2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
Un-Democratic Democratic Party
http://bradblog.com/?p=11329Last week, long before the first debate, let alone the casting of the first caucus or primary vote, the Clinton campaign boasted that she had "already secured one-fifth of the pledges need to win the Democratic presidential nomination" from amongst the Democratic Party's unelected superdelegates.
This has occurred at a time when polls reveal that a surging Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is leading Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and has closed the gap in Iowa to just 7%.
If current trends continue, it is quite possible that Sanders could secure a majority of pledged delegates selected by caucus and primary votes, yet still manage to lose the nomination if superdelegates vote in accordance to their reported pre-election pledges to the Clinton campaign. If that occurs, echoes of 1968, and the rise of Richard Nixon, could ring loud and clear, with many disillusioned Sanders' supporters either sitting out the general election or supporting the Green Party candidate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)If votes don't count, don't count on my vote. Simple.
elleng
(130,732 posts)Former MD Governor turned Presidential candidate equates constricted debate to a 'decree of silence'...
Shades of 1968
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813085
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
elleng
(130,732 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I wonder what else will get rigged should she win the GE.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)The problem with rigging democracy, is it comes back to bit sooner or later;
and in this case I think it may be sooner.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I wish the M$M would do the same, so we can focus on
real issues that effect voters and that they care about
840high
(17,196 posts)hacked her emails - don't know how true. Read it this morning.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)She made the point that nothing was 'marked classified at the time', but then made a rather shocking admission - that she knew that things being marked classified at a later point in time was 'common'. Andrea completely failed to pick up on this, but if you, as SoS knew it was 'common' for things to be classified after the fact, why would you pass everything through a server not cleared to handle classified documents? Surely you'd have the logical capacity to realize that if such is 'common', and you pass many thousands of emails through that server, some of them are going to end up being classified and should not be on that sort of server.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they're there to keep the donations flowing, not to rule: they blame voters whenever their favorite candidates lose and blame internal dissidents whenever conservadems pass GOP bills
they have a good thing going and no reason to change anything
tblue37
(65,227 posts)not allow this, much less encourage it.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Isn't this the country that sends people into other countries to insure elections are fair and democratic? Wow, the hypocrisy.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)These Superdelegates have been in place since 1984. It isn't terribly new. On the other hand it is fairly terrible.
Edit:
Correction. The system was voted on in 1982. 1984 was the first presidential election it was applied to and that worked soo... Well. (Yes, sarcasm)
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I don't recall them ever declaring themselves in such numbers, so early in the process. Five months before a single vote has been cast?
They were meant to provide some 'check' on the process, to serve as a sort of 'insurance policy'-- particularly in a case where a damaged candidate was headed towards the nomination through results of primaries. (The whole idea came up in 1980, when many party officials wanted to get off the Carter bandwagon but didn't want Kennedy either.)
Now this year, they are leading the process of endorsing a candidate who looks more damaged by the day, long before any votes have been cast, and may run this nomination right off a cliff. It's totally ass-backwards from the purpose they were meant to serve.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Designed to keep the rabble from electing someone who offends the delicate sensibilities of the gentry.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Voting is for suckers.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I'd say the only way forward for Dems to win the 2016 GE, is to get squarely
behind a genuine grass-roots political revolution focused on the best interests of We the People,
the 99% and the poor and all racial minorities.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)I watched the Democratic National Convention on TV and it was a farce...if we go there again we will see the same results.
All we can hope for is that it is not a president Trump.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)1984 might be a better analogy where Jackson was a very impressive candidate and Hart ran a very good campaign but Walter mondale locked up all the super Delegates and ran a fairly boring campaign and got the nod.
And then he was slaughtered in the general election because the Democrats tried to play it fairly safe.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because he had not finished his task...but then I could be accused of a CT. And conventional wisdom knows that never happens.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Candidates either have it or they don't.
Sienna86
(2,148 posts)Integrity
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)They had better tread very carefully here - because there are several alternatives to respond to their election thievery. They won't get away with it this time.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)I'm ready to fight back, but don't know what the best tactics are to proceed with.
Local, state, national, or all of them.
Any ideas?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...then I will not vote for her in the general. It's that simple.
We are not Republicans. We do not tolerate dirty tricks and cheating.
Duval
(4,280 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #32)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ncjustice80
(948 posts)any Democratic canidate is better than any Rethug. And hey, those tricks won't be so dirty if she turns them on the Rethugs.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)As long as the Dem is going to get votes simply for being one tiny bit better than any Repub, they have no incentive to BE any more than one tiny bit better.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We pledge not to vote for her in the general election if she gains the nomination through dirty tricks or cheating.
I for one won't vote for her if that is the case.
Liberaltalker
(59 posts)What can we do to stop this before its too late? Does the DNC have anything in the bylaws that can adress this? I just became a citizen last year and this will be my first time voting. I would hate to get so disgusted with my new Party that I forever write off voting all together.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If they put Biden in he will garner Hillary voters and most likely not Bernie voters. The whole thing is really looking bad for Hillary. The DNC is also making things worse by limiting debates. It comes across as being undemocratic. With all this crap going on Bernie is looking clean and ready.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Then changed their votes in response to the primaries. At this point their promises mean absolutely zilch. They are not going to undo the primary results. This is just part of the Hillary inevitablity strategy.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)a Sanders administration. Do they think that we will give up on Publicly Funded Elections and getting rid of Citizen's United? The big (not so) secret of both Party's being bought off is out of the bag, or at least many Americans have had enough! The fact that the banks got a pass on prosecution and vaults full of our tax dollars in return for screwing the country into a Depression. We got a false recovery, where only the rich recovered and everyone else is paycheck-to-paycheck.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)everyone i know, including myself, is in the shitter. people are dropping off the UI rolls (thanks for no extension, congress) and still cannot find jobs. WHAT fng recovery? that didn't trickle down either.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)I need a party that represents me, not the billionaires.
brooklynite
(94,333 posts)You know, the State Party that appoints members to the DNC?
You HAVE asked them, haven't you? Or are you just in the mood tp pound your chest from behind a keyboard?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Through dirty tricks and cheating, either by her or her surrogates, then I will not vote for her in the general election. We are not Republicans, we have integrity, and we do not tolerate cheaters.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the more apt your candidate sneaks into the nomination. I am guessing you aren't a real fan of democracy. Love that CU and super-delegates. Let the billionaires buy the WH. So what they might want a little something in return.
It all boils down to integrity.
brooklynite
(94,333 posts)...if you don't like it, I assume you didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)her winning on the issues? I know it's a novel thought, but have you ever contemplated it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Doesn't mean I approve of the super-delegate bullshit. It's not democratic. It's old school politics where the power rules and the grassroots don't mean crap. Kinda like the DNC's decision to cut debates to help H. Clinton. It was an authoritarian decision and not one made by the grass roots. But you don't like democracy. You don't like grassroots. Better to let the big shots make the decisions. Right? I bet you don't think the 99% are smart enough to decide on who should be president. Better to leave it up to the big donors and the super-delegates.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We are not Republicans. If her surrogates cheat to hand her the Democratic nomination, then it will backfire and the GOP will win in 2016. If she cheats her way to the Democratic nomination, then I will not vote for her in the general.
JohnnyRingo
(18,618 posts)Both parties have mechanisms in place to ensure their candidate is electable. A couple cycles ago Ron Paul and his "Revolution" supporters found out how the RNC weeds out those beyond the mainstream and it's possible that Bernie Sanders may find himself deemed too long a shot to gamble the White House on in 2016.
I fully understand the loyalty here and don't want to argue the odds he faces in a general election, but if it's any consolation, the super delegates threw their weight to Howard Dean in 2008, so it's not a death sentence for the Sanders campaign if his popularity really is enough to overcome the party's influence. If Sanders doesn't have enough support to rise above the delegates, he may not have enough to win the election against a moderate republican anyway. I'm not a big Hillary fan, so I do remain skeptically hopeful for him.
For what it's worth, the way it works is each single DNC super delegate is valued at about 100,000 primary votes.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)No way the super delegates override a popular vote or delegate vote winner unless it's really close.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)USA elections are rigged in about 5 different ways. Is there any doubt we are an oligarchy?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And the party intended it to be that way. This is the same reason we have representative democracy, not direct democracy, so the "rabble" cannot rise up and vote some crazy dark horse candidate into office. Of course, it also prevents alternative candidates from challenging the party' favorite. Some coincidence, huh?
Response to HomerRamone (Original post)
yuiyoshida This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)NWHarkness
(3,290 posts)So, how, exactly, is Hilary "cheating" by following the same process that every candidate since Walter Mondale has gone through?
Superdelegates are Democratic elected officials and party officers. Every single one of them was ELECTED by Democrats to their position.
Just out of curiosity, if any superdelegates announce their support of Bernie, will he decline that support?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But lost to Obama anyway.
Or something.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Say, the OP. Oh well. Mysteries of the universe.
Nope. Some are former elected or party officials. They no longer hold an elected position, yet still get to be superdelegates.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)It's exactly like how the British work their system. No one in Britain votes for Prime Minister. They vote for the party whose leader the like the best.
In the case of the Democrats, Democratic voters vote for precinct captains, who then go to their local county parties and elect their county chairpersons and state delegates, who then go to the state conventions and vote for state leaders, and delegates to the national DNC. These national delegates are "super" delegates. As are elected national officials.
Howard Dean took over the entire Democratic party by using this system. It also serves as a counterbalance against lawsuits, since superdelegates can punish any candidate who tries to use a judge to interfere in the Democratic processes (as some Hillary supporters wanted her to do in 2008 over the Florida delegation).
There really is nothing wrong with the system, and if you're going to call it not "democratic", then you're attacking the way most democratic nations choose their leaders.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I will do everything in my power to destroy the Democratic Party. But it won't matter, because the planet will be doomed anyway.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)The system is set up so that unpledged delegates (their official name) only have a say when it is essentially a tie; all of them together amount for about 5% of the democratic delegates at the national convention.
And in the case of party officials, they support whichever candidate their state supports, while elected Democratic officials feel more free to simply endorse (and declare who they will be voting for) ahead of time. They have that right as they stand for office (including a primary) every few years.
You are right about one thing though. Unpledged delegates never altered an election yet. They've never even been in a position where they've altered an nomination election either. So them doing so would be doubly unprecedented.
Still, I would rather have them in the position they're in than have a judge picking and choosing. Back in 2008, Florida jumped the elections calendar (the rules the Democratic party puts in place so that not every single state tries to be like New Hampshire). Obama stayed out of the Florida election (as the Democratic party instructed), making it so that all the non-official delegates went for Hillary (though they'd lost the right to actually vote in the Democratic Party nomination). When she was getting close to losing, there were serious calls within the Hillary camp for her to file a Florida lawsuit, trying to get a judge to force the Democratic party to accept delegates that had no right to be credentialed. This could easily have turned the nomination into something chosen by a judge.... except that there were a large number of unpledged delegates who had declared for Hillary that would have more than made up for Florida's entire delegation if she'd decided on doing that. (I'm not sure whether Hillary seriously considered that option, but the presence of superdelegates made the decision easy - it wouldn't have got her anything.)
So no. Unpledged delegates are very much a good thing for the health of the party as a whole. Not that I think anyone in the party is quaking in fear from the declaration of Admiral Loinpresser.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Unfortunately too many of them are also not concerned about the end of humanity. Do you know what "400ppm" means?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)They're super-volunteers for the Democratic party, putting in hundreds and/or thousands of hours of free community service. Most of them incredibly liberal (though, as is the case with all volunteers who have put in tons of hours talking to regular people, well aware of the limits of how quickly you can persuade the American people to do anything).
The concept that they're not aware of global warming is laughable. In fact, in 2008, Al Gore was an uncommitted "super" delegate.
So I would kindly ask you to stop lying about them. If you don't know crap about a subject, just admit it.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Romulox
(25,960 posts)So the comparison is not anything like apples to oranges--the ruling coalition in a Parliamentarian system is constantly in flux in a way that is entirely unlike our own.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cheat these people and pay the consequences. So you say, "Why would the Democratic Elite endanger the general election just to see Clinton as the nominee?" Easy Peasy. The Democratic Elites don't answer to the grassroots Democrats but to the Oligarchy and they don't want a progressive in the race. Hell they would rather see Bush than let Sanders get the nomination.
If you want Jeb, then nominate Clinton.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Endorsements Hillary has from current Congressional members? A candidate has to get 2243 delegates to win, the super delegates has been in place for many years.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)many will not bother to vote and many may leave the Party.
Response to HomerRamone (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
anthrob
(2 posts)I got it, the self-serving, self-interested, manipulative, malicious wicked witch of the west, Hillary!! might exploit the Democratic Primary process to advance her candadicy.
When is the last time that a Democratic candidate for President "manipulated" the Primary rules to advance, and secure, their nomination?
That would be Obama in 2007 when his campaign focused on low turnout caucus to secure his nomination.
Of course, HC won most, if not all, primary general elections.
That are the elections where everyday Democratic voters went to poll.
I am distressed to see all the virulent Hillary/Clinton haters crawling out from under their rocks
Signed: Hillary 2016
Response to anthrob (Reply #57)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Hillary, Obama and Edwards promised not to campaign in Florida and remove their names from the ballot in Michigan because those two states violated the rules. Obama ad Edward kept their promises. Hillary did not. Remove Florida and Michign results, and Obama got more primary results.
Obama suspended his campaign after sewing up the nomination. He did not campaign at all the upper South. Eliminate those primaries, and Obama got more primary results.
Obama ran in all the other primaries. And beat Hillary in most of them.
Some Obama haters have pushed this meme ever since 2008. Don't let them fool you.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)That's what comes across as undemocratic. And let's not dance around the issue, if you have a career in politics you don't want to cross someone as prominent as HRC.
Imo, it's fine to court them, but it's not cool to say you've got them lined up. Can those delegates be allowed to listen to the candidates debate first? Yes? No?
This is one reason why the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton paradigm comes under criticism. This is why some states have term limits. This kind of entrenched power reinforces itself, and it eventually bends the system to serve it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)declare is just in the moment, they are not pledged nor committed. They can and do switch their support as the cycle progresses.
Clinton held the Superdelegate lead over Obama until June of 2008, she started over 100 delegates ahead of him and ended up behind him. Some Clinton delegates switched to Obama, including a few at very key moments, one of which was part of the 4 Superdelegates that put Obama over the top.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/dems.wrap/
You certainly can say you have them lined up, and all the candidates do that. It is however a risk because if you promote their support then they switch that support it looks very bad. It's politics.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)......get involved and change it from the INSIDE or find a party more suited to his/her liking.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)I suspect a lot of that will be happening come 2016 if the current establishment DNC trends continues...
George II
(67,782 posts)modestybl
(458 posts)... if she had the delegates locked down, her people didn't have to signal that fact... if she is in a position of increasingly insurmountable strength, her people wouldn't have to signal that fact... the reason we hear about delegate counts at this early date is that they are genuinely worried about her "inevitability". As they should...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)would basically sink the party.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Bernie supporters are a determined bunch; and by bunch, I mean millions.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)that so many voters were and are aligned to a particular party mostly based on social and cultural issues. What this then meant was that they could count on people voting for the party no matter who the candidate was because they wouldn't vote for the other side. It seems obvious but taken to the extreme, they have felt confident that their core voters would otherwise not care or even be aware of the nomination process enough to matter. So the establishment can openly subvert the democratic process without losing a single vote from their party line supporters and when so many of them do not pay attention to election politics they will cast their vote for whoever the establishment deems is the candidate. They really are pissed that their is a substantial challenge to their POTUS in waiting. This occurs on the republican side as well, exactly the same way. To me that means that you do reach a point where the people at the top really are the same, the appearance of two parties being diametrically opposed to each other is a ruse to them. No matter who wins, the establishment wins. Wall Street.