2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders collides with black lawmakers
The Congressional Black Caucus 'vehemently' opposes Sanders' call to abolish superdelegates.
By Daniel Strauss
06/19/16 04:17 PM EDT
Bernie Sanders is on a crash course with the Congressional Black Caucus.
In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the CBC is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the partys superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.
"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."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502#ixzz4C4MEuhAS
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Close the primaries, end the caucuses, and preserve at least some number of supers.
Bernie lost big-time and as a Johnny-come-to-the-party-at-the-last-minute, he has no business telling the Democratic Party how to run its primaries or its business. Well, he can suggest, but there's no way in heck that he's getting what he wants.
Response to kstewart33 (Reply #1)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
longship
(40,416 posts)Sorry! Closed primaries are a non-starter from the get go.
There are twenty-some states without party registration by state law! How in the Sam Hell are you going to close their primaries? That's right. Those states give everybody the right to vote, as it should be.
Appeals for closed partisan primaries are nothing but bald attempts to restrict voting. The only equitable way are open primaries everywhere. Everybody gets to decide who represents us, not the select few. Certainly not in the twenty-some states which do not record party affiliation.
So how would you manage a closed primary in, say Michigan, which does not record party affiliation when one registers to vote? How will you accomplish that without driving voters away from the polls on primary day?
Think!
Open primaries! The only solution.
Primaries are a parties decision. You want to vote? Sign up following their rules.
No. No open primaries.
Basic LA
(2,047 posts)Why should Republicans or those "too cool" to be Democrats have a say on the Democratic nominee?
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Thanks.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)anything??
A guest in your home should NOT be given the right to tell you how to run your household!
pinebox
(5,761 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)I don' t have children should I decry the tax dollars spent for education
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Property tax goes for many things.
However when you ask tax payers to fund your primaries and and you can't vote in said primaries, then we have gone against "no taxation without representation". This is for choosing the leaders of the country, everyone deserves to have their voice heard be int in a primary of a GE and nobody should have to pay the Sam's Club membership fee to do so in order to join Dems special little club.
It's hypocrisy that you won't let us indies vote in your primaries & then come crawling and begging on your knees to help your candidate who many of us never wanted to win the nomination anyhow.
MADem
(135,425 posts)them. I am not a Republican, I shouldn't be permitted to vote in their primary--it's not my job to pick their standard bearer.
The fact that YOU (not you, personally, but those of you who are indies) fail to organize and offer those who share your "Indy" views a primary choice is YOUR fault--not the fault of the state.
No one is preventing you from engaging in the primary process. No one. YOU (and that's a generic 'you') need to organize, band together, put up your candidates in a primary contest like the Democrats, Republicans and even a couple of third parties do, and then you indies can pick the best "Indy" one that represents your views.
longship
(40,416 posts)Or in the other twenty-some states that by law are without party registration?
How does that work? It is very simple, she. It just doesn't.
You are choosing a presidential candidate. Open primaries everywhere. Let everybody vote. It's not some sort of private club.
Plus, folks who advocate for closed primaries still haven't figured out how to close the primaries in the twenty-some states without party registration. Therefore, there should be no closed primaries.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)and we don't have party registration. The GOP didn't want open primaries, but without party registration it's difficult to control.
Whether individual voters picked a Republican ballot or a Democratic one would become public, under the new law. But voters would not be bound in any way to their partisan picks in future elections nor would they have to register with any party in advance of the presidential primary.
http://www.twincities.com/2016/05/22/minnesota-moves-to-presidential-primary/
longship
(40,416 posts)If so, that's very good. Closed primaries are bad. They suppress the vote, something no Democratic Party loyalist should want. And I know that is not a very popular view by some here, especially when their choice of presidential candidate is disfavored by open primaries.
I say open primaries should be everywhere. We want everybody to be able to vote.
Thanks for the information.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)They used to have what they called closed primaries here, but it just involved people asking for one ballot or another. Without party registration, there can't be any obligations to stick to one party. Also MN had for a long time a viable third party, the Independence Party (Jesse Ventura), that has faded in recent years.
Untethering the caucuses from the presidential preference ballot is definitely a very good thing. That will enable far more people to vote.
longship
(40,416 posts)Your last paragraph is why I am against closed primaries anywhere. We want everybody to be able to participate in presidential selection.
okasha
(11,573 posts)in more than one party's primary? That seems to me to be a corollary of the let everyone participate approach.
longship
(40,416 posts)IANAL, nor no longer a party functionary. However, I would hope that all options would be on the table. I would hope that such discussions would err on the side of inclusion. At least, let everybody select which party's ballot they will vote on. But why not let everybody vote for both party's nominee?
I see no error in inclusion.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Democrats should be the only people voting in our primaries!
I cant believe Sanders thinks that the base voters of the democratic party, women and PoC, are going to sit back and watch him destroy it and still their voices!
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)How we deal with that rift is very important. Our Party has a problem with the influence of corporate money, another fact.
Hillary won the Primary, that part is over, but to deny we didn't have serious problems in the Primary with voting and how things were run is burying our head in the sand. It should be addressed and TPTB should be put on notice that we will not allow "shenanigans" or similar tactics to interfere with our election process.
To mindlessly state that Hillary won "fair and square" in the face of how a Democratic candidate for President was wrongfully treated by the media and the DNC is also wrong, and it will come back to bite you when later it is your candidate on the other end of the mistreatment.
We must all try to be objective about the candidates, the Party, and the election process itself, otherwise we are just lying to ourselves. It is not easy, I have my own battles with it as well, but it is necessary if we want to actually make our Democracy better and more fair. Right now it has some very serious problems.
While I support Hillary over Trump, I cannot overlook the problems in our house. We should be able to insure that our candidate knows what we expect should she do things against our interests in order to repay financial support from the Oligarch's. It is one thing to support her when she says the financial support doesn't influence what she does, but quite another to look the other way if she goes back on her word. If we don't we are no better than Republicans!
These candidates are not sporting teams, if elected they are supposed to represent their constituents. When they act against our interests we must call them out and make sure that they know it is unacceptable. When they do a great job we must let them know that as well.
Bernie is not the enemy. You may not like much of what he stands for, but ha does have the support of large numbers of Democrats. Those Democrats have a right to have some say in how things go with the Party. Since Hillary won she obviously is the head of the Party, but she must not completely ignore the wishes of almost half of her Party. To do so weakens our Party, so she must work to unify us to the extent she can. I am not saying she should adopt all of Bernie's positions or anything like that, but she should work together with him to find some compromises that strengthen us. We as supporters should try to do the same, it is not winner take all like I have seen too many times here!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)to hold a presidential primary, in order to "end the caucuses" where they are held. (This is particularly a non-starter with most state governments being run by Republicans.) States have to spend money to hold these primary elections, but presidential primaries have nothing to do with the governing the state itself.
Holding a presidential nominating caucus is just the natural result of a particular state not having a presidential primary election in place (and one which is acceptable to national party rules). Where the party holds caucuses in the absence of a primary, the state party pays any expenses, but caucus poll workers are generally volunteers.
comradebillyboy
(10,176 posts)He doesn't seem to get along with his colleagues in congress.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)The man who had fewer endorsements than Ted Cruz. You don't think that means anything?
insta8er
(960 posts)TeacherB87
(249 posts)Doesn't mean it isn't also indicative of his poor relationships in Congress.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I know a couple D precinct chairs in my part of red Texas that would love to compete for a delegate position but hey "seniority".
This is about consolidating and conserving power in an age of generational shift.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It's not an "older bunch" - in fact, many of its members are quite young.
This has nothing to do with a "generational shift." The CBC members are representing their constituencies - just as Bernie is representing his. It's not necessary or even helpful to dismiss them as corrupt or stuck-in-the-mud or power-mad just because they are challenging your candidate.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)isn't it? Saviors and sinners, 1s and 0s, with us or against us, black or white.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)What is the median age of congress?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Maybe you should look it up before you comment about it any further.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I know more about this than you do. That much is clear.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It's not my responsibility to educate you. It's your responsibility to educate yourself before making statements you can't substantiate.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I asked you because I don't know exactly. It was a genuine question from which we could have both learned, and not meant to be a rhetorical one.
This, however, is a rhetorical question:
Do you think it is in the 60s or 70s?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)don't know how old they are?
Now, go look it up yourself.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)They are mostly in their 60s and 70s. Now you know
I am not sure why you jumped in if you knew better.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Do you think it is in the 60s or 70s?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Got it.
Squinch
(51,021 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I didn't think so.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Have a problem with that?
randome
(34,845 posts)Seems they knew what the score was by holding off on an endorsement. I'm sure they didn't expect Sanders to get the nomination.
Sanders is a great Senator and he has great ideas. But the easy part is proposing changes. He really isn't much on the implementation side of things, imo.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)Reminds me of Junior High School.
I'm trying but I just cannot agree.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He's not a good ally. He does not understand the party has changed in the past forty years and acted accordingly. his loss.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)onenote
(42,768 posts)While he's not the only Senator it could be said about, it's no secret that he has no close relationships with other members of the Senate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Loudestlib
(980 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Maddow said it best when she said Bernie has no enemies.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Who is going to work with him?
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)I am glad that the CBC is against the elimination of super delegates
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Do you even know the sordid history of the inherently undemocratic 'superdelegate?'
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)pnwmom
(108,996 posts)We need to have black people represented as delegates at the convention. Having them there as super delegates will assure that there is at least some small fraction of black people there.
Otherwise, these black members of Congress, in order to attend the convention, will have to compete with their own constituents -- usually largely white -- to become a delegate.
Without the super delegate representation that they have, the overall number of minority people participating in the convention will go down.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)
I wouldn't want that to happen to the Democratic party. But I would not surprised to hear that someone advocating the destruction of the party, is in favor of dismantling the rules put in place to protect it.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Thanks for making that point.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Since almost all African Americans vote in the Democratic primary and most Latinos vote in the Democratic primary open primaries would only dilute the power of their votes. That is axiomatic.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)I do NOT want mine diluted either.
Thanks, DSB.
This is my first and last post in GDP.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Thanks for making it.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)yardwork
(61,712 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)That is really the point.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)But if independents vote en masse in the Democratic primary it dilutes the power of African Americans who vote en masse in the Democratic party...
Given the fact the last Democratic president to win a majority or plurality of the white vote in a presidential election was Lyndon Johnson the Democrats would be writing their death sentence if African Americans decided to shop around...
You can repeat the dynamic with Hispanic voters, albeit at a slightly lower effect.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)We are done for.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)African Americans are the Democratic party 's most loyal voters. They provided Barack Obama with 26% of his votes despite being only 12.5% of the population. They have supplied the margin of victory for every Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson. The same dynamic is playing out with Hispanics, albeit at a slightly lower rate. In short they give our party all or most of their votes.
There is no reason for the Democratic party to alienate it most stalwart supporters by deliberately diluting their votes.
randome
(34,845 posts)With all the more pressing problems that Sanders says he wants to address, why fixate on something that isn't broken? Sure, maybe someday in some hypothetical situation, it might be important but this should be a time for triage, not reaching for something in left field.
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)They always want to stir things up. They don't mention anything about the unbound delegates that Republicans have that are essentially the same as what the DNC has.
randome
(34,845 posts)It is too easy to take things as they're presented.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)of their state, now. They are called "unbound", but they are actually bound.
So, that makes the Republicans more democratic than the Democrats are, currently. This is a BAD place for the Democratic Party to be.
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)The Republican Party also has Rule 38 which states: No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A unit rule prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.
As one of members of the Rules Committee stated for the Republican Party it makes all of their delegates superdelegates.
How the Republicans "reformed" their version is not an improvement. Their reforms involved tilting the tables in favor of so called establishment candidates like Mitt Romney.
I thought in a democracy that people had a choice in deciding how they will vote. That includes delegates. If delegates really don't have a choice then why even bother sending delegates? As it is, Except in a few states the voters don't even decide who will go to the National Convention. In most cases they vote for state convention delegates that vote for the district national delegates. And only the pledged delegates are based on the election results.
Convention delegate candidates run to be a district, at-large, or PLEO delegate for a preferred candidate. Their choice. While you would want to force all superdelegates to be locked in against their will. Even to the point that all of the superdelegates must vote for the winner of their state. All this despite the fact that the superdelegates have not changed the outcome of the primary.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)living in the South (North, East and West)
They would want all those things, if they just go to KNOW Bernie. Oh, wait. They already do.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)And southern state Dems know that reality very well. At this point, it is all they can do to hold on to their votes in state controlled elections.
randome
(34,845 posts)What does he consider more important? Support for minorities and education or rigging the system to give his successor an advantage next cycle?
skylucy
(3,743 posts)did not benefit HIM (notice he wants to keep the caucuses) are most important to him. Trying to work within the party for expanded health care, overturning of Citizens United, etc. aren't his first priority at all.
randome
(34,845 posts)But why would he spend even 5 minutes on something so not broken? Why isn't he doing anything to try and control the message?
Number23
(24,544 posts)this. Quelle suprise, right???
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Him having been arrested 60 years ago and all ...
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Nah, Thank you! Passing!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)They dilute the power of the minority vote.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Open primaries could effectively overwhelm the voices of minorities in all 50 states. Hard to promote a Democratic agenda with other parties deciding who our candidates will be.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)For one the candidates have to convey to them personally what their plans are and then the Superdelegates endorse and explain their reasons. This is invaluable and hard to get information.
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)They are wired into it.
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)Democratic legitimacy requires that all officials making policy can trace their power back to an election that granted them the power to make that class of decision. In the case of supers, nobody elected them to choose a nominee (officials can't enable each other). Just like the Constitution has both its black letter law and it's associated values which apply even if the law does not, so too are there values of democracy that are offended by superdelegates' outsized power.
It is not right that voters COLLECTIVELY have as low as a fraction of the power of the superdelegates, as in my state of ND. Once you open things up to elections the principle of one person one vote applies. The criticism that minority votes are diluted by removing supers ignores the fundamental reality that removing supers returns us to one person one vote and NOBODY has the right to a more powerful vote than anyone else.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Erm, what do you think CAMPAIGNS are for??
Also, what you are implying with your statements is the INSIDER power players get to hear "real" plans that the candidates have, and us "little people" are simply stuck with what the candidates say (and in your schema is inherently a lie, as you said "real" info for the SD) to the outside world. The "hard to get information" you speak of is THE TRUTH, doesn't that alone send warning bells going off in your head?.
Sorry, it should NEVER come to pass that some establishment actor (pre chosen, BTW by a candidate to ensure they get that huge overweighted vote) has the voting power equal to 10's of thousands of regular voters in an election. That is pure UNdemocracy at work, it is corrupt, and it needs to GO.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)I am a Democrat and I like the role of the Superdelegates. Are you a Democrat?
In Candidates I like to know like who is lazy and does less work instead of more, doesn't get along with others, doesn't play well with others, cannot explain their platform or how to achieve said platform...
Per instance it was hard to know that Ted Cruz was so disliked by colleagues because of many reasons, including backstabbing... Or that Marco Rubio was a lightweight and not that smart.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)I also am a socialist, a member of Vänsterpartiet (Left Party) here in Sweden. I used to belong to Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti (The Social Democrats, the biggest party here for 80, 90 years http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/Internationellt/Other-languages/ ) but they have went way too neoliberal in the last 15 years.
I never get caught up in personality, I look at actual votes and policies advocated. I supported Sanders purely on policy, and dislike Clinton greatly (I will vote against Trump and thus for her) for the same reasons. I hate the 2 party system, but we (I am speaking as a US citizen) are stuck with it.
As far as the background of each POTUS candidate goes, there is an insane amount of info about every major member of congress out there (thanks to the internet). A superdelegate is not needed as a "go-between" to get the "real deal". They are only there to preserve concentrated systemic control for the elites.
I apologise if I came off as rash and aggressive, I did not intend that.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)This year she took the same position.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)I was strong Sanders, but if he turns them (it wont happen unless Hillary is recommended for indictment prior to the convention, which is 90% not going to happen either) and gets the nomination, its illegitimate too.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)This is a collection of a few links that I compiled.
Superdelegates
Having superdelegates helps increase including grassroots activists that otherwise would go to elected officials.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We'll allow Republicans in the south to screw with the nomination process, allow a potential idiot like Trump to take the nomination in a disaster situation with no recourse like the super delegates to deny them at the last moment and we will weaken the votes of African Americans and other Latinos whose voices we are trying to strengthen.
No thank you. Take that elsewhere.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)It is the primary for C****t Sakes! It is our right to vote for OUR DEMOCRATIC candidate in OUR primary. Everyone is welcome to vote, sadly many have no clue about the rules letting them do so.
Sad that Bernie does not understand the Democratic process.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Were it nothing but pledged delegates from primaries or caucuses, then the results would be based on the voting process totally
It weakens the effect of "OUR primary" to have people whose positions are outside of the primary elections determine the outcome.
.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Trump is a moron who will do damage to the GOP. But a large majority of voters in the GOP primaries chose him.
For better or worse the GOP chose Trump as a party. Just because guys like Mittens Romney don't approve of him does not negate the fact that Trump won the primary.
That, forr better opr worse, is democracy. Super-delegates are undemocratic.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #22)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't call it unfair for Bernie and his supporters simply to take positions on things like this.
And no...the fact that the CBC is against abolishing superdelegates does NOT mean that the superdelegate abolition campaign is white supremacist.
This is just about officeholders not wanting to give up a guarantee of delegate status at the convention.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is a lot to demand of people who he seems not to give the time of day to. The ones he calks 'establishment' in a very hostile way.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The CBC aren't against abolishing supers because they are black. They're against abolishing supers because they, as individuals, would no longer be guaranteed delegate slots at the convention.
Are you really arguing that, if the CBC are in favor of keeping the superdelegates, Bernie is obligated to give up his call to abolish superdelegates?
Bernie and the millions who support him aren't against superdelegates because we have an issue with the CBC or with anyone else of color. We don't. We never have. And you know it(even though you still insist on casting us as some sort of left wing version of the Klan or something).
It's about removing an undemocratic feature of the nominating process.
In all liklihood, conventions without superdelegates would have a higher percentage of POC as delegates than we now have-and more grassroots POC activists at that.
The existence of superdelegates is not of any benefit whatsoever to people of color(anymore than runoff primaries in the South benefited POC in the Eighties just because Andrew Young called on '84 national convention to reject Jesse Jackson's demand that runoff primaries be abolished). They give POC no greater role in the party then they would have anyway. The overwhelming majority of superdelegates are white, and most of those white supers are male.
It's not racist simply to disagree with the CBC(especially if you're disagreeing with them from the left). And disagreement with the CBC is NOT an attack on people of color.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Why does Bernie not have any issue with caucuses then? If he is just worried about undemocratic processes? A causus is the number one most disenfranchising process and since I hear nothing from him about ending those, I'm calling hypocrisy. Bull. He wants to dilute the votes that did not vote for him but ignores the undemocratic process that favored him.
We have seen this time and time again through history. The second black folks start accumulating power, there is a process started to dilute that power and stop us from having collective power by working together. And it is always told to us that we are selfish for not wanting to give up tgat little bit of power we have worked for for generations. That we are just ignorant for not wanting to let others do all the deciding since they know better than us about every damn thing.
Once I actually hear him call to end caucuses, I might think his intentions were good. Until then? Pffftt!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The party regulars did.
If he hasn't said we should abolish them, it's probably because he didn't want to give aid and comfort to the right-wing Dems(it's only right-wing Dems who want Bernie to have run much more badly-no progressive good would have come of HRC wrapping up the nom in March)who argue that Bernie's victories in various states are always less legitimate than HRC's victories in other states. The pushing of that meme is the only reason Howard Dean wants caucuses abolished. Before this year, he never criticized the caucus process at all to my knowledge(and there is, in fact, a lot to criticize in that process-it's just that Bernie isn't responsible for any of the things that deserve that criticism).
Bernie really did win every state he just fair and square as HRC won ever state she prevailed in. He'd have likely done just as well if all the caucus states were primaries(his campaign would have been run differently) and have just as may delegates.
And it's cynical for HRC supporters to make an issue of the caucus process this year, when none of you would have questioned the legitimacy of caucus results if HRC had won most or all of them.
Bernie did quite well in a lot of primary states...he just barely lost in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri, was within a few points of victory in Pennsylvania. It's not as though he'd have gone nowhere if every state had had primaries instead of caucuse.
I agree that caucuses should be abolished. A lot of Sanders people do. But if they were going to be held, somebody was going to win them. The blame for the caucuses is on the party, not the Sanders campaign.
if superdelegates were abolished, we could easily adopt changes in the party rules to increase minority representation to make up for whatever loss of influence anyone might argue that POC would experience from the CBC not automatically having delegate slots(remember,when we talk about CBC superdelegates this year we are talking about 41 delegates out of 4,765, in a convention where one candidate will arrive at Philadelphia with a nominating majority).
And it's likely that the vast majority of those CBC supers(all of them, probably) would have been elected as pledged delegates if we didn't have supers. Nobody would try to stop them being pledged delegates.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He didn't invent the primary and superdelegate system - those, too, were created by the party. But he doesn't have any qualms about demanding that the party change THOSE to suit his strengths and weaknesses
I call bullshit on those - including Bernie himself - who are whining about how "unfair" and "undemocratic" the system is when they uttered nary a peep about it in the decades it has been in place and only complain because it didn't work for him in the year that HE decided to be a Democrat AND they all think caucus system, the most undemocratic of all of the voting processes isn't worth getting rid of.
Sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple. And, fortunately, most people beyond the Cult of Bernie - including the CBC Members, who have EARNED their right to speak on this - see right through it.
Bernie needs to get over himself. Really.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Becaus the point is to end the processes that hurt him and keep the ones that helped him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Provided there was same-day or at least near-same-day re-registration in all primary states(which would be the most democratic thing).
There was no excuse for the re-registration deadline in New York being months before the primary.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Is this going to be a lifelong vendetta with you now?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)There are actually 2 cases which disprove this theory that Bernie would have won the caucus states if they were primaries. In fact, the Nebraska and Washington state primaries kind of say he wouldn't have won them anyway. And while he didn' t make the caucus rules as you say, we are discussing what he wants to change and it is notable that he doesn't want to change the caucuses. It was not on his list. And some people believe it wasn't on his list because it favors him.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)---imm
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... and it showed during his campaign seeing he got less endorsements than Ted Cruz
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It says a lot when folks won't endorse a colleague.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)I can go either way on the Supers but they are spot on in arguing open primaries dilute the minority vote. That is why minorities fought so hard to have city and county council members elected by district and not at large; the latter dilutes the minority vote. That's Public Administration 101.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Look, I'm going to campaign for HRC in the fall and do my best to get Sanders people to support her.
But it's just silly to imply, as the CBC is suddenly doing(they've said nothing at all about the superdelegate issue until this weekend)that abolishing superdelegates is somehow an attack on POC.
Abolishing superdelegates will not hurt POC. It will lead to greater influence for grassroots POC activists, since it will democratize the nomination process, and if we hadn't had supers in this cycle the AA community might actually have got something from HRC for their support(other than reassurance that she's "electable" while Bernie supposedly isn't). Or we might have seen(I'd have liked to have seen this myself) a POC candidate running explicitly on a "fight racism" platform...a situation in which the Sanders and Clinton campaigns would then have been in a "bidding war" to win the backing of the delegates that candidate obtained. A "Black Lives Matter" candidate could easily have ended up with 500-700 delegates and the balance of power at the convention.
All in all, we would have had a far less cynical discussion on race in that scenario.
I agree with you on district vs. at-large elections. Most Sanders supporters and other left activists do, actually(and would add to it some form of proportional representation, such as elections with multi-member districts elected via preference ballot for local, legislative and Congressional elections).
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)with virtually nothing to support it:
Abolishing superdelegates will not hurt POC. It will lead to greater influence for grassroots POC activists, since it will democratize the nomination process, and if we hadn't had supers in this cycle the AA community might actually have got something from HRC for their support(other than reassurance that she's "electable" while Bernie supposedly isn't) Or we might have seen(I'd have liked to have seen this myself) a POC candidate running explicitly on a "fight racism" platform...a situation in which the Sanders and Clinton campaigns would then have been in a "bidding war" to win the backing of the delegates that candidate obtained. A "Black Lives Matter" candidate could easily have ended up with 500-700 delegates and the balance of power at the convention.
If the CBC believed that to be the case, it is unlikely they would be fighting Sander's proposition.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about politicians defending a perk of their office. Nothing more.
Abolishing superdelegates is not an issue with any racial component at all.
How much can the CBC even do at a convention where they will have 42 votes out of more than 4,700 delegates?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Until this post of yours. Why be so defensive over something that was never mentioned?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It didn't say "the Congressional Black Caucus opposes the abolition of superdelegates"
It said "Bernie COLLIDES with black lawmakers".
There is a clear implication that the Sanders campaign is against superdelegates because we want people of color to have less influence in the Democratic nominating process.
That implication is just as much of a lie as the claim that the Sanders campaign "never tried" to appeal to black voters, or worse, that we didn't think black voters were worth trying to win over.
Nobody seeking the Democratic presidential nomination is ever going to treat black voters as if their votes aren't worth having, and neither Bernie nor his supporters want to weaken the political influence of the Congressional Black Caucus...a caucus Bernie overwhelmingly votes with in Congress and whose "alternative federal budget" he has also supported throughout his congressional career(something HRC can't ever claim to have done as a senator or in her previous congressional lobbying work as First Lady).
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)A big difference.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was just a typo.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)before screaming for his unearned demands. Shocking, huh??
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But I would think he could speak with his colleagues sometimes. Touch base.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)their guaranteed seats in the convention hall.
We can assume every other organized Democratic faction in Congress(with the possible exception of the Progressive and Populist caucuses...and even with them it would only be a POSSIBLE exception) is also against abolishing superdelegates for the same reason.
There's no story here.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)His picks will be Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Himself, HA Goodman, etc.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Oh right! Bernie will probably select him to be President Obama's official biographer!
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)California Democrats call for elimination of caucuses, most super-delegates
The California Democratic Party on Sunday called for a broad overhaul of how the party nominates its presidential candidates, including the elimination of caucuses and most super-delegates.
The resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change the nominating rules for the 2020 contest has no official power, but is a symbolic statement from the largest state Democratic party in the nation.
Many of the changes were sought by supporters of Bernie Sanders, but Hillary Clinton backers also endorsed the effort, resulting in the resolution being unanimously approved at the state partys executive board meeting on Sunday.
Its very exciting and healing for our party to be able to make a strong statement that we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters, said Christine Pelosi, a California super delegate, daughter of House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and a Clinton backer who co-authored the resolution.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Fixed it for you.
No charge this time but be more careful in the future.
Now off with you to accuse someone else of racism.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)pnwmom
(108,996 posts)to eliminate super delegates and reduce their own potentlal influence.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)In this case they weren't complaning about their treatment because they were black, they were complaining that Bernie didn't defer to their status as a superdelegate.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You know, Senators, Congress people and such.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)What the hel are you talking about?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)That's why he wants so much for income and labor equality.
It's all a plot.
Number23
(24,544 posts)with you guys' pet projects of "income and labor equality" (and even that needs to go in quotes because your definition of "labor and income equality" is no doubt VASTLY different from most minorities definition of labor and income equality).
See, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that people are talking about when they say that for minorities, "income and labor equality" are just the beginning and not the end all, be all. And believe me, everyone here is shocked and astonished that not only do you guys see reducing minority impact in elections as no big deal but are actively MINIMIZING and trying to shut up the discussion about it.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Your comment in no way reflects any of the point in this article.
But really cool chip on your shoulder. Goes well with the blame flame.
He said nothing of the sort. Don't confuse a personal confrontation between some congressman and Bernie with your struggles.
They ain't the same. That congresscritter is fighting for his job, not yours.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I can see why every single person you've engaged just walked off. Right there IN THE ARTICLE the CBC members are saying that what Sanders is advocating lessens minority voting power.
But please keep pretending that's not an issue. It's every bit as genuine and compelling as your apparent belief that Sanders's focus on "income and labor equality" is exactly what this country needs -- even though the country rejected it (and HIM) entirely.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Maybe the CBC members are saying that to pretend it's their minorities are hurt.
Breaking news. The minority votes are counted. That is indisputable. The only votes in question are that congress guy.
You don't see all that income being funnelled to the top as detrimental to the economy?
You like working for 2 jobs to make a decent living?
Have you been asleep? Just what the hel did the minorities fight so hard for? To work at McDs?
Number23
(24,544 posts)It's not enough that you have no point or clue, it's clear that you also think that you are pithy and witty when you are neither. And that's me being kind.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)There are 2 possibilities for a misunderstanding.
Please, don't be kind. Come right out with the insults. Go for it.
Then there's that little ignore button that lets you retreat back where you don't have to see any of this. The whole thread gets diluted down to a kumbaya.
But the real world will still be here.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Aww, now I'm really hurt that I won't get a date to the prom cause everyone might think I'm hard to get along with.
Aww, gee.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Let me make sure I've got your "witty" contribution copied just in case you try to hit that edit button. Too bad nothing you typed is half as funny as those typos!
Aww, now I'm really hurt that I won't get a date to the prom cause everyone might think I'm hard to get along with.
Aww, gee.
Like I said, bless your heart.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Starting to think some of these "progressives" see us as the proverbial eggs that need to be broken to make an omelet.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Read the title again.
Which words came first?
Black? Or superdelegate.
Wait! Where's my definition of obtuse again?
Just think, come tomorrow you won't have anybody telling you to again. won't it be grand?
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Second...I am so sorry the Congressional Black Caucus is black.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)I'm so used to on DI.
I'm very sorry but you repeated the words with no disclaimer. That means you adopted those words. If there was a lefthanded racism implied in the title, and there most certainly was, you repeated it.
On top of that there is a very strong right wing argument on the right wing side to point to a schism in the democratic party to justify their schism.
I bear you no animosity at all. I am a dedicated democrat and have been since the JFK years. And I see our party which was so much for the common man being torn apart.
To repeat this implied criticism in pursuit of political gain of a man who stood for civil rights his whole life is ...
oh, never mind.
BTW, I think much less of the CBC for fighting for their influence more than for anything else.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)They aren't fighting to ensure their constituency's vote will be counted.
That is already guaranteed by the very process.
They are fighting for THEIR privileged position.
All the pigs are equal but some are more equal.
Color isn't important. RHIP and don't you forget it.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)You said:
BTW, I think much less of the CBC for fighting for their influence more than for anything else.
They've created a coalition to advance positions unique to their interests precisely because they are a minority and as such do not receive as much attention. "Thinking less of the CBC for fighting for their influence" is one of the reasons they exist.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)They are using that as a shield.
They are fighting to maintain their personal lofty position. That is their goal. Their stature in congress is already established. No one is questioning that.
The question is their privilege of donning some special robes and becoming SUPER delegates.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)The majority represent constituents in places that are traditional conservative strongholds. They need to ensure that they have representation that cannot be undermined. Here is a map of their current representation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#/media/File:African_Americans_in_US_House.svg
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I guess that's only acceptable when certain people do it...
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)This is just yet another issue of Sanders clashing with key parts of the Democratic Party. You brought up racism. Why?
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)What was so significant about making sure that word was in the title?
Was it the reason for the clash?
No. The reason was because Bernie said he wanted to do away with the superdelegates and these guys are superdelegates defending their lofty position.
Black had nothing to do with that.
The only reason it was there was to imply a bias.
Do you people think everyone is stupid?
What? Moi?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)that was the entire point was sent by the Congressional BLACK Caucus?
As for the racism issue, that is purely a figment of your imagination.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)but we shouldn't consider BLACK to be a factor in this confrontation?
Oh yeah, I see it now.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)You need a safe space.
Tomorrow you'll be totally safe and protected from meanies.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But you DO amuse me, so that does count for something.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)And then to pretend amusement?
Seriously?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)There. Gave you the last word.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Which is what the article is about. You are being hyper defensive for no reason.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Because they are superdelegates.
If you are going to have a party which espouses color blindness, at least make the effort to prove it.
Otherwise it comes across as hypocrisy.
You know, other people are more than happy to imply a racial divide in the democratic party cause they use it to justify their racial bias.
At least make a f'n effort for gods sake.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Unlike Bernie Sanders.
Just because the word "black" immediately makes you paranoid and hyperdefensive does not in any way lessen the complexity or validity of this conversation. The Congressional BLACK Caucus is fighting Sanders over his incredibly short sighted and stupid demand to open Dem primaries to repubs and independents because they are concerned that this will dilute the power of BLACK voters. They are also concerned that his demand to remove superdelegates will also negatively impact BLACK voters and members of Congress.
The word "black" was right there in the title so if it terrifies you so much, you really didn't have to enter the thread.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)The black in the title didn't scare me in the least.
But I believe it was there for a reason and I think that reason blew past you without so much as mussing your hair.
In fact, I think that was the only word you really saw.
Number23
(24,544 posts)trying to talk AROUND the fact that these folks are black and speaking for their BLACK constituents.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)They were speaking for themselves.
You should quit smacking yourself in the head. It might be the cause of the problem.
Number23
(24,544 posts)straightforward and easy to understand OP flew over your head because it had the word BLACK in it (which you decided was both a needless distraction and "racist" ).
Your desperate attempts to pretend that this is all about some Congress people trying to "hold on to his job" was a contender but was pretty weak considering your other unintentionally hilarious contributions. Please, DO continue to scream that the CBC should continue to be "color blind" but that the reason for their disagreement with Sanders is not based on race even though they make it very clear that their disagreement is based on the weakening of BLACK voting power. That is, if you're not so totally tied up in knots that you can still type.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Nobody said "CBC should continue to be "color blind".
I said if the democratic party wants to pretend to be color blind they should at least make an effort to make sure that color is not part of ANY of their narratives.
The super delegate is worried about his vote as a super delegate. He's already been parked in the congress since Noah. And ain't done shit for the disenfranchisement of REAL votes, has he?
Number23
(24,544 posts)No one has ever even ALLUDED to the Dem party trying to be color blind. Racial justice and equality is a huge part of the Dem party and its platform.
One of the major reasons that Sanders' lost so spectacularly is because of his stubborn refusal to understand that and believe me, everyone is shocked that his supporters don't get it either.
The super delegate is worried about his vote as a super delegate. He's already been parked in the congress since Noah. And ain't done shit for the disenfranchisement of REAL votes, has he?
Nothing you've said has been correct or made sense so props on being 100% consistent. You haven't said a damn thing anywhere. I'd be insulted by your comments about the CBC if anything you'd said so far had been even the slightest bit coherent or informed. This has been a spectacular waste of time and I'm beyond bored so I'm done here.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The black Democratic Members of Congress are challenging Bernie Sanders on this issue. While your need to decide how they should describe themselves is very interesting, your correction was unnecessary since they described themselves quite adeptly.
There, I fixed your "correction."
You're welcome.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Make of it what you will.
And you did.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)SDs.. the reason they 'exist'
'collided' sure... but grassroots vs. establishment...
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wtf?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Bernie knows best and everyone else should just shut up and do what he wants because oligarchy or something.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)dealing with all of this ridiculous B.S. from people who have absolutely no clue regarding what they are talking about.
There is so much wasted time dealing with that crowd.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)- especially when their speech isn't in abject praise of Bernie - and how comfortable they are in their entitlement to belittle and second-guess them.
Speaks volumes about why Bernie never got any traction beyond a narrow demographic. And they STILL don't get it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Doesn't matter what race, religion, sex or anything else, people don't like to lose power. Very few have the ability to give it up willingly.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Kind of precious . . .
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)And how they are being enforced.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I'm rather surprised by this especially this: "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."
This seems indicative of the problems with entrenched DC interests who want to hold power for themselves over their constituents rather than specific to the CBC.
It's telling and very sad.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...of whether Super Delegates should be reformed instead of abolished.
If SDs were required to vote for the national PD winner on the first ballot, then Congess members would still be seated as delegates automatically.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)If they were to run in the primaries against ordinary citizens, those citizens would for the most part never get to go to the convention--because the well known and already elected senate and hOuse members and state chairs would most likely win. It is Pro Democracy.
The super delegates have not played a role in deciding a nomination for many decades. And they're not deciding anything this year. Facts.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)So by your logic, being pro democracy means that you eliminate the opportunity for the "ordinary citizen" to challenge "well known and already elected senate and hOuse members and state chairs" thus saving them from having their feelings hurt from a loss?
More likely to spare the "well known and already elected senate and hOuse members and state chairs" the indignity of having to face off against ordinary citizens.
Your comment about the 'supers not 'deciding' is irrelevant to the discussion. One can be proactive about election reform rather than reactive after the damage is already done.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Fuck all the things that we not only SHOULD do at this point on earth to move us out of the most dangerous time in history, but all that we HAVE to do...
No.... None of that...
We have to align with the monster that will not obey, because it works better that way...
We have to have a "first" and not "best" fit, because it makes certain people feel better about who we are...
We have to pretend that we have a fourth estate who's first allegiance is to present the truth...
We have to have the kind of civil discourse where the one percent is equally divided between men, women and persons of color...
We have to have a correct conversation about how we win friends and influence people...
We have to bury everything and everybody who gets in the way of it, so that bullshit OPs can spew their vomit in an orderly fashion while they can...
Will it change tomorrow? Not if you have anything to do about it.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Democracy is one person, one vote.
Each Super Delegate vote counts as much as 10,000 of our votes.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)The AP declared the election over the night before the final six states voted by considering SDs more than endorsers.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...still against the SD system which the AP used to suppress the vote.
If we get rid of the SD system, then the AP can't suppress the vote, again.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)was to point out that there is a process to change the rules. And he may not get what he wants when its all said and done. I don't have any particular knowledge one way or the other.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)However open primaries dilute the minority vote. In his defense maybe he didn't think this through.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)and I agree with CBC. Do not abolish them. The super delegates protect us from the situation the GOPers are going through rght npw. Having as their nominee and mentally disturbed ignoramous.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)We won't choose a Donald Trump with or without Super Delegates.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)like TRUMP supporters?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...Trump said about Mexicans and Muslims, he wouldn't get the most pledged delegates.
Bernie Sanders denounces Trump's bigotry.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Nominee then why couldn't they vote for him in the primary. So it is very possible that the democratic party could nominate a Trump------+God Forbid
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Most Sanders voters will vote for HRC in November.
Among those who don't, more will vote for Jill Stein than for Donald Trump.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)Are you serious? And you are allowed to get away with this?
Do you think those who talk this way deserve to prevail?
Number23
(24,544 posts)primaries is incredibly stupid and short-sighted. This is a man who knows that if it weren't for indies he wouldn't have gotten even as far as he did and wants to make it easier for the next non-Dem to the same. Hell no.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)The open versus closed primary dilemma mirrors the at large versus district wide election dilemma.
That's Poli Sci and Public Administration 101.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...in a racially provocative way.
A plain headline would have been "CBC Opposes Changes to Primary Process."
The Politico editor chose, "Sanders collides with black lawmakers."
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)On the DNC ticket, not change the rules.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...CA, and ME also came out against Super Delegates but there weren't headlines portraying that as a clash with the CBC.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Why should they be any different. Fuck the status quo.
jamese777
(546 posts)New York was a microcosm of the large population states that produced the most pledged delegates.
Bernie Sanders won voters aged 18 to 29, independents, single men, people who describe themselves as "very liberal," the religiously unaffiliated, white men, and white voters without a college degree.
Hillary Clinton won all other demographics. Clinton won 75 percent of the black vote (22 percent of the Democratic electorate), 63 percent of Latinos (14 percent of the electorate), and 49 percent of white voters overall (60 percent of the electorate), including 42 percent of white men and 54 percent of white women.
The biggest founts of support for Sanders were white males (58 percent), voters 18-24 (82 percent), non-married white men (67 percent), and voters who normally consider themselves "independent or something else" (74 percent).
Hillary Clinton won among Democrats, 61 percent to 39 percent. Sanders also won 83 percent of voters who most value a candidate who is "honest and trustworthy" and 70 percent of those who want the next president to "change to more liberal policies" than President Obama. Clinton won 90 percent of voters looking for a candidate who "has the right experience," 84 percent who want someone who "can win in November," and 74 percent who want a president to "generally continue Barack Obama's policies."
jg10003
(976 posts)"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."
They admit that it's all about their privileged position.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Given the history of disenfranchised black voters, this is the least democrats can do, the very least.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Promise.
Right after he fixes that income thing...
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)Quayblue
(1,045 posts)sheshe2
(83,929 posts)No clue......................
Also 06/20/2016 Read the rules.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The party issued a resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change its nominating rules for the 2020 presidential election. Though it doesn't have any official power, it is a symbolic statement from the state that holds the largest primary.
Among those supporters of the resolution was the daughter of House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The minority leader endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ahead of the Golden State's primary earlier this month. Clinton has benfitted from the superdelegate system, while Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against it.
"It's very exciting and healing for our party to be able to make a strong statement that we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters," said Christine Pelosi, a California superdelegate.
Superdelegates have played a prominent role in the 2016 election, as Sanders has argued they play an unfair role in the nominating process.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284057-nancy-pelosis-daughter-among-those-wanting-elimination-of
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)
*edited*
I MEANT to say that I'm glad the CBC spoke out against. what the heck...posting from bed, then editing while at work isn't a good combination.
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)Let's open our Democratic primaries, so that Republicans can select our Democratic nominee, if they ever have an incumbent President running without a challenger on their side.
Whomever had that brain fart of an idea is not very intelligent or doesn't really give a shit!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Happenstance24
(193 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not one I necessarily disagree with, either.
But I am aware of what the subject line was attempting to convey.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)also, just for the record, the reason so many minorities have had issues believing in Bernie, is because we know we lack power, so when you guys deride the people we vote into office or support (planned parenthood, CBC, naral etc.) as establishment, you seem to not understand that these groups represent those of us who genuinely lack power in society.
calling the CBC the establishment as a way to diminish what they stand for, is a cheap trick
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)I think this is where we are talking past each other.
I agree completely with your sentence, but Bernie isn't talking about establishment in society as a whole, but within the contemporary Democratic party, specifically.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)of who has and has not power in society.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There are many people who are supporting members of groups like PP who also actively supported Bernie. And it is not like Bernie's positions are opposing them. He and Clinton are basically in sync on that issue.
Members of PP should not have been put into that position by their leadership.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Are you fer or agin' Clinton.
That's all that matters for some.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Think about it and you'll understand what I meant. Go on, give it some time... no rush ... it will come to you, eventually. (Hopefully you'll get over your anger, too.)
No matter how you slice it, Bernie lost. With our with SD's ... with our without caucuses ... with or without open primaries, he lost!
Seriously now, isn't it time to move on? There's really nothing you can do about it. He's not the nominee. Hillary is our nominee.
Let's defeat Trump.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)with all open primaries...
And since that is decided on a state-by-state level, I don't know how much influence he'd have over actually changing that...
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)- Young liberals who don't consider themselves Democrats yet are encouraged to get involved.
- Democrats aren't disenfranchised by data errors wrongly listing them as non-Democrats.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)the primary can be manipulated by non-dems...
and wouldn't young liberals benefit by starting out with local/state races? the first ever races I had direct volunteer involvement with were city council and governor...
LexVegas
(6,101 posts)jamese777
(546 posts)In 2008 and again this year conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote in open Democratic primaries for whomever Rush considered to be the weakest Democratic candidate.
Limbaugh named his dirty trick "Operation Chaos."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703932.html
In my humble opinion, a mix of caucuses, open primaries, closed primaries and hybrids is the best way to chose the Democratic candidate, each type of contest attracts a different audience.
7962
(11,841 posts)the delegates should go where the voters say. Period. there should be NO pre-ordaining of any delegate
Triana
(22,666 posts)They are undemocratic in every way.
And open primaries ought to be Federal Law and states disallowed from having closed ones. This should be part of a new VRA.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The super delegates serve a similar function in the primary process as the Senate does to the legislative process--they are, as the story says George Washington, speaking to Thomas Jefferson termed it, the "cooling saucer" that makes it possible to drink the boiling hot beverage. The supers also give a voice to constituencies that aren't sometimes heard when approaching these contests with a generic and national mindset.
With or without the supers, Clinton would be the nominee. She got the most votes and without the supers, that "must reach" number wouldn't be the same.
David__77
(23,520 posts)...let alone are they obliged to facilitate affiliation of voters with this or that political party.
In California, the only partisan primary is for president. Otherwise, the top two candidates of the primary election advance to the general election, which serves as a sort of run-off election, regardless of party. That's how we have two Democrats competing for US Senate in November.
While I'm not committed to such an idea, I like the idea of abolishing partisan registration in California altogether, and not designating the political party of candidates at all. This would require candidates to meet some other criteria to be on primary ballots. And if the Republicans' candidate didn't make the number two spot in the primary, then they wouldn't be on the ballot in November.