2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"But Sanders supporters were screaming bloody murder when they assumed it would be Clinton who’d be
It is rather a long article--hard to cut down
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/sanders-clinton-superdelegates-and-the-double-standard-in-the-democratic-primary.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Sanders, Clinton, superdelegates and the double standard in the Democratic primary
Michael A. Lindenberger Follow Lindenberger Email mlindenberger@dallasnews.com
Published: March 18, 2016 6:51 am
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton debated in Las Vegas way back in October. (File Photo/The New York Times)
Theres a double standard in the Democratic race for president, and its something we might as well talk about now rather than later. Its the same double standard that dogged the 2008 Democratic nomination contest, and itll likely be something Hillary Clinton will have to deal with for as long as she stays in public life.
.............
But theres another reason for the double standard and we ought to use the word for it. That word is sexism.
How do we know theres a double standard?
Lets start with the night she lost to Bernie Sanders in Michigan by 1.5 percent of the vote. ..................
True, earlier in the evening she had beaten Sanders so badly in Mississippi that he failed to win a single county. She won by a 2-1 ratio. The next morning she was ahead by 30 more delegates than she had been.
Nevertheless, his surprise victory in Michigan was hailed repeatedly as the largest upset in modern political history, and as a near-certain game changer in the race for the nomination.
The latter assumption was tested almost immediately, when she squared off with Sanders March 15 in the hugely important states of Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina. She won overwhelmingly in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina and for good measure beat Bernie in Missouri and Illinois, too.
Few had predicted anything like a five-state sweep, with a 2-to-1 victory in Florida. If she didnt clinch the nomination, shes made Sanders job enormously difficult.
In face of all this, most commentators politely credited the results a very nice night for the former secretary of state. (Not every one even saw it that way. Writer Tom Cahill allowed his byline to be attached to a story that ran under this headline: Bernie Sanders Had a Phenomenal Night Heres why.)
Maybe thats not because shes a woman. Double standards work in mysterious ways. But lets talk superdelegates. ......................
But the idea that Clinton was relying on her old connections to steal, if needed, the nomination from outsider Sanders was just too good a story, even if plenty of folks routinely knocked it down. It fed the narrative, as we storytellers like to say.
So it caught me by surprise to catch excerpts of Sen. Sanders interview with Rachel Maddow on Thursday. She asked how he felt about a losing candidate using superdelegates to catapult into the lead at the convention.
Without a shred of irony, he said hed be willing to do just that. She asked him twice more, pressing, and he said sure.
............................
But Sanders supporters were screaming bloody murder when they assumed it would be Clinton whod be stealing their guys thunder, even though shes never actually made that case like Sanders did last night. I dont know if they reacted that way because they had bought into that super-sexy narrative of Clinton the crook, or if aware of the power of that story line they sought to feed the beast.
But no matter what explains their position, they ought to retract their statements using the superdelegates to attack her legitimacy. Or they can urge Sanders to disavow his from last night.
I wont wait for either. As I think Ive mentioned, theres a double-standard in this race, and its nothing new..................
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There was almost half a point about double stabndards.
Regarding that half a point, it's not contradictory to complain about the superdelegate process early on, and also try to use that process if necessary.
If one think its wrong because it give a candidate an advantage, it is still not contradictory to at least convince some of those superdelagates to change their minds if the otehr factors change.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)right under our noses. And it's constantly there, a low hum that keeps our patriarchal system alive.
And yes, it is completely hypocritical to scream about the unfairness of SD's and then sit quietly without a peep when it's YOUR candidate doing it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's no different from those people who believe that there's no real racism in the world anymore, because, ya know, civil rights and all!!!!!!!
Women, like other "minorities" (even though they are the majority in terms of numbers, they are the minority in terms of power distribution) have to work TWICE as hard to get HALF the credit.
If women ever come to understand their full power, there are going to be a few people (the "privileged few" quite bluntly) who are going to get a serious wake up call. Paradigms will fall.
It's past time.
Good job! +1
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)However there is definitely a bit of hypocrisy coming from the Sanders campaign now that they are significantly behind with the talks of trying to switch pledged delegates and appealing to the Super Delegates.
Michigan hadn't had a primary that was competitive since 1992 so every pollster didn't have a reliable model built to project who would turnout. The press had used this bad polling and had egg on their face so they played it off as some kind of come behind miracle when in reality they didn't poll the state properly to begin with. I don't view the Michigan coverage as sexism as much as I view it as the press covering their collected asses for relying on bad polls.
riversedge
(70,214 posts)riversedge
(70,214 posts)y Mar 18
Trying to flip superdelegates in your favor. #BernieSanders is now in the bargaining stage. #ImWithHer #HillYes
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Or any other isms
riversedge
(70,214 posts)to determine what is sexism or not.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I pretend that too when it's inconvenient to my biases.
Vinca
(50,270 posts)riversedge
(70,214 posts)Vinca
(50,270 posts)Hillary isn't carping and whining and claiming she's being treated differently. Thank heavens for that. If a person is going to run for POTUS they have to be strong and ignore things that don't matter. I think she is strong. Stronger than most men who might run for the office. Sadly, many of her supporters are trying to diminish her, making her out to be "the poor, victimized woman." It's embarrassing. If the media, for example, doesn't treat her with great gusto, it's because it's been assumed she would be the Democratic nominee since 2008. If she wins a race, it was expected. If Bernie wins, it wasn't and that generates more excitement.
rock
(13,218 posts)We understand your problem.
Vinca
(50,270 posts)You insist on seeing Hillary as a poor, victimized woman when she is exactly the opposite. Any woman running for this office cannot be associated with the "tender flower" mindset you exhibit.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders' isn't. It's therefore been uphill all the way.
The double standard in the primary isn't the one you're looking for.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)riversedge
(70,214 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,257 posts)Sanders' agenda is a Democratic agenda.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I think both candidates come to us via side streets, Sanders as a semi-outsider/socialist and Clinton as an insider side-stepping cultural bias agains women.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's been a pattern with some of his supporters. It's now from the top guy himself. All is fair in politics.
LisaM
(27,810 posts)People were complaining when her super delegates were even added to her totals. They didn't want them to exist at all! Now they want to take them?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)'sexism'
Allow me to refresh your memory
How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates
As floodgates open to donations from special interests, the future of the party is auctioned to the highest bidder
http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/
If you think anyone is going to mind Bernie pleading with superdelegates to help prevent the Clinton cash machine from further aiding the RW drift of the entire party you are dead wrong.
Cha
(297,196 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,257 posts)The winning candidate needs super delegate support on the Democratic side. Every path to victory assumes super delegates supporting the winner of the won delegates. This has to happen at some point. Bernie is just saying if it starts happening earlier, that's fine with him.
The objection that Sanders supporters have to counting the super delegates now is acting like they are cast in stone, when in fact they haven't voted yet and will vote last. There is no double standard.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)Every four years a bunch of newly politically active individuals discovers, often to their horror, something called "superdelegates." It has nothing to do with the gender of the candidates.