Congressional Black Caucus passed a vote of no confidence on DNC Chair Tom Perez

[octoberlib]

Link to tweet

SCOOP: Congressional Black Caucus overwhelmingly passed a vote of "NO confidence" on DNC chair Tom Perez today in their caucus meeting.

Story TK shortly

[msongs]

1. one might think these issues could wait til dems take over the house.. nt

[brooklynite]

22. What does CBC's policy on a Party official have to do with House Leadership?

[Blue_Tires]

67. Yeah, didn't take long for the circular firing squad to start

I'll feel better once they concentrate all their attention on stopping Trump (Remember him? The Bad Guy in this saga?)

[elleng]

2. Interesting.

I wonder how this relates to Dem recent electoral success.

[octoberlib]

4. Some people on Twitter thought it was over his stance on superdelegates.

[elleng]

19. Thanks.

Sounds like a decent 'rationale.'

[phleshdef]

3. He just won back the house. Stupid.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. And 300+ state legislative seats and 7 governorships.

[JCanete]

59. Lets be fair...Trump did a whole lot of that work for us. I don't know what their beef is,

but it just might be legitimate.

[phleshdef]

60. They are angry because the superdelegates were made slightly less important

I will never agree with them on that. The superdelegates have been nothing but a controversial distraction the past 2 important primaries and they make our nomination process less democratic.

[JCanete]

66. oh totally. I agree with you on that actually. Thanks for doing what I was too tired to do. nt

[CentralMass]

5. Probably due to the Super D change. I support Perez on that issue.

Yup.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/14/congressional-black-caucus-tom-perez-991270

[octoberlib]

10. Thanks!

[pnwmom]

13. I support the CBC on that issue. n/t

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2018, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

[Sunsky]

15. Same here nt

[Stellar]

62. +1

[DURHAM D]

25. Same here. nt

[NYC Liberal]

27. Ditto.

[DonViejo]

28. Absolutely. eom.

[R B Garr]

30. Yes. nt

[Small-Axe]

45. I'm also with the CBC on the Superdelegate Issue

And the being an actual Democrat plank was far too weak as well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. +1

[Gothmog]

32. I support the CBC on the super delegate issue

[NurseJackie]

33. I stand with the CBC.

[Eric J in MN]

36. I also support Tom Perez on Superdelegate reform. NT

NT

[murielm99]

61. Add me to the list of his supporters.

[Celerity]

6. seems to be really bad timing

[shanny]

12. Would it be better to wait until

we are on the middle of the next election cycle?...which, btw, is already starting.

[Celerity]

17. at least wait until the new Congress is in place

I disagree with the CBC on this btw (in full disclosure). I think SD's are a priori anti-democratic.

[dem4decades]

8. Too bad people can't just be happy with success for a whole week.

[bdamomma]

29. yea for real

nt

[guillaumeb]

9. Elections have consequences.

One such is that previously underrepresented groups might want a seat at the welcome table.

[CentralMass]

14. Super Delegate are undemocratic. They represent 15% of the electorate and serve one purpose, to

override the will of the electorate.

The committee voted 27 to 1 to make this change.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process

After the 2016 election, the DNC's Unity Reform Commission recommended drastically reducing the number of superdelegates. Instead, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted 27 to 1 in June to prevent superdelegates from voting on the first round of ballots at presidential nominating conventions."

[guillaumeb]

18. Agreed.

It was a good decision.

[Power 2 the People]

24. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Another agreed n/t

[StevieM]

34. The SDs did not deny Bernie the nomination, nor was there ever the possibility that they would.

In 2008 SDs who were supporting HRC went over to Obama once he won the PDs.

[CentralMass]

46. I think that they had a big impact on the reporting of and public perception of the race, Take ..

New Hampshire at the start of the primary,.
Bernie recieved 60.14% of the vote and Hillary recieved 37.68%.
New Hampshire has 24 base delegates. So by the numbers Bernie should have received 15 delegates and Hilliary 9.
254,776 voted were counted so for reference each of the 24 delegates represented 10,616 voters. However NH has 8 superdelegates and 6 of them declared for Hillary The other did not declare who they supported. So instead of reporting a 15 to 9 delegate lead by Bernie the outcome was reported as a 15 -15 delegate tie. By the math Bernie should have received 5 of those superdelegates and Hillary 3. The count should have been Bernie 20 delegates and Hillary 12. Looking at the reporting outcome the 6 superdelegates who declared for Hillary had the relative weight of and usurped the vote of more than 60,000 New Hampshire voters. All this talk about the count not mattering until the convention is horseshit. This scenario was repeated in numerous states.

I don't care who this bs system benefits. The electorate should decide the outcome of State primaries, not party insiders. More then 60 superdelegates in 2016 were identified as registered lobbyists.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/28/influence-at-the-dnc-more-than-60-superdelegates-are-registered-lobbyists/

And, as we found, some of the superdelegates also happen to be lobbyists for interests like big banks, payday lenders, health care insurers and unions.

Since February, Sunlight has pored over hundreds of names and affiliations of DNC superdelegates from all over the country. Our methodology included going state by state to the respective lobbying registration database, as well as using data from OpenSecrets.org, to see if an individual was ever registered as a federal or state lobbyist.

"At least 63 superdelegates have registered as a lobbyist at the federal level or state level at some point. (Note: As we documented in our state lobbying report card, some states keep poor records of lobbying, so some information may be out of date.)

Those include some pretty big names, such as former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell — who used to lead DLA Piper, a law and lobbying firm — and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who was a registered lobbyist working for Ballard Spahr LLP on telecommunications and health issues as recently as 2012. Richard Gephardt, the former House minority leader, is also a registered lobbyist on behalf of a firm that shares his namesake, the Gephardt Group.

Some other notable lobbyist superdelegates:

Donald L. Fowler is a former Democratic National Committee chair who was a registered lobbyist for the S.C. Credit Union in South Carolina in 2009.
Alexis Tameron was registered to lobby for American Traffic Solutions in Arizona in 2011.
Joyce Brayboy is a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, most recently registered in 2015.
Steve Grossman, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and now a federal lobbyist for HPS Inc. working on issues related to the budget.
By our count, 28 states and D.C. had at least one superdelegate who was at one time a registered lobbyist on the federal or state level. "

[StevieM]

47. If Bernie had won the PDs he would have gotten all of the SDs.

And I don't think the talk about SD, or the delegate tally, ever took root outside of the Bernie faithful. For everyone else it seemed to be a non-issue.

Bernie was seen as losing when he lost primary after primary. And he still held in until the end, picking up late victories, even after it was clear that he would not win the popular vote or the PDs.

[CentralMass]

48. So in this case if the superdelegates who decided to declare early had decide to declare for the

winner of the primary and the media reported it as Bernie with 21 delegates and Hillary with 9 you would have been fine with it right?
I doubt it. The party with it mechanisms usurped the will of the electorate.

This superdelegates system is bs and it should be scrapped completely.

[StevieM]

50. The party did no such thing. Bernie got a lot fewer votes than Hillary and was never close to

beating her, super delegates or not. And it was established back in 2008 that HRC had to win the SDs to get the nomination. Even back then, when she talked about alternative standards, she talked about the popular vote and the electoral college map.

I would not have given it a second thought if the roles were reversed because it was clear from 2008 that the SDs would support the PD winner.

And I seem to remember Bernie getting all the coverage, and talk of momentum, whenever he won a big primary, like New Hampshire or Michigan.

The SDs should vote for the candidate who won their state, so that the entire election is not based on proportionate representation. That would eliminate the unfair effect of the caucuses. BTW, I can only imagine how the story would have been told, in 2016, as well as 2008, if Hillary had a huge advantage due to dominance in the caucus states.

[JHan]

51. Spot on. The Superdelegates were not a factor in his loss.

And your recollections are correct.

"That would eliminate the unfair effect of the caucuses. BTW, I can only imagine how the story would have been told, in 2016, as well as 2008, if Hillary had a huge advantage due to dominance in the caucus states. "


Indeed.

[Garrett78]

52. As I've pointed out before, there are people revising history. The media hailed Sanders as...

...the big winner in New Hampshire. CBS called it "huge," The Guardian called it "decisive," MSNBC called it a "landslide," etc.

I'm much more bothered by caucuses and the fact that the states which kick things off aren't remotely representative of our electorate.

[JHan]

53. Yup, and caucuses never attracted the same level of intense distrust and mania.

It's telling.

"the fact that the states which kick things off aren't remotely representative of our electorate."

- 1000 times this.

[CentralMass]

54. That is just false. I googled 2016 New Hampshire primary. See below

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NH
Scroll down to the Democratic primary. It is dated February 09 and shows the Bernie with 60% Hillary with 38% with 100% of the vote in with Bernie having 16 Delegate and Hillary 15.
It won't display correctly but here is a copy and paste of that section.


Feb 09: New Hampshire Democratic Primary32 delegates
Image: Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
60% (PROJECTED WINNER: 16 DEL.)
151,584
Image: Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
38% 15 del.
95,252
Image: Martin O'Malley
Martin O'Malley
0%
643
100% in

MSNBC showing it as a tie.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/clintons-nh-loss-softened-by-delegate-math-620784707540?v=raila&

WMUR in New Hampshire
https://www.wmur.com/article/sanders-won-landslide-nh-democratic-primary-vote-but-clinton-ties-him-in-delegate-count/5208538

Sanders won landslide NH Democratic primary vote, but Clinton ties him in delegate count
"

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466283748/how-hillary-clinton-is-actually-winning-in-n-h-even-though-she-lost-big
How Hillary Clinton Might Actually Win In N.H., Even Though She Lost Big

https://www.mynbc5.com/article/sen-bernie-sanders-celebrates-virtual-tie-with-hillary-clinton/2990785
Sen. Bernie Sanders celebrates virtual tie with Hillary Clinton

https://www.apnews.com/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8
"Superdelegates help Clinton expand her lead despite NH loss
HOPE YEN
February 18, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — So much for Bernie Sanders’ big win in New Hampshire.

Since then, Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 more superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, dwarfing Sanders’ gain from the New Hampshire primary, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders has added just 11 superdelegate endorsements.

If these party insiders continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some."

[Garrett78]

57. Most don't even know what delegates are. People pay more attention to headlines. Such as these:

Here's how CBS covered it:

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/index.html

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/09/bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire-primary-hillary-clinton

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-makes-history-new-hampshire-landslide

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary.html

Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955298/new-hampshire-primary-results-bernie-sanders-wins

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35538361

The suggestion by some that the dominant media narrative was something akin to "Sanders and Clinton in virtual tie in New Hampshire thanks to superdelegates" is patently false. Headline after headline, article after article, made it clear that Sanders was the big winner. Revisionist history doesn't change that.

And even though the race was effectively over by Super Tuesday, the media kept up the horse race coverage.

[JHan]

63. It's really amazing, looking back at that, how we ended up with Contested Convention talk..

There was that much investment to make it into a horse race. It should never have even been a thing. Sanders had no path and yet we still heard talk about something happening at the Convention. Remarkable given the trouncing.

In any case, as you said earlier, the SD's were never that consequential- on that score nothing has changed. So I wonder if this is just a warning to Perez to not capitulate further on certain "demands" without full engagement by the CBC.

[Cha]

56. What are you talking about? What election?

[Autumn]

11. That's too bad I liked him.

[CentralMass]

16. I doubt that he is going anywhere.

[Celerity]

20. yes, I though he did a great job. At end of day around + 40 in the House and only -2 in the Senate

-1 if Nelson somehow pulls it out.

[CentralMass]

26. +1

[Eric J in MN]

44. If we win the FL recount and the MS runoff election

...then no net Senate change.

[Eric J in MN]

37. He has a 5 year term which started last year. NT

NT

[Autumn]

38. With a vote of no confidence how effective will he be?

[Eric J in MN]

40. About a fifth of Congressional Democrats voted. NT

NT

[Autumn]

42. Okay. Not bad.

[Garrett78]

21. The only superdelegate change is that they won't vote until round 2.

They will still make public endorsements. And they will end up putting a candidate over the top every time nobody reaches the requisite number after the first round of voting, which will be often. This rule change isn't really consequential.

[CentralMass]

23. Apparently the CBC disagrees.

[phleshdef]

58. The CBC is painfully wrong.

[CentralMass]

65. +1

[Eric J in MN]

35. I support Tom Perez.

The Republican candidate for MN AG, Doug Wardlow, was horrible.

Keith Ellison was the Democratic candidate. Ellison was constantly smeared in the press, based on a contradictory accusation by an ex-girlfriend. She sometimes said he had dragged her out of bed, and sometimes that he had unsuccessfully tried to.

Ellison was DNC Deputy Chair. Perez didn’t suspend him or fire him, and he won.

If Perez had fired or suspended Ellison then he would have lost, and a horrible Republican would be our next AG.

[allgood33]

39. I stand with Tom. He and his staff and group deserve a lot of credit for our wins.

Quiet Storm is what i call him He has been right on almost everything the DNC has decided. I am surprised by the CBC action.
We always manage to snatch defeatism from the jaws of victory! The GOP wt dream.

[kentuck]

41. He's done an adequate job, in my opinion...

but maybe it's time to give someone else a chance? Any suggestions?

[Eric J in MN]

43. The job is calling donors every day asking for money.

There are more famous and charismatic people who could theoretically be DNC Chair. But they don’t necessarily want to call donors every day.

[Tavarious Jackson]

49. I support the CBC.. nt

[disillusioned73]

64. OK...

But we are not allowed to comment on this.... so - womp-womp?