Sanders collides with black lawmakers

[sheshe2]

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 party’s 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]

1. Can't imagine Bernie will get his way.

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.

[longship]

118. There are too many states with no party registration.

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.

[sheshe2]

187. No.

Primaries are a parties decision. You want to vote? Sign up following their rules.

No. No open primaries.

[Basic LA]

189. I second your No.

Why should Republicans or those "too cool" to be Democrats have a say on the Democratic nominee?

[sheshe2]

190. Thank You!

Thanks.

[BlueCaliDem]

231. Thank you! And why should long-time elected Democrats take advice from a Dem-for-Convenience on

anything??

A guest in your home should NOT be given the right to tell you how to run your household!

[pinebox]

197. Then don't depend on my tax dollars!

[BlueCaliDem]

232. That's Trump's credo. Shouldn't be a Democrat's.

[DLCWIdem]

257. There are plenty of things taxpayer dollars are used for that all don't benefit

I don' t have children should I decry the tax dollars spent for education

[pinebox]

258. Here's the rub

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]

269. You have to field a group of candidates, that represent your "Indy" views, and make your pick from

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]

199. How are you going to have a closed primary in Michigan?

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]

271. We just changed from caucuses to primaries in MN

and we don't have party registration. The GOP didn't want open primaries, but without party registration it's difficult to control.

Under the new system, voters would make their February partisan presidential picks in an election run by the state, rather than in caucuses run by parties.

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]

272. So your primary will effectively be open?

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]

273. I guess

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]

274. Yup!

Your last paragraph is why I am against closed primaries anywhere. We want everybody to be able to participate in presidential selection.

[okasha]

283. Do you think a voter should be able to cast ballots

in more than one party's primary? That seems to me to be a corollary of the let everyone participate approach.

[longship]

293. Well, that might be up to the parties.

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]

191. me too, but he never asked for that one!

[skylucy]

55. Amen.

[workinclasszero]

161. Damn right...end caucuses and close primaries

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]

193. Let's hope you're right...why should the loser dictate terms?

[Dustlawyer]

205. There is a rift in our Party, that is a fact.

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]

224. If he weren't stating the obvious you might have a point

[John Poet]

261. The Democratic party cannot dictate to state governments that they spend money

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]

2. Sanders collides with black lawmakers...not too surprising is it?

He doesn't seem to get along with his colleagues in congress.

[sheshe2]

4. Not surprising at all. nt

[insta8er]

18. Because he is a racist? I mean when you hint at something why not say it?

[randome]

20. Because he doesn't get along with ANYONE.

The man who had fewer endorsements than Ted Cruz. You don't think that means anything?

[insta8er]

27. It means he is not part of the corrupt bunch that are "representing" us.

[TeacherB87]

31. Just because it means that

Doesn't mean it isn't also indicative of his poor relationships in Congress.

[msanthrope]

36. The CBC are a corrupt bunch? nt

[Ash_F]

90. No but it is an older bunch and the SD issue is about keeping young people out

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]

107. You should familiarize yourself with the CBC

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]

188. Power mad and one foot in the grave. So much easier to keep our villains neat and tidy

isn't it? Saviors and sinners, 1s and 0s, with us or against us, black or white.

[Ash_F]

192. What is the median age of the CBC?

What is the median age of congress?

[EffieBlack]

194. If you don't know, why did you spout off about it?

Maybe you should look it up before you comment about it any further.

[Ash_F]

208. Why don't you educate us?

I know more about this than you do. That much is clear.

[EffieBlack]

210. Clearly you don't - or you would back up your claim

It's not my responsibility to educate you. It's your responsibility to educate yourself before making statements you can't substantiate.

[Ash_F]

211. You just realized you messed up

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]

216. Why are you pontificating about the age of the CBC members if you

don't know how old they are?

Now, go look it up yourself.

[Ash_F]

217. I know generally, which is more than you did until a moment ago.

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]

209. I'll give you a hint

Do you think it is in the 60s or 70s?

[EffieBlack]

52. Oh - that's right. ANYONE who does not pledge allegiance to Bernie is "corrupt"

Got it.

[Squinch]

122. Their purity is so tedious.

[NastyRiffraff]

77. Tick tock n/t

[pangaia]

131. Did you think up 'tick tock' all by yourself?

I didn't think so.

[NastyRiffraff]

219. Nope!

Have a problem with that?

[randome]

94. 99 other Senators are corrupt? I wonder if he's worked with Elizabeth Warren much. Or Al Franken.

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]

139. 98.

[uponit7771]

235. absurd broad brush

[OwlinAZ]

279. That would be the establishment and the fear of it's power.

Reminds me of Junior High School.
I'm trying but I just cannot agree.

[bettyellen]

137. What bullshit to put words like that in someone's mouth....

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]

34. Actually, he gets along with them very well.

[onenote]

101. Actually that's not true.

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]

108. Further evidence that they are all corrupt

[Loudestlib]

117. How well liked is he?

[JonLeibowitz]

143. He got a standing ovation from the Dem caucus at a meeting the other week. Oops.

[BeyondGeography]

201. They were like, hey, this is so much easier than actually endorsing him

[pinebox]

198. Actually he has great relationships with others

Maddow said it best when she said Bernie has no enemies.

[uponit7771]

237. Less endorsements than Ted Cruz says he doesn't

[AgadorSparticus]

179. Nope. And it begs the question of how he plans to get his ideas pushed through congress?

Who is going to work with him?

[Gothmog]

3. Super delegates are a part of the democratic party for a reason

I am glad that the CBC is against the elimination of super delegates

[blackspade]

68. And that reason is what?

Do you even know the sordid history of the inherently undemocratic 'superdelegate?'

[Gothmog]

149. Yes, do you?

[pnwmom]

196. The Congressional Black caucus explained why it is important to them.

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]

238. They'll ignore this one too... I'm glad DUP isn't representative of the DNC

[Walk away]

5. If Republicans had Super Delegates their entire party wouldn't be at risk....

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]

15. Yep eom

[Number23]

112. That's a very interesting take and I agree with you.

If Republicans had Super Delegates their entire party wouldn't be at risk.

Thanks for making that point.

[BlueCaliDem]

233. BOOM! Der it iz! Spot on, WA.

[uponit7771]

240. +1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Since almost all African Americans vote in the Democratic primary

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]

10. I do NOT want their vote diluted.

I do NOT want mine diluted either.

Thanks, DSB.

This is my first and last post in GDP.

[Number23]

116. That is a FANTASTIC point, DSB.

open primaries would only dilute the power of their votes.

Thanks for making it.

[uponit7771]

242. +1, great observation... something ... else... Sanders camp is ignoring

[yardwork]

259. That's a very good point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

260. They have de facto veto power on our nominee and I think that's a good thing.

[OwlinAZ]

278. The plurality of voters are independent.

That is really the point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

282. But if they vote en masse in the Democratic primary it dilutes the power of African Americans...

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]

286. So the Democratic Party is only for Black folks?

We are done for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

287. Where did I say that?

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]

7. Say what you want about superdelegates but they have never been a problem.

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]

41. Really the ones responsible for making this an issue is the media.

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]

93. Yeah, okay, we need to look beyond how the media frames things.

It is too easy to take things as they're presented.

[w4rma]

146. The Republicans reformed their version of the "superdelegates". They have to vote with the voters

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]

176. It is only a bad place because people want it to be.

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]

8. They just have Stockholm Syndrome from

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]

9. Open primaries could destroy Democratic candidates in red states

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]

12. It's not like Sanders gives a shit. I swear, the man has no sense of organization whatsoever.

What does he consider more important? Support for minorities and education or rigging the system to give his successor an advantage next cycle?

[skylucy]

60. Amazing, isn't it? Personal vendettas and trying to change only the primary rules that he thinks

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]

97. I get that we're only hearing this through a media filter that isn't always accurate.

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]

121. The article makes it clear at the end that Sanders hasn't met with the CBC or Hispanic Caucus on

this. Quelle suprise, right???

[EffieBlack]

133. He doesn't need to meet with them. Bernie knows what's best for them and their constituents -

Him having been arrested 60 years ago and all ...

[Her Sister]

14. Yep all these ideas serve to weaken the Democratic Party!

Nah, Thank you! Passing!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I have a much, much... much larger problem with open primaries.

They dilute the power of the minority vote.

[Haveadream]

87. Good point, DSM

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]

243. +1, the Sanders camp ignored the "southern states"... they're showing their

[Her Sister]

11. Many benefits to having Superdelegates!

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]

43. Yes, they have more access to information that helps them make the decision they need to make.

They are wired into it.

[Land Shark]

262. Yeah, but nothing ultimately justifies the lack of democratic legitimacy

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]

275. you are joking right?

[Her Sister]

276. ...

[AntiBank]

285. "the candidates have to convey to them personally what their plans are "

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]

289. Please calm down ! You can't convince people if you get bent out of shape !

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]

290. I have been a registered Democrat since 1984, voted against RayGun

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]

17. Funny how everyone was fine with SuperDs until this year.

[Eric J in MN]

124. Nancy Pelosi said in 2008 that SDs should follow PDs.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/clinton-backers-scold-pelosi-on-superdelegate-comment/

This year she took the same position.

[AntiBank]

277. I never , ever was, the are fundamentally undemocratic and a priori elitist in nature

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]

19. Never thought about that aspect of the system before!

[LiberalFighter]

48. Check this out for background about them.

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]

184. Awesome! Thanks so much!

[stevenleser]

21. Yeah, we'll get right on that Bernie.

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]

28. Thanks Steven.

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]

227. Um, superdelegates take away the power of voters in primaries

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]

228. You believe in the vote or not? Or do all candidates have to be endorsed by the insiders?

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]

22. Does he ever bother to ask anybody else if they are okay with him deciding everything?

[Ken Burch]

25. He hasn't actually DECIDED anything here.

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]

29. Did he ask anybody in the CBC if they were okay with his demands?

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]

42. You're making it sound like the idea of abolishing superdelegates is about damaging the CBC.

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]

49. It doesn't matter if the plan is NOT to harm them if the plan actually harms them anyway.

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]

67. Bernie didn't create the caucus system, and you can't assume he has no problems with it.

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]

76. Saying "Bernie didn't create the caucus system" is a cop-out

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]

84. If he hates undemocratic processes why start with closed primaries as opposed to caucuses?

Becaus the point is to end the processes that hurt him and keep the ones that helped him.

[Ken Burch]

86. I'm pretty sure he'd be fine with closed primaries.

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]

88. I have not heard any of that from him

[Ken Burch]

175. I now see you're backing the centrist hack who wants to take on Bernie for his Senate seat.

Is this going to be a lifelong vendetta with you now?

[bravenak]

178. I'm just going to always back the Democrat from now on

[DLCWIdem]

202. it remains to be seen if he would have won anyway

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]

267. Because he wants to run again?

---imm

[uponit7771]

245. Looking at their response it sounds like he didn't even think about asking them at all...

... and it showed during his campaign seeing he got less endorsements than Ted Cruz

[bravenak]

270. That's sad. Nobody even likes Ted Cruz.

It says a lot when folks won't endorse a colleague.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I can go either way on the Supers but they are spot on in arguing open primaries dilute the...

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]

53. We aren't talking about open primaries in this thread.

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]

95. There is a lot of conjecture here

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]

177. The CBC are fighting this because it would take away their personal guaranteed convention seats.

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]

54. There were no claims of anything being white supremacist

Until this post of yours. Why be so defensive over something that was never mentioned?

[Ken Burch]

74. Uh...did you read the title of this thread?

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]

78. It says "black lawmakers" not "black people"

A big difference.

[Ken Burch]

80. I edited that immediately.

It was just a typo.

[sheshe2]

30. Apparently not. nt

[Number23]

123. The article makes it clear that he didn't speak to the Hispanic or Black Caucuses about this

before screaming for his unearned demands. Shocking, huh??

[bravenak]

134. I should just stop expecting anything from him

But I would think he could speak with his colleagues sometimes. Touch base.

[Ken Burch]

24. Has nothing to do with race. It's about elected officials not wanting to give up

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]

26. Now he'll just call for the congressional black caucus to be replaced

His picks will be Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Himself, HA Goodman, etc.

[Walk away]

32. What's Cornel West going to be doing????

Oh right! Bernie will probably select him to be President Obama's official biographer!

[Quayblue]

181. Taking several seats in the back row lulz

[Karmadillo]

33. California Democrats collide with black lawmakers?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-california-democrats-call-for-1466362723-htmlstory.html

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 party’s executive board meeting on Sunday.

“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 super delegate, daughter of House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and a Clinton backer who co-authored the resolution.

[seabeckind]

35. Subject is misleading. Sanders collides with Hillary superdelegates who happen to be black,

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]

38. Alert! Poster using facts for clarification! Thank heavens we'll be liberated from facts very soon.

[pnwmom]

39. They don't "happen" to be black. They ARE black, and they strongly oppose the plan

to eliminate super delegates and reduce their own potentlal influence.

[seabeckind]

45. Just define the words any way you like.

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]

98. The CCB is a super delegate? I thought they were the Congressional Black Caucus.

You know, Senators, Congress people and such.

[seabeckind]

104. Is it past your bedtime?

What the hel are you talking about?

[msanthrope]

40. Expect the Hispanic and Asian Cs to do the same. I'm surprised Sanders went that path. nt

[seabeckind]

47. My god, he hates all minorities!!!

That's why he wants so much for income and labor equality.

It's all a plot.

[Number23]

127. He is advocating for the lessening of minority impact in elections. This ain't got nothing to do

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]

142. Perhaps some reading classes might help you.

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]

145. You're the one that sashayed into this thread with a chip on your shoulder and no clue

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]

154. Aww, now I've upset you.

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]

160. Another poster called you incoherent and they were being kind. Extremely kind.

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]

168. He didn't understand.

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]

156. Oh, the wandered off?

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]

163. Man, you REALLY think that you are cute and/or clever, don't you? Bless your heart.

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!

Oh, the wandered off?

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]

167. Got the certificate to prove it. n/t

[forjusticethunders]

206. What makes you think it's not intentional?

Starting to think some of these "progressives" see us as the proverbial eggs that need to be broken to make an omelet.

[sheshe2]

44. There was no accusation of racism. nt

[seabeckind]

46. Oh puleeze.

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]

92. First...I did not write this.

Second...I am so sorry the Congressional Black Caucus is black.

[seabeckind]

96. That sounds so much like the right wing arguments

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]

99. And why shouldn't they fight for their influence?

[seabeckind]

102. Because it comes across as selfish, serving their personal purpose

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]

100. Why?

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]

109. In this case the individuals involved aren't speaking as a minority.

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]

125. The individuals involved exist to protect minority interests

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]

110. Isn't the whole "Bernie's taking it all the way to the convention" all about fighting for influence?

I guess that's only acceptable when certain people do it...

[KingFlorez]

51. The post didn't say anything about racism

This is just yet another issue of Sanders clashing with key parts of the Democratic Party. You brought up racism. Why?

[seabeckind]

56. Then why did the title include "black"?

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]

61. Why did the OP include "black?" Umm, let's see . . . Could it be because the letter

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]

63. Ah, so being the BLACK caucus is important for the report of the confrontation

but we shouldn't consider BLACK to be a factor in this confrontation?

Oh yeah, I see it now.

[EffieBlack]

69. Your "Sarcasm" thingy notwithstanding, you have become virtually incoherent . . . nt

[seabeckind]

72. Aww, now I've upset you.

You need a safe space.

Tomorrow you'll be totally safe and protected from meanies.

[EffieBlack]

79. Don't flatter yourself. You aren't significant enough in my world to upset me.

But you DO amuse me, so that does count for something.

[seabeckind]

82. Sure seemed to get your response button all lit up.

And then to pretend amusement?

Seriously?

[EffieBlack]

85. Whatever

[seabeckind]

91. Buh bye.

There. Gave you the last word.

[KingFlorez]

75. The Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to Sanders' demands

Which is what the article is about. You are being hyper defensive for no reason.

[seabeckind]

81. Not because they are black.

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]

128. Yes, BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK!!! Because they represent black constituencies and black people

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]

144. Nope. Congresscritter trying to keep his status.

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]

147. "The black in the title didn't scare me in the least." Yeah, which is why you've burned 18 calories

trying to talk AROUND the fact that these folks are black and speaking for their BLACK constituents.

[seabeckind]

151. Is this thing on?

They were speaking for themselves.

You should quit smacking yourself in the head. It might be the cause of the problem.

[Number23]

158. I don't know what's funnier. Your lame ass attempts at insults or the fact that this incredibly

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]

165. You really do have a problem with comprehension

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]

172. "Color blindness" is bullshit and the minority vote is a MASSIVE component of the Dem foundation.

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]

248. Not with these lame as attempts at []splaing

[EffieBlack]

58. OP didn't need you to "fix" anything - the subject was quite accurate

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]

246. lol... somehow this is supposed to go in his favor? really?!

[seabeckind]

252. Of course not. Just pointing out an obvious slant done for political reasons.

Make of it what you will.

And you did.

[HumanityExperiment]

50. ..corrected...

SDs.. the reason they 'exist'

'collided' sure... but grassroots vs. establishment...

[Live and Learn]

57. Not a surprise, they got theres. Nobody likes to give up power. nt

[stevenleser]

59. Did you really just say that about the Congressional Black Caucus?

wtf?

[EffieBlack]

65. What does the CBC know about representing minority voters?

Bernie knows best and everyone else should just shut up and do what he wants because oligarchy or something.

[stevenleser]

70. This is part of why the rules change is going to be so great. Discussing actual issues instead of

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]

83. It's interesting how vociferously some folks object to black politicians speaking up

- 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]

148. It is your side bringing up race, as usual. Despicable. Let me make it clearer for you:

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]

66. Oh noes!!!!

[stevenleser]

71. Yep, see my #70 nt

[EffieBlack]

62. Says a supporter of the guy who refuses to admit that he lost and make a graceful exit

Kind of precious . . .

[OwlinAZ]

280. I see how much good the new rules are doing.

And how they are being enforced.

[blackspade]

64. Interesting.

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]

170. The letter's phrasing avoids the question

...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]

174. No, they were saying that

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]

183. Hmmm

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.

[mcar]

73. K&R

[MrMickeysMom]

89. The only "crash course" we're on is the road to incrementalism...

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]

103. Welcome to democracy Bernie!

[Eric J in MN]

132. The SD system is the opposite of democracy.

Democracy is one person, one vote.

Each Super Delegate vote counts as much as 10,000 of our votes.

[BootinUp]

138. Nonsense, they nothing more than endorsements. nt

[Eric J in MN]

155. If we abolished the SD system, anyone could still endorse.

The AP declared the election over the night before the final six states voted by considering SDs more than endorsers.

[BootinUp]

157. He had already lost. Accept it. lol.

[Eric J in MN]

159. I never predicted he'd be the nominee, but I'm

...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]

164. The main point of my original post

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]

105. I can see both sides on the Supers.

However open primaries dilute the minority vote. In his defense maybe he didn't think this through.

[underthematrix]

106. Now we get down to the nitty gritty

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]

162. Democratic voters are different from Republican voters.

We won't choose a Donald Trump with or without Super Delegates.

[underthematrix]

169. Bernie has used anger and falsehoods to stoke his supporters. How are they not

like TRUMP supporters?

[Eric J in MN]

171. If a Democratic candidate said what

...Trump said about Mexicans and Muslims, he wouldn't get the most pledged delegates.

Bernie Sanders denounces Trump's bigotry.

[DLCWIdem]

204. Since some Bernie supporters have said that they would vote for tRump if Hillary was the

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]

215. A subset of a subset

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]

263. What falsehoods would those be? N/t

[OwlinAZ]

284. Good, Lord.

Are you serious? And you are allowed to get away with this?
Do you think those who talk this way deserve to prevail?

[Number23]

111. I'm okay with abolishing supers but his demand to allow Repubs and indies to vote in the Dem

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]

114. Please see post 37

The open versus closed primary dilemma mirrors the at large versus district wide election dilemma.

That's Poli Sci and Public Administration 101.

[w4rma]

113. The CBC is acting despicable and undemocratic. (nt)

[MadDAsHell]

115. Sounds racist. Not sure why, but this is DU, so I'll throw the accusation out to keep us consistent.

[Smarmie Doofus]

120. +1. Now you're getting it. nt

[Eric J in MN]

173. A Politico editor purposely phrased the headline

...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]

200. I wonder what that editors DU handle is?

[Thinkingabout]

119. He agreed to follow the DNC rules when he wanted to run

On the DNC ticket, not change the rules.

[Eric J in MN]

135. The debate is over whether to change the rules for next time. NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

126. The Democratic Parties in WI, MN,

...CA, and ME also came out against Super Delegates but there weren't headlines portraying that as a clash with the CBC.

[azmom]

129. Good. He's taking on the entire establishment.

Why should they be any different. Fuck the status quo.

[jamese777]

130. New York state Exit Polling

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]

136. "the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents"

"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]

150. No, they are concerned that their constituents get represented

Given the history of disenfranchised black voters, this is the least democrats can do, the very least.

[EffieBlack]

152. Bernie can do that for them.

Promise.

Right after he fixes that income thing...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

153. lol.

[zappaman]

140. Who?

[sheshe2]

141. ;)

[randome]

207. What do you mean 'who'? Read your damned Bible.

[wisteria]

166. Whoo Ho I agree.

[Quayblue]

180. And there it is.... NO TEXT!!!!!!!

[sheshe2]

182. ??????????????????????????

No clue......................

Also 06/20/2016 Read the rules.

[azurnoir]

185. The state Democratic Party in California Sunday called for the elimination of the use of superdelega

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]

220. Guess I was too cryptic.

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]

186. Hey I know....

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]

288. Or both.

[Happenstance24]

195. If only someone saw this friction coming....

[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2096014|

[Orsino]

203. Sanders collides with Establishment. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

212. The congressional black caucus is establishment now?

[Orsino]

213. Keeping superdelegates is the Establishment position.

Not one I necessarily disagree with, either.

But I am aware of what the subject line was attempting to convey.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

221. the subject line is perfectly clear, Bernie and the CBC disagree over superdelegates

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]

223. "not understand that these groups represent those of us who genuinely lack power in society"

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]

226. yes, and diminishing their importance to us, is both insulting and seems to lack an awareness

of who has and has not power in society.

[Armstead]

229. You are mixing leaders and members

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]

249. They're going bezerk...

[NurseJackie]

214. No surprises there. I'll be glad when this is all over and he goes home to Vermont.

[Eric J in MN]

218. Do you like the Super Delegate system? NT

NT

[Armstead]

225. That's a detail -- Details don't matter

Are you fer or agin' Clinton.

That's all that matters for some.

[NurseJackie]

241. I'm so glad she wasn't content to be only a senator.

That's all that matters for some.

We've got an election to win!

[Armstead]

244. Like I said.....

[NurseJackie]

247. Yep, we've got an election to win! Glad to have you on-board supporting Hillary!

[NurseJackie]

236. It adds balance to undemocratic caucuses.

[Eric J in MN]

253. If a man with a broken leg breaks his other leg, then he doesn't walk better. NT

NT

[NurseJackie]

255. Oh brother! (Total analogy FAIL!)

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]

250. Yes, its thoughtful and better than what Sanders is proposing

[Little Star]

222. Ditto!

[Vattel]

230. They want superdelegates? Lame.

[Blue_Tires]

234. I have asked repeatedly what problem would be solved

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]

251. Sanders feels better, that's about it

[Eric J in MN]

254. Two problems solved by open primaries.

- 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]

264. but the drawback is if there isn't a big dem turnout

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]

239. ...

[jamese777]

256. Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"

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]

265. Why the heck would anyone interested in the actual voters opinion be against that??

the delegates should go where the voters say. Period. there should be NO pre-ordaining of any delegate

[Triana]

266. Superdelegates are there to ensure the establishment (however corrupt) stays in place

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]

268. I have to agree with the caucus.

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]

281. I don't believe states are under any obligation to recognize political parties at all...

...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.

[ucrdem]

291. Thank you CBC for spelling out why these reforms are not progressive at all.

[sheshe2]

292. ;)