Tulsi Gabbard launches petition to end Democratic Party superdelegate process

[Cheese Sandwich]

Source: Politico

The Democratic presidential primary process may be ending next Tuesday, but the fight among Bernie Sanders supporters to rid the party of superdelegates and install new leadership at the Democratic National Committee is not.

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard encouraged her followers on Saturday to sign a petition ending the Democratic Party’s use of superdelegates.

“Whether you are a Bernie Sanders supporter or a Hillary Clinton supporter, we should all agree that unelected party officials and lobbyists should not have a say in who the presidential nominee of our party is,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “That should be left up to the voters.”

Gabbard resigned as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in February to publicly endorse the Vermont senator’s campaign.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tulsi-gabbard-superdelegate-petition-224220

---

[roguevalley]

1. anyone who supports the super delegate thing needs their head examined. If we are

one vote for all, we can't be one vote and 10,000 votes for them. Its bullshit. GO, TULSI!

For those who might complain, I would hate this stupidity no matter what. I remember when it started and hated it then too.

[msanthrope]

9. Tad Devine? Get back to us. Nt

[roguevalley]

17. I don't have to. it is wrong period and since

Hrc is using them to lie about her pledged count get back to me.

[SCantiGOP]

142. Your post speaks more to your credibility

Than to our nominee's honesty.

[Loudestlib]

153. The presumptive nominee has no honesty.

[Phlem]

2. Done.

[ReRe]

3. K&R

Much more needs to be done, but this is as good a place to start as any.

[840high]

4. Yes.

[AntiBank]

5. Good luck with that one. No way in hell the systemic controllers are giving that power back.

Not only that but you KNOW the Rethugs sooooo want SD's now after the Dumpster.

[jillan]

6. THIS is the one thing Hillary should be doing to win over Bernie supporters.

Superdelegates hurt her in 2008 & they are undermining her nomination in 2016 with the 400 that pledged to her before anyone else was running.

If this was coming from Hillary, I would be thrilled.

[AllTooEasy]

12. Without SDs, Bernie has no chance of winning the nomination

Hillary won the popular vote and the pledged delegate count. She won more than %50 of possible pledged delegates. In other words, without SDs she's goes from presumptive nominee to unquestionable nominee.

BTW, I don't like the SD concept either.

[pokerfan]

25. We're talking about future elections

You down with that?

Because who knows what the media (corporate) narrative would have been had Hillary not started the race with a 400 delegate head start.

[Laser102]

64. She would have still won. Called getting the majority of the vote and delegates in those states.

Super delegates have not been counted yet. She still wins.

[stillwaiting]

84. So disingenuous. So completely missing the point on how superdelegates were used

During this primary starting from BEFORE Iowa.

Superdelegates have got to go.

[seabeckind]

87. The superdelegate idea is even more insidious.

They are the ones in the states that get together to determine the process to be used in the primaries. They are the ones who have the power to frontload the system to ensure that their "chosen" candidate gets to compete in the races.

Then they get to vote another time to get rid of the ones they oppose who manage to slip past their barriers.

The argument is that the system can ensure a stronger candidate when what it really does is ensure that the little guy down at the bottom of the heap has to buy his way into the process otherwise he has to do it totally on his own.

It's a self-replicating system to ensure that there is NO progress beyond that blessed by the back room.

[stillwaiting]

90. Well said.

[Smarmie Doofus]

99. +1 n/t

[jwirr]

121. K&R

[WhiteTara]

120. They have been part of the system

for 30 years. Is this your first election where you paid attention? You didn't care when it worked for Obama, suddenly you are all fired up? Hmmm.

[Ash_F]

28. Arguably, without the SD's jumping in at the start, we would not have had a bandwagon effect...

Arguably, without the SD's jumping in at the start, we would not have had a bandwagon effect favoring Clinton

[metroins]

30. Obama

Why was Obama able to overcome her SD lead in 2008 but Sanders couldn't in 2016?

Before I understood the process and the history, I didn't like SDs, but they would help us not elect a Trump type candidate. The Rs are stuck with him because there's no backup plan.

We could have them not be allowed to endorse early, that's fair.

[Ash_F]

32. Trump won because they ran 16 candidates

Not because because of lacking SDs.

That was a terrible strategy because everyone else was so similar. Trump stood apart from the pack. He knew he had to stand out so he used that.

But the Republicans are full of egos. So we saw the clown car.

[LittleGirl]

41. The ONLY reason

Trump stood out is because the MEDIA had him on all day, every day. Nobody else had a chance.
The conservative media wanted him and that's what the GOP got!

they can suck it.

[Ash_F]

48. That's why he said such inflammatory things.

He knew it would get attention.

[LittleGirl]

97. yep eom

[Ash_F]

33. Also, to answer your question. The Iraq war was still fresh on people's minds

People were really angry. It crippled Clinton

That anger has faded a little bit.

[Ash_F]

67. Iraq did not hurt her as much this year no.

[Ash_F]

71. No, I said it creates a bandwagon effect.

Which it does. That is why superdelegates make their endorsements public in the first place. To try to affect the outcome.

Obama overcame the SD's initial play to boost Clinton, for which I am glad. Iraq still being fresh was a big reason.

Obama also did not saying anything really threatening to the establishment such as $15 minimum wage, medicare for all, and breaking up the banks. So the press did not seize on him as much. These policies freak out the powerful.


All those things matter.

But more than anything else it was the albatross of Iraq in 2008 that sunk Clinton. He went after her hard for that and it was the perfect time as people were sick of the war.

[Ash_F]

74. Yet another juvenile post

All my posts are still there, so people can see that I have been consistent.

Yes SD's influence people and yes it is bad.

[Ash_F]

39. Science trumps anecdotes

http://rap.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2053168014547667

[Ash_F]

44. SD support is at this point, nothing but a poll

Remember they haven't voted yet?

[Ash_F]

47. This comment is juvenile.

If it didn't matter then we didn't need to know right? Seems like people really wanted to know.

[Ash_F]

56. I already gave that answer to another poster in this subthread.

Why do you need it again?

[Ash_F]

61. Read the paper when you have calmed down.

It will help you.

[Ash_F]

66. Another juvenile post

It's not my business who you voted for. Nor do I tell people who to vote for.

Vote your conscious.

[Ash_F]

45. Also it is many studies.

Check the references. Don't you teach your students about references?

[Ash_F]

50. You seem upset.

The paper is very well put together and will answer all your questions.

[Ash_F]

54. It's not a study. It's a paper that cites multiple studies.

And I read faster than you, apparently.

[Ash_F]

58. The writers did not conduct any studies. They referenced them.

You did not read it.

[rjsquirrel]

88. Ok explain this text from the abstract

"To address this gap, we conducted an experiment on a diverse national sample in which we randomly assigned people to receive information about different levels of support for three public policies. We find that public opinion as expressed through polls affects individual-level attitudes, although the size of the effect depends on issue characteristics."

Apparently you don't even read what you yourself post. Or can't read it.

[Ash_F]

78. "Hillary would have won without superdelegates"

Great, so we can get rid of them!

[Ash_F]

82. I am glad you agree with the findings then.

[rjsquirrel]

85. Not what I said

I agree that superdelegates are irrelevant to the outcome. Your study (that you said wasn't a study lol) said public polling creates a measurable bandwagon effect. Even if true it's irrelevant to the SD issue. And it's obviously and trivially true that the media report elections like horse races and popularity breeds more popularity just like in junior high school.

Bernie was less popular. For reasons. Not because someone fixed the system. Obama beat the SD and polling influence in 08 by becoming more popular. Bernie couldn't do it. That's not rigged, that's politics anywhere from a student council election to the presidency.

People have to vote for you to win. They have to like you and believe you and consider you electable to win a presidential primary. How other people vote affects subsequent voting.

If we held a single national one day primary in January or February Bernie would have been creamed worse than he was because HE relied on a bandwagon effect to get as close as he did, which was never really all that close to begin with. You dont win democratic primaries with mostly white voters.

Time for your next juvenile snarl since you can't refute the substance of what I'm saying. Go ahead and have the last word, I'm feeling magnanimous toward the losing side at the moment.

Start your own party or vote for Trump or embrace the irrelevant Greens or stay home. It don't matter to me dude. But you lost a primary that had defined and longstanding rules you knew going in.

[Ash_F]

89. You seem bizarrely fixated on me at a personal level

Has anyone ever talked you about this behavior? Maybe I am not the first?

[Ash_F]

92. You've called me a lot of names over the course of this conversation

Maybe you should stop, read everything you have written, and think about it?

[Ash_F]

94. Actually no.

[Ash_F]

96. I have to go to work.

One last thing. Look at your transparency page, then look at mine.

Some introspection would help you, friend.

[jwirr]

122. When you look at the early endorsements of both the SDs

and the Corporate news coverage and the idiots debate schedule etc from the DNC. And that does not even include the Big Money donors and the 32 state democratic party deal with Hillary's Victory Fund to launder even more big money through the DNC. It is a wonder that we even got as far as we did in out fight for change.

Getting rid of the SDs is a good first step in cleaning up the mess our party is in since the 90s.

[Phlem]

137. You know Hillary better than that.

It's all lip service till she's in full control. Then it's all about her.

[billhicks76]

7. Tulsi Is Presidential

We need more like her and less of those who sold themselves.

[MattP]

8. Tulsi is right wing as hell, have you ever seen her on a talk show rip on Obama for not saying

Islamic Extremist or being one of the token Dems voting to block the Syrian refugees wtf just because she backed Bernie doesn't make her liberal

[msongs]

10. let's get her a job in DC and out of Hawaii, where she is being primaried nt

[phazed0]

14. Being a liberal doesn't seem to be part of the litmus test any longer. nt

[billhicks76]

16. Ive Met Her And You Are Dead Wrong

Nice try though.

[lancer78]

19. Link

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/gabbard-supports-gop-bill-syrian-refugees

[Kaela]

24. It really helps to get perspective on votes

Tulsi said in supporting the SAFE Act: “I believe we must offer refuge to the most vulnerable and those in need, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the American people”. The stronger screenings, as mandated by the SAFE Act, are needed because there have in fact been terrorists admitted as refugees in the US as indicated here , here, and here.

The program was closed down before in 2009 when two al Qaeda terrorists slipped through as refugees during the Iraq war and were actively supporting al Qaeda & planning an attack on US soil.

For more information on the SAFE Act, read her full statement

[billhicks76]

26. Hillary Is As Hawkish As They Come

Looks like some dividers want to punish anyone who supported Bernie. So foolish.

[BainsBane]

36. Why, by daring to point out Islamophobia

Or homophobia on Tulsi's part? You would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion than supporting Sanders makes someone superior or immune from criticism. Frankly, the way many have abandoned ideology and principle for primary-based tribalism is wearing thin.

Failing to overturn the results of elections eradicate the voting rights of the majority is not punishing Sanders supporters. Clinton and the rest of the party leadership are bending over backwards to welcome in Sanders supporters, including hiring some of his campaign staff. What they are not willing to do is feed into the notion that some cling to that the entire population should exist in permanent deference to those Bernie supporters who cannot accept the fact that they are equal to but not better than any other voter.

[billhicks76]

167. No One Thinks That

People believe in justice for this world and they see none. They gave democrats 8 years. All they got was excuses and whining. "Hands were tied". Then legs should've been used. The case was never taken directly to the people except for what Bernie did. All I see are jealous haters now who think a person is bigger than an idea. That a candidate is more important than a movement. Good luck with that. We used to have a lot more courage in the Democratic Party. Our predecessors would frankly be ashamed of us.

[billhicks76]

168. If You Cant Tell The Difference Between A Hawk and a Dove Well Then What Can Be Done?

Tulsi is not homophobic...thats BS. Pointing out something small vs an entire record of supporting the .01%, waging wars on poor people abroad and imprisoning as many minorities as possible isn't what I call liberal. I'm as left wing as it gets...you might look like a republican if standing next to me but I think for myself and this woman is honest and true. It's Hillary who didn't support gay marriage until it might cost her votes. Honestly I deserve more credit than your limited perspective allows. My entire family was murdered by extremist Muslims and yet I will never support waging wars on entire peoples, violating our rights with such atrocities as the Patriot Act or torturing anyone. I know what humanity is about, what love means and how we are prevented from unifying by dividing us with cultural distractions. And yet I see many a fools errand amongst those that think they are supporting democracy when the dividends from their actions and beliefs will not.

[BainsBane]

40. The GOP takes the same view.

How many right wing policies are Bernie supporters going to defend because their former candidate or someone associated with the campaign supports them? Isn't mainstreaming NRA talking points about immunity for gun corporations, justifying a trillion plus for Lochkeed Martin and opposition to immigration reform enough?

So what if she supported Bernie? Why is it necessary to defend everything she says or does? I can't even imagine getting to the point where I would defend unjust policies or bigotry because the person who advanced them happened to support my choice for president. it is possible to agree with people on some matters without justifying everything they say and do.

As for the OP, I oppose abolishing super delegates because I want a fails ace against a Trump-like figure taking over the party.

[obamanut2012]

163. Well, no, it's a fact

[msanthrope]

11. She's rightwing as hell when it comes to gays and Muslims. Check out her Fox interviews. Nt

[MFM008]

15. yeah ive heard her

I think she knew a neo-con wasn't going anywhere in Hawaii so she swallowed it long enough to get elected.
She may support Sanders but I bet she votes for tRump.

[obamanut2012]

165. bingo

[Kaela]

23. Au contraire.

The only thing Clinton trolls can do with Tulsi is try to smear her with negative labels because she backed Bernie.

Tulsi has a lifetime progressive Democrat rating of over 90% and she speaks truth to power regardless of venue. According to her votes and public positions, Tulsi is:

–Against regime-change interventionist wars
–Tulsi supports equality and LGBT issues 100% (https://www.votetulsi.com/vision#equality),
–pro-women's rights,
–pro-early and higher education,
–for breaking up Wall Street’s big banks
–pro-Glass-Steagall,
–against warrantless spying by the NSA,
–voted against the Patriot Act,
–voted for protecting net neutrality,
–pro-criminal justice reform
–progressive on marijuana policy
–anti-TPP,
–pro-GMO labeling,
–against cuts to Medicare & Social Security
–pro-protecting our planet via clean energy and sustainable farming to combat climate change

[MFM008]

29. this coming from someone with 4 posts?

[seabeckind]

70. Awesome refutation.

A thing to behold.

[Gore1FL]

111. Here let me help with that as i have a lot.

Verbatim from the post above:

The only thing Clinton trolls can do with Tulsi is try to smear her with negative labels because she backed Bernie.

Tulsi has a lifetime progressive Democrat rating of over 90% and she speaks truth to power regardless of venue. According to her votes and public positions, Tulsi is:

–Against regime-change interventionist wars
–Tulsi supports equality and LGBT issues 100% (https://www.votetulsi.com/vision#equality),
–pro-women's rights,
–pro-early and higher education,
–for breaking up Wall Street’s big banks
–pro-Glass-Steagall,
–against warrantless spying by the NSA,
–voted against the Patriot Act,
–voted for protecting net neutrality,
–pro-criminal justice reform
–progressive on marijuana policy
–anti-TPP,
–pro-GMO labeling,
–against cuts to Medicare & Social Security
–pro-protecting our planet via clean energy and sustainable farming to combat climate change

There you go.

[msanthrope]

134. Her interesting defense of her father shows her anti-gay bias. I note you

didn't include that.

[obamanut2012]

166. lolz "lifelong Democrat"

She is less of a lifelong Dem than Reagan was.

lolz

and calling the DUer a troll.

[brentspeak]

124. So, do you think Gabbard is more RW on the issue of Muslims than this person?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7900922

[msanthrope]

133. I correctly identified an ISIS supporter, apparently. Surely, you are not faulting me for that? nt

[obamanut2012]

164. Loves Putin and loathes Obama, too

He sudden heel turn on LGBT issues was not convincing to me.

[athena]

113. She wants to keep out Syrian refugees

and temporarily suspend all EU visas to make sure they don't get in.

That is anything but presidential. It's not even centrist, let alone progressive.

Don't support someone just because they like Bernie and hate Hillary and Wasserman-Shultz. Check out their positions on the issues first.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-rising-democratic-star-from-hawaii-makes-mark-on-party-by-defying-it.html?_r=0

[dreamnightwind]

135. Her anti-interventionist leanings are excellent

Se is much less of a hawk than our presumptive nominee, which to me is far more important than a position on accepting/rejecting Syrian immigrants. Selective outrage. Tulsi would not have done the things that caused the bulk of the refugees to flee.

[athena]

141. A president can't say,

"If I had been president at the time, this wouldn't have happened, so I'm going to choose not to deal with it." President Obama has had to deal with two wars that he wouldn't have started, not to mention a terrorist organization that would never come into being if GWB had never been "elected" president. Being against intervention does not make it OK to be against refugees. In fact, I'm surprised to see anyone who calls himself/herself progressive support someone who is rabidly anti-refugee, not to mention Islamophobic:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

To the media, Gabbard is a curious spectacle. She's a Hawaii Democrat, coming from one of the nation's most progressive and dovish chapters of the Democratic Party, but she's also an Iraq war veteran, and she's consistently tried to outflank President Obama and the rest of her party to the right on foreign affairs. Last month she openly mocked Secretary of State John Kerry during an appearance on CNN, saying that he thinks, "if we give them [Islamic extremists] $10,000 and give them a nice place to live that somehow they're not going to be engaged in this fighting."

To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.

But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

(Emphases mine.)

[dreamnightwind]

143. ??? A president can refrain from interventionism

which is what she has said she would have done (in the case of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, IIRC). Obama (to some extent) and Hillary (for sure) felt differently, working to destabilize Syria and Libya, and in the process blowing up local living conditions in the region so people fled the war zone in droves (they also were dealing with drought, which added to the refugee problem).

I agree we should be receptive to the refugees, and on this I do not agree with Tulsi.

But it's far more important to not create war zones and failed states that people have to flee from. There's no comparison. Causing the refugee crisis is a far greater offense, these people had homes and a homeland before we laid them to waste.

I read the article you linked. I am not qualified to judge the merits or lack of merits of the BJP, just don't know enough about it and won't take one article's word on it.

Strange to me to see the article claiming she is attacking the administration's foreign policy from the right, I don't see it that way, I think the article is a hit-piece.

Another place the article seemed quite unfair, it criticized Tulsi as an ally of Sheldon Adelson, because she apparently opposes internet gambling, and that opposition presumably benefits casino owner Adelson. I think it's a progressive position to oppose gambling, its main result is to distribute money upwards into the pockets of whoever is running the gambling. Is there more to this? Has she actually allied with Adelson? I don't think so. If you have evidence of it, I'll look at it.

I've seen Tulsi speak in person, she is excellent on a number of issues. She may not be excellent on others. But she spends most of her speaking time speaking out against military interventionism, a great cause that I am all in favor of, and that far too few in our own party actually are brave enough to take on.

I pretty much share her negative views of Islam (assuming I understand her position correctly), though for me I would include every organized religion, they all suck. But there is clearly an Islamic problem that foments violence against supposed infidels. Is that Islamophobia? Some may think so, I don't.

I probably disagree with her some when she says it's not about them having broken lives and economies (she says it's strictly ideological, or that's what your article says she says anyways). In my experience comfortable happy people are far less likely to violently strike out against others. So I would favor efforts to withdraw our military from the region, and to support stability and regional autonomy rather than imperial interests.

Bernie has excellent judgment about who he hangs out with, I think he knows who she is and he welcomes her as a spokesperson.

[AJ.Akia]

157. A factual perspective is in order.

You're making all of Hillary/Brock's super-PAC paid troll baseless accusations which are rooted in Hinduphobia. Tulsi is not anti-refugee. She has stated many times that we need to stop the horrendous refugee crisis by ending the war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad. She has introduced a bill to stop US funding of it. Tulsi has spoken in support of accepting refugees, but just wants to make sure they are vetted properly, “I believe we must offer refuge to the most vulnerable and those in need, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the American people”. She is right, stronger screenings are needed because there have in fact been terrorists admitted as refugees in the US as indicated here, here, and here.

Using a known Hindu-hating author's old, faulty and bigoted 'logic' as 'fact' disqualifies your entire post about Tulsi and puts you squarely in the Hinduphobe category right along with him. (Emphasis mine). Multiple articles have been written to rebut the patently false and ridiculous claims presented. This is a compilation of two of them and some additional information unbiased readers will find enlightening.

Tulsi is on the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees and has long spoken of better ties with India for security and economic reasons. Her dealings with any of the political parties in India are purely diplomatic, but if you want to talk 'closeness' to PM Modi — look no further than our own President Obama.

[tm2clean2]

160. Troll attacks towards Tulsi because she supports Bernie?

I don't know but this is all feeling like paid trolls targeting Tulsi and anyone who supports Bernie Sanders. I keep reading all sorts of bizarre accusations going around.

Hillary Clinton can call Isis Radical/Extremist Muslims. But if it comes from anyone else it's because they are bigots or haters? From what I've seen, Tulsi is brave like Bernie and says it how it is. Neither bought or sold. Hillary, on the other hand, says whatever has been scripted to her. She will say anything to sway whoever is in front her at the time. FLIP FLOP QUEEN. Just look at her voting records and you will see who is truly Hawkish. Where Tulsi wants a leader who will work towards peace.

By defining that it's Radical Extremist Muslims you are targeting more of the problem then putting a blanket "Muslims are Terrorists" label out there. As far as Kerry wanting to give food and money, it might help some, but the problem seems a bit deeper than that. There is deep seated hatred towards the western way of life and for Americas part in all the conflicts.

[athena]

161. You registered today, and you're calling a long-time member a paid troll?

And almost in the same breath, you insult the presumptive democratic presidential nominee.

I suspect your days here are numbered.

[AJ.Akia]

155. “I believe we must offer refuge to the most vulnerable...."

Tulsi said in supporting the SAFE Act: “I believe we must offer refuge to the most vulnerable and those in need, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the American people”.

The more stringent screenings, as mandated by the SAFE Act, are needed because there have in fact been terrorists admitted as refugees in the US as indicated here, here, and here.

In 2009 the program was suspended in its entirety when two al-Qaeda terrorists came to the U.S. as refugees from Iraq, and were actively supporting al-Qaeda from the U.S. while also plotting an attack on U.S. soil. Following their discovery and arrest, the refugee program for Iraqis was completely shut down for six months.

[obamanut2012]

162. Loves Putin, loathes Obama, has been rabidly anti LGBT

lolz "Presidential."

[AllTooEasy]

13. I'm confused. She wants Bernie to outright lose?!

Hillary has more popular votes and pledged delegates. She won over %50 of possible pledged delegates. Without the SD concept, Bernie currently has no possible path to the nomination. If (and it's an extraordinarily Big If) Bernie can swing enough SDs by the convention, he wins the nomination. Without the SD concept, only pledge delegates are factored into the equation and Bernie outright loses.

Wow, with friends like these...

BTW, I'm against the SD concept, for starters.

[Eric J in MN]

21. I think this is intended for starting next time.

We shouldn't change the rules in the middle and I don't think she wants to.

[AJ.Akia]

156. This is for future contests *nt*

[jwirr]

123. Apparently you have not read the answers to you assumption.

We can do nothing about this election. The SDs will do what ever they want.

We want them out of all future elections. Has nothing to do with who wins this election.

[BainsBane]

18. Right now the GOP wishes they had super delegates.

[Eric J in MN]

22. Because Republican primary voters chose a bigot

...which Drmocratic primary voters won't do.

[BainsBane]

31. Why not?

With all the outcry to end closed primaries, it is quite likely differences between Democratic and Republican primary voters will erode and the Democratic Party will meet veer to the right. That is the problem when people decide to recreate election law around a particular politician's fortunes rather than long-term concern for the party. It is moderate Democrats who got open primaries established in order to undermine the influence of the left. Now Bernie supporters are working for the same thing all around this country, though predictably not an end to the system than ensures the lowest voter turnout, caucuses. Too many have decided that ideology is determined entirely by affinity to a particular politician, not principle, concern for voting rights or the long-term well being of the party or the country. That result is efforts that would give Republicans as much influence over the party's nomination process as Democrats, which makes it quite possible for a Trump or David Duke like figure to emerge as a future nominee. That is the problem when people decide the only thing that matters is one politician's career, and they work to transform the elections in a way that they think would have change the 2016 results.

The entire fracas in Nevada was out of outrage at hat registered Republicans couldn't run the state party there. So let's not pretend the Democratic party is immune from a Trump-like figure when some have dedicated themselves to ensuring the Dems become more like the GOP. Bernie has made one of his principle concerns to reorder primaries so states he won, predominantly white caucus states, take precedence over more diverse Southern states. Black voters failed to revere b him, so he is working to limit their influence in the party, something his campaign made clear was a goal in Jan of 2016--not, I think, because he has some racial animus but simply. because the majority of AAs didn't vote for him. If we know one thing about Bernie, It is that he nurtures resentment toward people who fail to support him or otherwise disagree with him. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041 The clear result of the efforts above is to make the party less representative of the diversity of American society, and in doing so more like the GOP. If they are successful, the result will almost certainly be Trump-like figures.

Then of course there is the fact that Bernie supporters have failed to keep up with their candidates complete about-face on super delegates, which is understandable because that kind of full-scale change in purported ideals is head spinning.

The one saving grace is that most are too uninformed party rules to get their demands passed. At the MN State DFL convention they celebrated the triumph of a motion supposedly banning super delegates, with no conception that what they introduced was a non-binding mood of the floor vote. Yet it is that same ignorance that underlies their push to open up more Dem primaries to Republicans, without understanding that the effect will likely be to move the party rightward.

[still_one]

110. In my view the best thing about Super Delegates, whether intended or not, is

that Super Delegates historically have sided with the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates, and reduces the probability of the convention from going into complete chaos if someone is short a few pledged delegates to clinch the nomination.

Barrack Obama had the most pledged delegates, and because of that, the Super Delegates gave him the votes to get over the top, and provided a stabilizing force to the process.

In this current election, everyone knew the rules going in. Rules do not change suddenly because they don't fit the results one would like to see. In fact Sanders campaign manager, Tad Devine was instrumental in the system we have today.

Who know what will happen in the future, but as far as today, Super Delegates are part of the process, and you don't change rules to suit your needs at the end of the game.

[lancer78]

20. Right wing hacks have no place in our party

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/gabbard-supports-gop-bill-syrian-refugees

[JonLeibowitz]

27. Yes, certain prominent party members should leave and go back to the GOP.

[Trust Buster]

34. In my opinion, Sanders is an Independent who does not pose a long term threat to the Party.

Gabbard, on the other hand, does pose a long term threat to the Party. Every sense in my body flashes red when I hear this women talk. Democrats would be foolish not to hand this imposter a one way ticket out of the Party as quickly as possible. We all know she will go Independent in due time anyway. We would be foolish to let her do damage on the way out the door.

[Her Sister]

75. with you on this!

eom.

[LexVegas]

51. Cleveland Cavaliers launch petition to end three point shot. nt

[Bradical79]

140. LOL!

Hilarious, but as a Cavs fan this stings

[Her Sister]

52. What about caucuses?

eom.

[dreamnightwind]

136. This Bernie supporter wants to get rid of caucuses

Right after we get rid of the electronic voting machines and tabulators.

[BeyondGeography]

60. Bernie lost and SD's had zero to do with it

Obama led with pledged delegates all the way but trailed with SD's until May of 2008. Did that bother me at the time as an Obama supporter? Not really, because my candidate kept a cool head and repeatedly said the PD winner would be recognized by the supers as the actual winner in the end and, lo and behold...

I don't care if the party tweaks the system somehow. And Gabbard is just a water carrying surrogate. What's irritating to me is Bernie's constant search for a bogus consolation prize, i.e. something, ANYTHING, to cast his defeat as less than fair-and-square.

[seabeckind]

69. I thought the democrats were the party of the people.

All the people. All people equal.

Then why are there people in this thread who seem so much more like the nobility model?

Maybe we ought to call the superdelegates "lords". Maybe let them pass on their status to their children.

It'll be awesome!

BTW, that was my complaint about our "lords" after the elections in 2000. Then the local steps to ensure a cling to power.

That our fantastic democratic "lords" didn't do one dam thing to try to fix the system. Hel, they liked a fixed system.

[LiberalFighter]

76. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a clue about the unpledged delegates process.

And she is being disingenuous about it. The only reason for her complaint about them and wanting to get rid of them is because of her misconception that they caused Sanders to lose. Under any method that others have tried to use Sanders still would had lost. What she is trying to do will guarantee that we will lose elections that should not be lost.

If she doesn't understand the history and process of the unpledged delegates it is also likely she doesn't understand how delegates are allocated to each state either. Just like the media doesn't understand the process for each.

There are several arguments for and against the current process. The pros have a better argument. The best arguments for the process: 1) It prevents party leaders and elected officials from being shut out of the process, 2) It creates unity when party leaders and elected officials have a part in it, 3) It provides more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice.

She states that unelected party officials and lobbyists should not have a say. By making that statement it demonstrates that she doesn't have a clue about party officials. Those unelected party officials are elected. I suppose she thinks they should also be elected by the voters in a primary. And allow voters who are not Democrats to determine a state party's officers. But the problem with her argument is that those party officials are elected. They are the chairs and vice chairs of each state party. They are elected by members of the state central committee that consists of other elected party members from the local areas. Each level from the precinct committee members all the way to the state party are elected by the party activists. They are the bread and butter of the party.

As for those lobbyists. Again she doesn't have a clue and it appears that if she knows a few lobbyists within the party then they all must be lobbyists. And identifying someone as a lobbyist because they belong to a certain group does not make one a lobbyist either. What Gabbard also forgets is that those so called lobbyists are elected at state conventions by state delegates. In reality those lobbyists are activists who have been involved in the Democratic Party. Activists from labor groups, women's, lgbt, local or state elected officials, small business owners, and many other sectors of the community.

It is interesting that she doesn't say a thing about members of Congress, Governor, or President. So it appears she wants to get rid of the others but not that group. A group she is a part of as a U.S. Representative.

None of the arguments against pledged delegates that are offered hold any water.

[Red Knight]

80. I'm with HER!

Superdelegates are undemocratic. Period.

[LiberalFighter]

101. Every one of them have been elected.

And because of their elected position they hold the spot as an unpledged delegate. The DNC is an organization that consists of members that hold their position based on elections within their organization. It is their convention and they should include members from their organization. The general population doesn't get a say in the matter.

[seabeckind]

103. Including the lobbyists?

Who just happen to be SDs? Just who elected them?



http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/has-the-democratic-party-establishment-rigged-the-nomination-process-in-clintons-favor-through-the-superdelegate-system.html

[LiberalFighter]

105. Yes! They were elected at their respective state conventions.

9 out of 714 delegates. Wow!!! You made your point that they have a major impact.

[seabeckind]

107. Another swing and a miss.

You were presented with a sample.

You decided that sample was all there was.

You also missed the point that the system might just ensure that only the anointed ones get to be on those state ballots.

It's called cronyism.

Hel, I remember some required reading long ago that talked about how all are equal but some are more equal.

Enjoy your day.

BTW, I notice you use a union logo. How do you feel about closed unions? Good idea? Or one that would crowd out innovation?

[LiberalFighter]

112. A closed union doesn't have anything to do with a union's organization.

Even a labor union determines the process of how they conduct their conferences and conventions. They don't allow non-members to vote. They include top officers as well as rank and file members to attend. If they are elected by their fellow union members as delegates they get to vote. They might campaign on certain issues that they might bring up at the convention. But they are not bound to vote that way. They are allowed to use their conscience and common sense. They were elected to make the best decision.

Using the term closed unions demonstrates your lack of knowledge about labor unions.

You state that the system might ensure that only the anointed ones get on the ballot. So you don't even know. Just making a conjecture without any supporting facts. Which also likely indicate that you don't get involve with your local party. If you are going to initiate change you need to be involved and do the grassroots work within the party instead of trying to destroy it.

[seabeckind]

116. A closed union has to do with who gets to join

trying to deflect that fact into the union's organization is a pretty limp effort.

I will restate what I have already stated. You are defending the textbook example of a crony system, an entrenched power structure.

The ONLY way to break an entrenched system is from the outside. Because the structural procedures themselves eliminate any potential threat before it becomes an actual threat.

My lord, all of this is in the history books. It's happened before.

[LiberalFighter]

119. Well excused me. By your explanation you apparently want anyone

to be a member of a labor union without actually belonging. A person doesn't get to be a member unless they are part of a work group that is represented by a labor union. And even then unless they are a member in good standing which means their dues are paid they can't vote.

There is no such thing as a closed union. I don't know where you got that term but it appears that you are not a member of a labor union.

You also don't automatically become a member of the Democratic Party in your state or local party just because you vote in a Democratic Primary. You have to hold a position within the party organization. And only those holding those positions have a say in how the organization is run. Outsiders have no say. Even if you are elected as a delegate to the state convention you cannot change national party rules. You can't even change state party rules. Because you are not a voting member of that group.

[seabeckind]

83. IOW you like the idea of an entrenched power structure.

That you are more than happy to let someone else decide what issues mean the most to you. Go along to get along.

IOW, you have never been in a situation where there's a "good ole boy" network and that the only way to get ahead in that organization is by kissing the ass of the guy who kissed the ass of the guy ahead of him.

BTW, that's why we had a revolution in this country.

That's also why the french invented the guillotine.

[LiberalFighter]

100. It is not entrenched.

Show me how the SD's prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. The SD's comprise only 15% of the delegates and they followed the will of the voters. It appears you are unhappy that Sanders didn't have the majority of voters.

There was no revolution in this country. If there was a revolution there wouldn't be any primaries, state conventions or a national convention. You all would had just decided that Sanders was going to be the nominee and that would be it. It is within those state conventions, national convention and even within the state central committees that issues are brought up, debated and supported.

If there was a "good ole boy" structure Sanders never would had been on the ballot. He would had been kept off. It would never be possible for Sanders' supporters to be elected as DNC members which are done at state conventions.

Your last remark appears to be meant has physical violence.

[seabeckind]

102. Try 1776. Learned it in history.

Hel, there are even documents available that talk about how the US was going to be a gov't of, by and for the people.

Sanders got on the ballots in spite of the DNC. DWS didn't welcome fresh ideas because those ideas are a threat to her position.

That is a textbook definition of entrenched.

My post required a little comprehension.

You missed it -- just picked out a couple of words and went charging off.

[LiberalFighter]

106. That does not apply to the party organization.

The DNC did not and could not stop Sanders from getting on the ballot. Each state determines the requirements for a candidate to get on the ballot. In my state it requires a petition signed by 500 registered voters in each congressional district. In other states it may require a filing fee. The DNC does not control that. Neither does the state party.

The DNC is not made up of just one or a few. And chair of the DNC is not a position that is held for a long term. Chairs usually only serve for one term if that. She doesn't benefit from trying to keep the status quo. There are over 430 others including members of Congress and Governors that are part of the DNC.

Those documents apply to the government not to a political organization. The people are not going to run a private organization. It is in this case Democratic activists that have a say. Not outsiders that are not Democrats.

[seabeckind]

108. It most certainly does apply.

If the person sitting in a position has the influence to ensure that the next person to sit in that position meets their personal criteria,

just how in the world do you expect new ideas to show up?

Divine intervention?

[onehandle]

104. It's hilarious that a process that has never been used is such a 'problem.'

I will be here in Philadelphia working to eliminate a real problem: Non-Democrats voting in Democratic primaries.

No more open primaries. No more caucuses.

[seabeckind]

109. How you feel about democratic principles?

That personality means more?

Hel, why don't we just eliminate elections and go to a monarchy?

[still_one]

115. Except that isn't what he is saying. The Caucus actually supresses votes. The open

primary allows someone who is not registered in that party to determine that party's nominee. Anyone can register as a Democrat, Republican, or other political party to vote in that party's primary. That is not a violation of any Democratic principle, that is the right to association as was ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of California Democratic Party v. Jones:

In a 7-2 opinion, the court ruled that Proposition 198, forces political parties to associate with and have their nominees, determined by those who have refused to affiliate with the party, including rivals against that party, to elevate an opposing party. It takes away a party's basic function to choose its own leaders.

[seabeckind]

117. What of the principles?

Just what makes a democrat a democrat?

List a few. Go for it.

Or is this whole thing nothing more than a kabuki dance to pretend that the race is more important than the result.

Back to the last line from The Candidate, aren't we?

I know where we are today. I have a pretty good idea how we got here.

The question to you is: Are the people as well off today as they were 30 years ago?

[still_one]

118. All you have to do is register as a Democrat to be a Democrat. You have a problem with that?

[seabeckind]

127. What of principles?

How do you feel about an openly racist supremacist who wants to make sure his ideas make it into the party platform?

All you care about is quantity and quality be damned?

So, yes, I do have a problem with that. Our club should have bylaws and rules. When you sign up you agree to the principles, otherwise the RWNJ tent is down the road on the right.

As an analogy, do you take nothing away from the abandonment of religious institutions?

[still_one]

131. Since you haven't answered one of my questions I poised, go find yourself someone else to argue with

Your straw man arguments don't work. The Democratic platform is very clear what the party stands for

Four more days, and this place will go back to a forum that supports Democrats

So have a good time while it lasts

and by the way Sanders lost, because more DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary. Deal with it

[seabeckind]

132. Mind the door.

It can leave a nasty mark.

What is this platform of which you speak? I thought the only requirement you posed was slapping on a "Hi! I'm a democrat" sticker and you're good to go.

[still_one]

114. Agreed. The caucus by its structure, supresses those who cannot physically attend

from voting, and they can take several hours to complete. If you are late or unavailable, you cannot participate. It also does not easily allow for your choice to be keep confidential, as a primary, which is a secret ballot.

A different argument applies to open primaries. Why should someone who doesn't associate him or herself with a political party, be allowed to choose who that party's nominee should be? The fact that someone doesn't even want to register as belonging to the political party, but wants to participate in that party's primaries, makes it only more vulnerable to possible political shenanigans.

In my view Super Delegates provide stability to a process that could result
in chaos. Historically, Super Delegates have always sided with the candidate who won the most pledged delegates to put them over the top, if they are slightly short of the required delegates to win the nomination, and reduce the probability that the convention evolves into pure chaos.

Barrack Obama won the most pledged delegates, and the Super Delegates honored that, and he became President.

Hillary Clinton won the most pledged delegates, and the same thing will happen, and she will become President.

[Adrahil]

125. Only if we get rid of caucuses and open primaries.

In such a case, I endorse getting rid of Super-D's.

[stopbush]

126. Looks like Tulsi hitched her political wagon to a shooting star

and fell well short of the goal.

Typical of sore losers to try to dicate terms to the winners and the system.

[still_one]

128. Tulsi who?

[stopbush]

129. You know, Tusli. The person who ran on an anti-gay platform early in her

political career.

[still_one]

130. I know, someone who will be soon forgotten

[Ashish]

144. but has been fully pro-LGBT after her military service in the middle east

Wonder why Hilltrolls forget to mention that and forget to mention that Hillary supported gay marriage after Tulsi did

[Cheese Sandwich]

139. People who care about hitching their wagon for political advantage, vs. people

who care about taking a stand on issues and principals.

[Fla Dem]

149. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: The Democrat that Republicans love

Thought the Bernie supporters were for less war and in favor of LGBT rights. Guess not if they embrace Tulsi.

So far, Gabbard is choosing her own route, and it's not one Democrats hoping to groom her for leadership would have her take. Especially with regard to foreign policy, Gabbard often sounds more like a hawkish Republican than a potential future Democratic leader. She has blasted President Obama for failing to talk about Islamic extremism. And she recently tweeted this criticism of the president's perceived weakness and hypocrisy in Syria:



Needless to say, for Democrats it's awkward to have one of their most visible stars and a top DNC official saying things like this. In that sense, Gabbard is really a singular figure in her party.

>>>snip<<<

This shouldn't be a complete surprise though. Gabbard's political background is non-traditional. Her conservative Democratic state senator father led the charge in Hawaii against same-sex marriage. Gabbard said she generally aligned with social conservatism until she deployed twice to Iraq with the Hawaii Army National Guard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/rep-tulsi-gabbard-the-democrat-that-republicans-love-and-the-dnc-cant-control/

[AJ.Akia]

154. It's hypocritical to criticize Tulsi

When Hillary Clinton gave a speech this morning and brought up many of the same points that Tulsi has been articulating.

[tm2clean2]

158. Seems like she is against war

I don't really get this comment? I've been listening to various speeches by Tulsi. She is very well spoken and precise, she is and has been very pro-vets and anti-war, being a vet herself and seeing people die she gets it. I hate how people twist this stuff to suit their own narrative. She says you need to know your enemy. So being able to identify that particular group within the "Muslim" world, the "extremists", you can understand we aren't at war with Islam or Muslims we are at war with "Extremists". That is not Hawkish but smart. There is enough Hate and Racism in this world to start being afraid and hating all Muslims. She's all love and Aloha from what I gather

[randome]

138. It might behoove someone to show that the superdelegate process has been detrimental first.

Hint: it has not. And anything Gabbard says gets a dose of derision from the outset. She's an idiot and wants to blame Islam for terrorism.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

148. She hates Obama. Hate is never a good place from which to launch new ideas.

And she's a hypocrite. Not the type of person anyone should look up to as a hero. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.

Last month she openly mocked Secretary of State John Kerry during an appearance on CNN, saying that he thinks, "if we give them [Islamic extremists] $10,000 and give them a nice place to live that somehow they're not going to be engaged in this fighting."

To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.

But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

[CA_Transplant]

151. Perspective = hate?!

Many liberals agree with Tulsi that Islamist radicalization is the root cause of organizations like ISIS, including Hillary Clinton. It doesn't mean they hate Obama. It's a debatable point of difference.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/hillaty-clinton-radical-islamic-terrorism-islamism-barack-obama-orlando-donald-trump

Obama has a far closer relationship to India's Prime Minister Modi (of the BJP) than Tulsi does. it doesn't make either a supporter of the BJP's policies. They are representing the US interest to have closer realtionship with India (Tulsi is on Foreign affairs commitee). You are singling her out because she's a Hindu. That makes you a bigoted Hinduphobe.

The objective fact is that Tulsi is very secular in her outlook:
http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/exclusive-why-tulsi-gabbard-doesnt-want-hillary-as-prez/20160309.htm

Difference of perspective doesn't equate hate. The US has been part of how many interventions in the Middle East and the outcome is the same. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

But no, stick to the narrow party hive mind and follow the lemmings.

[CA_Transplant]

150. Give the power to the people

The whole concept of super delegates is rooted in control. The DNC didn't "trust" their constituents enough to let them decide the nominee. What's democratic about that? That's an oligarchy, not a democracy.

[floriduck]

152. Way to go Tulsi!!

[Fla Dem]

159. She ought to touch base with Tad Devine

The superdelegates became part of the Democratic nominating process in 1982 to ensure the Democratic party has input on who the nominee is. They wanted to prevent another election like 1972's when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination, but lost every state minus one.

Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.

"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/super-delegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

Not saying I'm for the super delegate process, but it does look like they're complaining about something just because it doesn't work in Bernie's favor. I bet the Republicans wished they had a similar system in place.