14. Kicked and recommended!

[lark]

15. Super delegates have always been a part of the process, this isn't anything new.

What is new is the deliberate ignoring of Bernie's message and the DWS personally destroying the party from within to get her person nominated. DWS is what's different and awful and needs to go. Under her leadership all Dems do is lose and lose big. Partially this is because she often promotes Repugs over Dems. DWS is nothing but a corporatist and the worst of the worst. Get rid of her, put in a more even handed person, one who will fight for all Dems and not rig the rules for one person.

[1939]

67. Blame the McGovernites

Usually the so-called "Super Delegates" were included in the state party delegations to the convention as a matter of courtesy. In other words, they reserved seats for the super delegates in the normal elected group. The McGovernites did a forced march through the caucus states and grabbed all of the seats for themselves and froze out the party establishment and a lot of senators and governors wre offended by the slight. McGovern really didn't do all that well in the overall popular vote from states with primaries (not as many back then). He was virtually tied with Humphrey and Wallace but he had a massive number of delegates from the caucus states.

If you want to eliminate super delegates, take over the local party caucuses and the state conventions and elect your own DNC reps and change the rules. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the interior workings of a political party.

[Petrushka]

111. Super delegates haven't "...always been part of the process...."

Here's a video explaining not only the process but, also, how it came about and why:

[lark]

143. OK, not forever, but since 1982.

That's still 34 years so has nothing to do with anybody currently in the power structures, including the Clintons. I don't like it either, not one bit, but it's not a slam or action taken against Bernie, it's just the party being part of the mainstream and not acting in the best interests of we the people.

[NurseJackie]

16. It seems that the time to make changes to the rules would be BEFORE the game begins...

... not while it's in progress. I'm guessing that all the candidates knew all the rules that were already in place before vying for the party's nomination.

These efforts (and complaints) are coming much too late in the process to help Bernie.

[ybbor]

29. Agreed, no one wants to change the rules now

But in the future, if the DNC survives this primary season intact, that may want to reconsider.

[Rilesome]

53. And her standing firmly with monied interests and war profiteers,

Will be her downfall. Should she win/steal the nomination, the voices of real progressives will be heard. Be it write ins, low turnout, etc.. In the end the choice between her, and the other republicans is really no choice at all.

[NurseJackie]

56. Yeah, whatever.

[Jezza]

64. ...define gullible

gullible
or gullable
[guhl-uh-buh l]
adjective
1. easily deceived or cheated.

[consciouslocs]

88. Whatever

[Jezza]

66. righton.

[Petrushka]

114. The important thing, IMO, is that many (if not most) voters don't know or understand . . .

. . . the super-delegate system and how it can be used to rig an election.
If and when the reality dawns on them . . . ? ? ? . . . sorry, there's a glitch in my crystal ball.

[Dustlawyer]

17. If you had that problem in 08 and now again, don't you think it's time to fix it?

Not all of the Superdelegates switched to Obama, they don't have to. This has set us up for big trouble if Sander's wins a close one until Superdelegates take it away! This would be very bad for the Democratic Party and might give us a loss in the General.

[GummyBearz]

44. That situation would definitely lead to a loss

Can you imagine the preferred candidate by the majority of democrats NOT being run as the candidate for presidency?? How many registered democrats wouldn't show up to vote in the general? And were talking party affiliated people, not swing voters.... it would be a totally lopsided 49-1 state victory for the republicans, and after the fact the DNC probably wouldn't reconsider their strategy because sitting around with thumbs up their asses is their specialty

[INdemo]

18. Could we call on UN observers to over see and observe this election why not?

in Iowa the State Democratic Party would not audit the vote count even after 14 precincts audited show a gain for Bernie Sanders
so why didnt they audit the other 1664?

In Nevada there were several cases of improprieties but went unchecked..In many precincts many were allowed to caucus without registering and their eligibility checked.

So here we are in So Carolina a given to Hillary but it seems though in non caucus states Sanders does well

[hack89]

20. The UN does not care how political parties pick candidates

Nor should they. The general election, on the other hand, is a different matter.

[peacebird]

19. Massive K&R!

[hack89]

21. Until Bernie wins enough a delegates for the super delegates to be a factor

This op is somewhat premature.

[gregcrawford]

22. The very existence of Super delegates...

... is brazen and unforgivable corruption in itself. Talk about having a thumb on the scales! I despise DWS and all the Third Way traitors who do the bidding of scum like Blankfein, et al.

[KPN]

86. Not really ... not when

The media includes them in the running delegate tallies following each state primary at a minimum; some include all of the projected (committed) delegates in their running tallies. Numbers that show that a candidate is losing have an effect; they serve to discourage and dampen enthusiasm. It makes the upstream paddle harder.

[gregcrawford]

90. Are you serious?

"... they see to dampen and discourage enthusiasm?" Please tell me you forgot to use the "sarcasm" smilie.

[TheFarseer]

23. I think the party leaders should get a vote

One vote like everyone else. Go wait around at a Caucus for 2 hours Debbie.

[cantbeserious]

24. Sadly - All Too True

eom

[OhZone]

25. Like I've said for a while, some people were going to be Alex Jones fans at the end of this.

Oh well.

[Petrushka]

121. Oh, no-o-o! Didn't think of THAT. My brother & other kin in SC would agree and . . .

. . . tell me, "Told ya so!"

[scottie55]

26. The Ultimate Insider Represents Insiders Not The 99% Thus.....

This is what we got.

Almost all new income goes to the already wealthy.

The real people who control our government for, by and of the rich.

The people get screwed again, and the filthy rich get more, and more, and more.

Welcome to Amerikkkkkka.

[RiverLover]

30. +1

Very well stated!

[fredamae]

27. Well, I have yet to meet a Single

individual from Any political affiliation who does Not believe the whole thing Is Corrupt...My question is Why Aren't We Calling "them" out? Why, for Decades have we meekly Accepted this fact and Voted for "them" Anyway? Why are "we" too timid to stand up for Ourselves collectively??????

[RiverLover]

32. That's what the "revolution" is. We're trying!! /nt

[GoneFishin]

40. The M$M media.

[davidthegnome]

31. It IS a corrupt election.

Problem is, most of the American people know it. That's why so many are so cynical in regards to our political system - and don't know enough, or care enough to vote. They sniff the air, so to speak. Corporate funding here, super delegate there, for profit prison industry, oil companies, Walmart, Monsanto, big, big money... to the winner goes the spoils.

It was bad long before citizens united, but now it's just ridiculous.

I hope Sanders gets that massive turnout, I'm doing what I can... but I'm still getting a lot of apathy from people in my age group. Even otherwise intelligent people, who tell me that the system is rigged (it is, but not yet as badly as they think), that it doesn't matter how many votes Sanders gets, because Clinton has the super delegates.

Do we honestly think that someone so representative of the 1% as Clinton is going to support campaign finance reform? Why would she do that? The corporate money pouring into her campaign, the money she makes just giving speeches... I think she knows who's paying her way forward.

The other day I started a thread asking why a Clinton victory was considered to be inevitable by many of her supporters. Now I think I get it. Super delegates...

Political reform is so desperately needed in this Country. Sanders is trying, but the money and influence, the corporate power united against him is pretty damned overwhelming.

That said... he's not giving up - and neither am I, nor are his supporters. We'll keep this thing going until the political process reaches it's conclusion, one way or another. If, however, the super delegates determine the nomination... I will have no choice but to abandon the democratic party, as it will no longer be a party of actual democrats, that is in any way democratic.

We cannot allow money to trump humanity.

[RiverLover]

34. Great post! No, we're NOT giving up just yet. /nt

[valerief]

33. If voting was legit, they wouldn't let us do it. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. Damn.

That one's going to stick with me a while. It hurts...because it's true.

[Fuddnik]

35. Our corporations and their political lackeys have corrupted every other country.

It was only a matter of time until they went for the mother lode.

No Hillary. No How. No Way!!!!!!!

[RiverLover]

93. From your lips....

Please.no.hillary.

Too much corruption, too much status quo. Off shoring of American jobs, monopolies in virtually every industry, industry lobbyists writing their own rules, Privatization, Charter Schools, unending war for corporate profit, retail jobs replacing manufacturing jobs but don't pay enough to live on, mass incarceration for profit, more cuts to social welfare programs as triangulation, corporations not paying their taxes, unregulated & rampant fracking, propagandized corporate media, crushing student debt & not enough jobs for the graduates that pay enough to cover the debt....

And it will all continue under the cover of nice speeches designed to keep up the charade of us vs them & those speeches written by talented wordsmiths we will never see will belie the republican policies enabled by a Democrat in Name Only.

[retrowire]

36. yep, only a landslide will show they can't do this. nt

[SoapBox]

37. Ugh...DWS has GOT to go.

[pangaia]

39. This is the pure evil against which Bernie Sanders is fighting.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. "Wasserman-Schultz’s response was evasive and incoherent."

Color me shocked...

[UglyGreed]

45. The Exposure of the Vast Left-wing Establishment

I have to admit that I have learned so much more about America and our political and social realities thanks to this election year and Bernie Sanders. It's almost like I am some teenager seeing things the way they are for the first time instead of a 55 year old man who should have known some of these realities a long time ago.

What my eyes have been opened to this election season in a way they have never been opened before is the depth of the truth in what Sanders says about our system being deeply rigged. Let's be clear, I am not saying as a black man originally from the South that I did not understand long ago that American society was definitely tilted in favor of whites, men, straights, the wealthy, the attractive and Christians for example. The reality of the privilege inherent to those groups has always been obvious. But I guess this year, as I have watched the way the entire system has piled on I have come to realize in a much deeper way that those in power, even those with a little bit of power, will do everything they can to maintain the system.

Of course we all know this was and is the reality when we are talking about the 1 percent who own and control mostly everything there is in our society. And we always knew the political ruling class would do what they could to stay on the side of power, including conspiring with the 1 percent when necessary, by taking their money and doing their bidding in order to curry favor. So there were no surprises there. But what jolted me the most from my previous misunderstanding about how powerful the whole system is and how wide it stretched was in not fully accepting the fact that even those on the Left could be part of that rigged system. Of course seeing it now it is obvious. Those in power, even when the power is on a side I support, will support actions that maintain power. The idea of an "establishment" in the women's movement, in the black and Hispanic communities, in the "liberal media," in the Left in general, is not one we typically think of. But that establishment is very real. And has it ever raised its ugly head during this primary season.

The Clinton campaign has pulled the lever unleashing, and maybe I should say, exposing, the depth of the Left Establishment in all its fury. First there was Clinton herself admonishing Sanders for daring to imply that she, a woman, was part of the establishment. Then there was the attack of the feminist icons to carry that mantle for her, Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright. Once the primary race became more about race, when blacks and Hispanics were part of the conversation, Hilary's campaign has further unleashed a surrogate team of Latino and Black leaders to do their part in taking down Sanders. As with the feminist icons, the black surrogates have included many established black leaders such as Representatives John Lewis and Jim Clyburn.

By no means am I saying this surrogate game is not a standard part of politics. But what I am saying is that watching the lineup of these folks coming out for Clinton is like watching a who's who list of what makes up the establishment core of the Left. Sure these people, women and minorities that they are, have long battled the bigger establishment of power and money in our society. But let's not continue our naiveté by not realizing that all of them represent a different power structure, their own establishment. And be not mistaken, they will do whatever is necessary to remain a part of that power structure. Hillary Clinton is the next in line to the throne, at least so the Left Establishment has decided, and that includes the DNC. And those that want favor from her when and if she occupies the White House, again, are doing their part to make sure their position in the Left Establishment remains secure.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earnest-harris/the-exposure-of-the-vast-_b_9329414.html

[RiverLover]

52. Excellent essay.

Thanks for sharing it here with us, UG!!

[UglyGreed]

60. The author is spot on

and I'm sure many people feel the same.

[appalachiablue]

103. Great article, thanks.

[UglyGreed]

106. You're welcome

[Jezza]

55. your analysis is on point!

.... i always encourage younger progressive minds that study of history and economics is most important.

Glad to read your post. There is a gathering occuring now amoung those who "pay attention",

-j

[UglyGreed]

58. I did not write it

just want to make that clear. But it does explain the way I feel and I'm sure many others out there.

[Petrushka]

125. Lots to think about. Thanks for the link . . . posted to Facebook.

[Geronimoe]

46. Voter turn out

Noway has a voter turn out of 75 to 85%. US is 42 to 53%

[Dont call me Shirley]

47. "We separate superdelagates from the voting process so party doesn't interfere with voters."

THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AS HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dlwickham]

51. So you want to change the rules in the middle of the game

So you want to change the rules in the middle of the game

[rhett o rick]

81. If the rule is both undeomcratic and unDemocratic, the time to change isn't as important

as getting it changed. The reason for the large turnout for Sen Sanders is that a lot of Americans are tired of the Big Money corrupted culture that is pushing Clinton toward the WH. Democrats are against the corruption of Big Money like Goldman-Sachs, against Citizens United, against the strong Big Corp bias of the Corp-Media, and against the bias of the DNC.

"The choice is stark, keep living under corporate rule under Hillary and watch things get worse, or go with Bernie and fight TPTB to regain our Representative Democracy!"

[Albert Leo]

82. So you want to make Trump president

They don't even know what they have done.
fools.

[dlwickham]

85. Sanders know what the rules were coming into this

Sanders know what the rules were coming into this

It was his campaign manager who help set up the superdelegate thing

[Rebkeh]

48. +1

[Jezza]

49. propaganda is effective

So glad to see people Study more. I observe that most HRC supporters do not read, nor study history and economics. The propganda machine is huge and expert at distraction.

Hope to see more ops like this one, RiverLover.
....keep sand in your shoes.

- j

[RiverLover]

54. "keep sand in your shoes" ;)

I like that.

Wish there was no need, though. Thanks J.

[Tommy2Tone]

50. Why would Democrats not be biased against a non Democrat?

He was a Socialist, then became a Socialist Democrat(as strictly a convenience), and when he loses the nomination he will go back to being a Socialist.

[RiverLover]

57. That's what so strange, Hillary has republican principles but called herself a Dem most of her life.

Bernie saw through the corporate corruption long ago & with his FDR principles has always acted more as a Dem than most elected Democrats but has called himself an independent & a Democratic Socialist.

Democratic Socialist is not a Socialist, btw.

ie,

Forbes

Could Bernie Sanders Be The Best Small Business President?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders make the case for why they’d be the best President for small business. Sanders, in particular, makes an interesting argument.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, says that he has long pushed policies that help small businesses, encourage entrepreneurship, and foster innovation. Sanders supported the Small Business Jobs Act, which created a $30 billion lending fund designed to spur smaller banks to make loans and increased the limits on the amount that companies could borrow under SBA lending programs.

Sanders believes that the government has not done enough to support growing companies.

“Small businesses take out loans so that they can improve and grow their businesses. Low interest rates on these loans can help businesses pay them back quickly while maintaining good cash flow, expanding the overall domestic economy, and creating more jobs,” Sanders maintains.

He believes the U.S. “has long been a world leader in entrepreneurship and innovation, which in turn are the engines that drive our economy” and supports “increasing access to education and training, and reforming the way we bring workers into the U.S. in order to ensure that they are not being exploited to meet the needs of businesses who want to attract and retain the most talented foreign workers.”

..........

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rohitarora/2016/01/29/could-bernie-sanders-be-the-best-small-business-president/#32364650457e

[Jezza]

62. Hillary started as Republican

....interesting how this is becoming more recognized .... look up her history; some may find surprises...

...by definition she's alligned more with corporatist agenda, not authentic democratic values.

[Tommy2Tone]

68. Hogwash

Hillary and Bernie voted the same way 93% of the time and she was the tenth most liberal senator in congress when she served. Bernie is losing his followers are getting desperate. Calling Hillary a Republican is laughable and no one buy you guys are buying it.

[Jezza]

70. study your history my friend

[Tommy2Tone]

71. I don't need you to school me on history

and I am not your friend.

[Jezza]

76. not hogwash, and no intended insult of inteligence

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 04:36 PM - Edit history (9)

What many people don't know about Hilary, is that she used to be a hardcore Republican. She canvassed and campaigned for Republican Richard Nixon for President. She worked for Republican Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and was even elected president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans club. (her freshman year) --- there is a history worth studying;

...in 1968, (her senior year) Clinton interned in Congress for Republican Representative Laird from Wisconsin; then flip-flopped to McGovern. who by the way ran one of the historically worst campaigns this century; not only that, but in 2008, McGovern endorsed Obama over Clinton.

so, history isnt hogwash.

...and even since her college years, Hillary is become such a huge risk to oligarchy... cannot fathom electing such a puppet candidate who takes +$150M in campaign funding from Law Firms, Citicorp, Goldmansachs, DLA Piper, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Monsanto.

The choice is clear for 2016. Vote for a conservative Republican. Vote for Hillary Clinton.

...Bernie Sanders' time is 2016. it's time now for a progressive democratic socialist. His ideas are now needed more than ever.
...fact is, bernie's proposal to evolve medicare to a universal healthcare system that is far better than the current Affordablecare Act
...NAFTA (1993), WTO (1995), are huge examples of corporatists... in fact from the Democrats under Bill Clinton. and supported emphatically by Hillary. (Berni Sanders ALWAYS opposed)
WTO - what the WTO was: a transnational, secret, autocratic system of control inimical to our democratic system of governing, which includes open courts.
---- on which, Hillary has never made a position


...this is old news -> and a tired script https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/laurence-m-vance/no-wonder-neocons-like-hillary/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/president-hillary-clinton_b_5525235.html

[Lucinda]

137. You need to study harder. She was in High School when she "supported" Goldwater

did not Support Nixon, and was a Dem leader on campus by her Junior year in college and supported McCarthy in 1968.

[djean111]

59. As a life-long Democrat, I do not feel that a candidate who is for war, cluster bombs,

the TPP, fracking, increased H-1B visas, and Wall Street - to name a few things! - is actually a Democrat.
Bernie is more of a Democrat than many "official" Democrats.
Here in Florida, Debbie DINO OPENLY supports GOP buddies, and refuses to help Democrats, when it suits her.
So people can take that "real Democrat" thing and, well, use their imagination as to what comes next.

[Chico Man]

63. Hillary will win here in MA

My wife and I are helping to make sure that happens. And no, we are not party bigwigs.

[bigtree]

69. it's looks like she has a good shot

...thanks for helping.

[senz]

83. And the corruption doesn't bother you?

Not even a little?

[Chico Man]

104. Hillary is not corrupt

As much as you would like to believe.

Is it Benghazi you are so concerned about?

Or transcript gate?

Haters will hate..

[RiverLover]

108. No she isn't corrupt at all. Millions from wall street leading up to campaign, set up a f*g PRIVATE

server to conduct GOVT business on while taking money for the Clinton Foundation,from the same companies & countries she dealt with as SoS, started up Third Way with the help of the Walton Family's money. Third Way. You know, making republicans out of Democrats?

She is the epitome of everything wrong with our corrupt purchased "representative" "Democracy".

She tells voters what they want to hear. That is all we can be sure of. She changes her positions about everything based on the political feel of the moment.

My God, yes, she is corrupt.

[Chico Man]

115. Does Bernie tell voters what they want to hear?

Reading your post I thought I was on Free Republic for a moment

[RiverLover]

141. His words are backed up by his actions. His entire life.

#WhichHillary vs #OnlyOneBernie

I hear people talk about 'free republic' all the time here when they want to smear someone. But if they are populists who call themselves FDR Dems and believe wall street dems are just as dangerous as repubs, then ok. Fine. Sign me up!

Otherwise, quit making yourself look stupid & call us the FDR Dems that we are.

[Chico Man]

142. What will you say

When he doesn't provide a free education and single payer healthcare? Will his words be backed by action then? Or, will it be someone else's fault?

He's been in the senate a long time... what socialist vision of America has he been able to make real? As far as I know, he's certainly talked the talk, but he's been unable to accomplish much. In fact, I think his success rate in the senate is less than 1%.

[senz]

113. She certainly appears to be.

Do you know what the word "corruption" means? Why would "Benghazi" be a matter of "corruption?" Where's the payola or conflict of interest in that? I'm not talking about media buzz, I'm talking about Clinton activities.

No. Here is some of what I base my opinion of Hillary's corruption on:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/bill-clinton-ends-role-with-laureate-chain-of-for-profit-colleges.html

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/the-clintons-paid-speech-bonanza/

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/

I have more but am getting tired.

[Chico Man]

116. Witch hunting is exhausting

Isn't it

[senz]

119. Noting highly questionable business dealings of those who aspire

to the highest, most powerful position in the world is what good citizens, in a democracy, do.

We vet our presidential candidates. It's our right and our duty.

Try to understand that.

[Chico Man]

122. Difference between vet

And witch hunt.

Spreading half truths with the goal of destroying a political candidate you don't like is not great behavior IMO.

[senz]

123. Every single one of those articles is factual.

They should raise huge red flags for anyone who reads them.

[Chico Man]

127. They are full of logical fallacies

The charitable Clinton foundation received donations from many countries.

The US govt makes deals with many countries.

Therefore, since Hillary was SOS, and married to Bill Clinton, the donations were made in order to facilitate weapons deals.

I don't buy it, and there is no proof.

Here is another one:

Hillary Clinton deleted emails.

If someone is trying to hide something in an email, they might delete it.

Therefore, Hillary is trying to hide something.

The list goes on and on.

[senz]

132. Logical fallacies apply to argumentation, not straight reporting.

The articles are factual reports of events.

You didn't read the articles very carefully.

For instance, the first IBT article notes the fact that:

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

and

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

and

As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

Just a sampling.

[Chico Man]

140. Concluding Clinton is corrupt is an argument

It's all still logical fallacies - obviously biased reporting meant to persuade and build a case against Clinton.

This particular faction of the media is digging deep into the Clinton Foundation looking for conflicts of interest and will report and amplify any one that may be perceived.

Still, I see absolutely no proof here, only biased conjecture.

[Chico Man]

118. By the way

The comments on the Sirota piece you link to on Salon are worth reading.

[polly7]

65. I read this election is going to use up over nine billion dollars?

That is horrific, imo - and no offence to anyone here. How many bridges could have been repaired, how many schools updated, how many social programs for the poor funded.

I don't think money should pay a part in any election, anywhere.

Watching this is like watching some bad reality show on tv. The PEOPLE's vote should count, not corporations and the 1% who run them and control influence over all those politicians lobbyists get paid so well to make sure the corporations vote wins. It makes me very sad to see it happen. I have family and friends there, some of who need help just like so many. I don't want to see millions more destroyed by wars that benefit only the MIC and weapons dealers. It's like the people are the last concern, and it's very hard to watch.

What happened to the PEOPLE?

[RiverLover]

72. "What happened to the PEOPLE?" Exactly!! THE most imp thin we need to do is

GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS & corporate lobbyists OUT OF WASHINGTON.

If nothing else, this election has shown how invasive & systemic the problem is.

I read an interesting article this morning on how the Supreme Court has diminished the people's vote in this country in favor of Moneyed Interests.

And not just with Citizens United. Its been happening for the past 40 years~

The Threat of Big Money in Politics and the Call for a 28th Amendment

[polly7]

73. That's a good article.

Scary to me (and I'm sure, much more for you) to see how powerful the lobbyists are. When the Supreme Court is affected, it's really gotten beyond even a pretense of true democracy, imo - and again, I'm sorry to offend anyone.

I saw a good article yesterday that helped me understand a bit more what is affected by it all, too.

Beyond Campaign Finance

By Paul Street
Source: Counterpunch
February 26, 2016

“The effects of [campaign] money are real enough” Greider determined, “but the debilitating impact [of corporate wealth and power] on democracy would endure, even if money were magically eliminated from politics.” The many-sided methods and modes of capitalist power include:

*The flooding of the nation’s capital and the 50 state capitals and an untold number of municipal and county governments with a gigantic army of corporate lobbyists.

*Massive investment in public relations and propaganda to influence the beliefs and values of citizens, politicians, and other “opinion-shapers” on matters of interest to corporations.

*Capture of key positions in government regulatory agencies by people who reasonably expect to work at increased levels of compensation in the regulated (and not-so-regulated) industries in the future.

*“Cognitive” (ideological) capture of state officials, politicians, media personnel, educators, nonprofit managers so as to minimize public actions and sentiments that might harm business profits.

*The use by businesses of the threat of disinvestment, capital flight, and capital strike – resulting in the loss of jobs and tax revenue – to get what they want (i.e., reduced wages, reduced taxes, reduced environmental regulations, increased public subsidies…the list goes on) from governments, unions, and communities.

*The systematic destruction and undermining of organizations (i.e., labor unions) that might offer some countervailing power to that of big business in the political and policy realms.

*The offer of jobs, corporate board memberships, internships, and other perks and payments to public officials and their families and to other “influentials” and their families.

*Control of education and publishing (a) to filter out, repress, and marginalize “populist” and “radical” (democratic) critiques of the profits system, corporations, and capitalist culture and (b) to identify the public interest and the common good with the business bottom line.

*Ownership, monitoring, and management of mass media (including “entertainment” as well as public affairs news and commentary) for the same purposes.

*The systematic advance ruling-class vetting of potentially viable candidates for top elected office before they are put up for “democratic” selection.

Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/beyond-campaign-finance/

[RiverLover]

74. Yours is better!! Wow!!

That would make a very important and worthy OP, Polly. I'm out and about now so I won't be able to contribute, but I'd love to know it's being seen by many!!

Hint hint.

We have to change this. We need more articles like this one we need everyone talking about it.

Thanks for the link!

[polly7]

75. You're welcome, I posted it in Good Reads already if anyone wants to see it.

Have a great day!

[Jezza]

77. +1

[Metric System]

79. You can partly thank Tad Devine for SDs. Regardless, if Sanders can win more regular delegates than

Hillary, I'm sure the SDs wouldn't stand in the way (ie, they'd move over to Sanders, as they did with Obama in 2008).

[SciDude]

84. The "Superdelegates" are members of the plutocracy.

Clinton and her establishment oligarch allies are a formidable force and we never thought it would be easy to bring them down with their billions of corrupt dollars but like all corrupt systems their foundation is weak. Together we can press them and eventually they will fall and the "superdelegates" will have to vote with the people.

Let's hope, otherwise we have to face the next 4-8 years under oligarch rule with either a Clinton or Trump flavor...

[ucrdem]

87. "If Bernie was winning, we'd call this the cleanest election EVAH."

Fixed your headline.

[jalan48]

89. Either way the shit's gonna hit the fan after the election.

Bernie is encouraging the people to rise up and demand a change to the corrupt system. I pity Hillary or a Republican if they happen to win-people are pissed at our corrupt, rigged system-look for massive social unrest in 2017. "No we can't" just ain't gonna cut the mustard.

[senz]

91. SDs who lobby for private prisons & KXL, for Clinton campaign, & News Corp employee?

Sounds like the DNC has lost every vestige of its morals. It is now corrupt, dirty, and indistinguishable from Republicans.

Lee Fang at The Intercept has identified a number of DNC superdelegates: one works for the Clinton campaign and is a former lobbyist for a private prison group and for TransCanada to build support for the Keystone XL pipeline; another works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation; three DNC superdelegates, writes Fang, are officials at “a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record.”

Fang also reported that the same firm “was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009,

These are Clinton superdelegates. She's counting on them to win the Democratic nomination.

[warrprayer]

92. Kick

And rec
They have stolen democracy right out from under our noses.

[liberal N proud]

94. LOL

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. This wouldn't happen in any other country for other reasons

other countries, for the most part, don't have presidential systems like the USA; they have parliamentary systems, where the leader of a party is elected by members of the party from among the party's MPs (or in many cases, elected by the members of the parliamentary party). Most other countries also don't have primary elections; candidate selection for open seats is done by a party committee with no voter input. NB also that political parties in the USA are under no constraint to have primary elections as a means of candidate selection; if they chose they could forego the entire primary process and select a candidate at a national convention (as they did once upon a time), or they could simply announce that a certain person is going to be the party's candidate.

All that said, given that the Democratic Party DOES have a primary election process of candidate selection, superdelegates seem to be to some extent a perversion of the process (but then the process has other issues as well, since delegate count is not related to share of votes won but instead to number of Democratic voters in a given district at the last election; this is why Hillary won more votes than Obama in 2008 and lost the nomination).

I say the above as someone who's supporting Sanders, by the way.

[snagglepuss]

96. Massive K &R and kudos to Lee Fang for the research.

Thanks for pulling this together RiverLover.

[Duval]

97. Yes. In another country, it would be called corruption. nt

[AikenYankee]

99. K&R!

Thanks for sharing.

[Chicago1980]

101. Spoken like a sore loser.

Super delegates can change their minds and vote for another candidate if they want, like in 2008.

[MrMickeysMom]

105. Question: Is there some money being released during the primaries that shouldn't be?

I would like to know if by rule, any monies that are reserved through the parties for the candidates towards the general election have been prematurely released to the Clinton campaign?

[BainsBane]

107. This is now moot

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary now leads in earned delegates. Superdelegates will not be deciding the nominee.

[RiverLover]

109. I must have missed the fat lady singing.

And even if it were over, & thus "moot", it would still matter a great deal. This thing has been rigged from the get-go.

[BainsBane]

117. Rigged in that

the citizens of America have dared to vote as THEY see fit rather than voting as you and your fellow Sanders supporters tell them they should. The primary results are not rigged in terms of money. Sanders has been outspending Clinton by wide margins. He's also benefited from more Super Pac spending on his behalf and directed against Clinton. Yet money isn't enough to deliver him the nomination.

The Superdelegates have been in place since 1968. They got a lot of publicity in 2008, which means all of you knew about them. People could have gotten involved in the party during the past 8 years or the previous decades to change the way Democratic primary delegates are allocated, but that didn't happen. People have had 52 years to change the system but only raise it now because Bernie is behind. Well now he isn't just behind in Superdelegates but earned delegates as well.

Clinton won an overwhelming victory in S Carolina. It was a blow out. That those voters didn't vote as wanted doesn't mean the results are rigged. It means your vote is no more important than mine or anyone else's: One person, one vote. That basic concept is something too many refuse to accept. Declaring invalid the votes and voices of great swaths of the American public reveals a contempt for basic principles of equality. That attitude has been far too common throughout this campaign, and I would submit is part of the reason Sanders has not been able to broaden his support base.

[Karma13612]

110. You do understand that there are still a majority of states to still vote

and those states alllllllllllllll have delegates to be won.

This is a moving window.

See ya at the convention!

[BainsBane]

112. I understand that very well

I also understand the current state of the race and the extent to which Bernie underperformed in S Carolina, where he lost even white voters.

He's favored in only one of the 14 states holding elections on Tuesday. We'll see what happens. If you're right and the polls are dramatically wrong, we shall know soon enough.

[Uncle Joe]

120. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RiverLover.

[JDPriestly]

124. I will not vote for Hillary in November. I will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot,

but if Bernie is not the Democratic candidate, I will not vote for president.

It is time that we take back our party.

[still_one]

129. Feel better now?

[JDPriestly]

130. No. I feel very sad for my children, for my grandchildren and for my country.

We have so many stupid fools in this country.

[Faux pas]

126. K N R

[leveymg]

128. The Superdelegates are part of that legacy. Goes back to '72

Along with Super Tuesday, which is mostly conservative southern states, the antidemocratic makeup of this group is intended to assure thst the party never again nominates anyone from the Left. Such as Bernie Sanders.

[Petrushka]

131. K & R --- Thank you for all the research & links.

[silvershadow]

133. IF this were any other country, we'd have also called our coups d'etat coups d'etat, too, but

didn't. K&R

[Onlooker]

134. Superdelegates switch sides

Superdelegates will not go against the will of the people. In 2008, Hillary led in superdelegates by a 2:1 margin. By the time the primaries were over, Obama led by 2:1. If Bernie wins enough primary elections, the superdelegates will switch. There's no way they will go against the will of their party.

[JohnnyRingo]

135. Do you have any idea why the DNC is backing Clinton?

Any idea at all?... Think for a minute.

Is it because they've studied the data and decided Sanders is the only hope for winning in November and they want to lose in November? On purpose... or does the party know what the Republican Party has known all along, that Hillary Clinton is their worse nightmare against a weak candidate like Trump or Cruz?

All I can say is that I know who the RNC is going after and has been for decades. Republicans don't give a shit that Bernie's running.

[KitSileya]

136. Let me get this straight...

The current system is unfair to the candidate whose senior adviser was a major force in the conception and implementation of that very system, and who is now considered the expert on said system?

How much more evidence do you need that Bernie Sanders doesn't have a problem working within this delegate system than the fact that he hired the one who made it?

[lexington filly]

138. Hillary learned to sew up the super delegates from losing to Obama.

President Obama, who I supported and voted for both times, sewed up the super delegates when he ran against Hillary. After that election, and in the years since I've read analysis and even heard Hillary talk about it. It was a winning strategy for Obama and Hillary learned from him and has used it during this election cycle. Not defending just offering the facts.

The problem is with this system. Perhaps it's the Democratic Party's fix to pick our candidates for us----or their mechanism so our Party will never elect a Trump type (which Bernie is not). Either way, it isn't democratic. It's Party control.

[Cobalt Violet]

139. Absolutely discusted by what the Clinton's have turned this party into.

I'm not a Goldwater girl. To the degree that the party is now the Goldwater party is the degree I don't support the party.