Bernie Sanders Camp Says Ending Superdelegate 'Debacle' Key to Defeating Trump in 2020

[TexasTowelie]

It was June 2016. Former Bernie Sanders surrogate Nina Turner was just about to go on stage to introduce the Vermont senator at a San Francisco rally she estimated drew some 30,000 people. But just before she could, she noticed a "wave of despair" overcome the crowd as everyone, almost simultaneously, looked worryingly at their phones.

Though California residents had yet to cast their ballots in the 2016 primaries, the Associated Press was reporting that Hillary Clinton had effectively won.

The AP's forecast was the result of the Democratic National Committee's superdelegate system, which meant that Clinton needed only garner support from enough party delegates to win the presidential nomination. Now, members of the Sanders camp are leading calls to overhaul the system they say continues to leave voters disillusioned with the Democratic Party.

"What happened in 2016 put a bad taste in the mouths of people who believe in fairness and transparency," Turner, the president of Our Revolution, a progressive group inspired by Sanders's presidential campaign, told Newsweek. "The general public may not necessarily get involved in the insider details of the DNC, but most voters know about this superdelegate debacle. That's not the reputation I want my party to have."

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-superdelegate-trump-2020-899161?yptr=yahoo

[Fresh_Start]

1. WRONG, Actually discontinuing the influence of superdelegates is what gave us Trump

because the GOP was unable to derail Trump since GOP superdelegates were neutered

[EffieBlack]

13. Yep, exactly this.

[ehrnst]

17. +1000. (nt)

[peggysue2]

18. Thank you, Fresh_Start

It's time to push back on the BS that's being thrown out as fact on a daily basis.

Enough already.

[brer cat]

23. +1 nt

[RandomAccess]

40. Wrong party. The discussion is about DEMOCRATIC

superdelegates who had NOTHING to do with Trump, you might have noticed.

[Fresh_Start]

47. Wrong analysis...the party isn't the question...the question is whether or not superdelegates

contributed to Trump winning...
And in fact, it was the neutering of the GOP delegates which enabled Trump.

[RandomAccess]

48. Well then we should run right out and fix that, wouldn't you say?

Yeah -- makes a LOT of sense to complain about what the Republicans did as if we had any control over that. But you go right ahead and waste your time and energy.

[Fresh_Start]

57. we sure as hell shouldn't repeat their mistake

which unfortunately some ppl here haven't quite been able to connect those dots

[RandomAccess]

70. I think ending the Electoral College a bigger issue

[Fresh_Start]

80. agree but did you notice title on this thread? nt

nt

[Demsrule86]

166. Pie in the sky...that will never happen.

It would take a constitutional amendment and small states would not ratify if it made it out of congress which would be doubtful

[Hortensis]

88. Random, I'm a little surprised to see you in an opposition

position here. Have you forgotten that the ONLY effect/non-effect of Democratic superdelegates was when they refused Sanders' request to name him our nominee by fiat? Sanders asked them to set aside the majority vote (including my vote!), as he promised a number of times during the primary season that he would if needed. But they protected our democratic process from...debacle, which after all is their purpose.

In any case, surely you don't agree with Turner's slimy nonsense, especially if the debacle she referred to was that our primary election proceeded honorably and successfully in spite of attempts by various agents to overset it?

[RandomAccess]

102. My concern is far more basic than that

And far more concerned about democracy.

If the Democratic Party is going to allow Dem Party voters to select their preferred nominee, then they need a hands off approach to that process. Period. Superdelegates violate that principle and I find it incredibly offensive.

Now, I did read the argument once upon a time that Superdelegate status really helps elected Democrats at convention time, allowing them to have ease of access instead of having to wait in lines, etc. and perhaps similar benefits at other times. That's fine with me -- might be objectionable to some and I'd be sympathetic to those arguments too.

And the FACT that many superdelegates are lobbyists fills me with rage, it's so anti-democracy, and IMO anti-Democratic. That's the kind of stunt and practice that drives people away or makes them stay home in November.

So either let Dem voters decide, or don't. Don't play games and give us faux representation.

No other argument about this can supersede my very strong opinions on this, so I won't be arguing it further.

And perhaps I should make it clear to you that I was -- all the way up until the RNC convention -- a staunch Bernie supporter (at which point I recognized Trump for the existential threat he was/is), so I'm wondering what is the "debacle" you're referring to. Nor do I agree with you that "our primary election proceeded honorably and successfully. I watched very carefully and there were numerous contemporaneous reports from most states of not-at-all-honorable things going on. And if you're suggesting that DWS's rigging the debates as she did was in ANY way "honorable," well -- that says a lot about you that I'd have preferred not to know.

I am VERY angry about all the Bernie hate that goes on here, so this isn't the best subject to engage with me on.

[Hortensis]

115. We'd all like pure democracy, but not a Trump.

As for angry, we're all angry, but Democrats have far, far more reason, along with the rest of the planet. We know political followings follow their leader. There never had to be all this anger, it was a creation of bad leadership. But I don't think your own in any way explains why you don't condemn Turner's lies.

Let's be honest as we move forward. Let's be angry at lies regardless of which candidates they smear and support truths regardless of which candidates they benefit. And one standard for all. If we attack every little thing as a lie for an opponent, we must attack every little thing as a lie for our own candidate. (But let's say no to both.) And no one gets a pass on shabby behaviors or set a special standard no one could ever meet.

Turner's particular lies here are about the superdelegates, though; they are not the lies she also tells about supposed massive corruption in the state parties that supposedly also went one way. You are aware enough to realize that the superdelegate votes in 2016 performed exactly as they would have had they been regular delegates. So as you know, there is no superdelegate "debacle." It's a weaponized lie. Reject it as we move on?

Resist the Republicans.

[RandomAccess]

188. I'm sorry, Hortensis

We DO NOT AGREE on too much for me to be interested in continuing this conversation. My memory of SOME of what went on during the primaries has blissfully faded and my blood pressure can't take me resurrecting all that.

Sufficeth it to say, what I DO vaguely remember of that time doesn't involve "lies" on Turner's part. We see things differently.

Enough, now.

BTW, there was a thread yesterday about Bernie running again in 2020 (I think)-- it was FILLED with anti-Bernie shit. But what struck me when I read it, and I'd encourage you to go see if you can find it -- is that the level of disgust and near hatred leveled against Bernie is equivalent in tone to what many NeverHillary voters felt about her. Ya'll don't have ANYthing to be proud of. I want to be done with it, and choose not to engage (much). I'd encourage you and others to do the same.

And if anyone in the Dem part wants MY continued participation, they'll do well to let sleeping dogs lie. If I have to put up with g.d. centrists, for example, ya'll can damn well put up with me and other Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary, and do it with a LOT more grace than I've seen except from ONE single DUer recently.

And don't try to shame me into behavior you approve of. Won't work and makes me even angrier.

[Hortensis]

190. I don't read those threads, Random, and suggest

you don't either. Most posts aren't worth reading. The contributions of professional enemies, foreign and domestic, who come to pour gasoline on sparks are interesting but can be best negated by ignoring them and moving good threads up.

[RandomAccess]

191. You really can be pushy, can't you?

Telling me what to read. That OP was based on an article. I'm not one to put my head in the sand, like some people.

[Demsrule86]

167. If we didn't have supers ...we would not had a nominee until fall...as we have proportional voting

and often candidates don't meet the threshold...supers put the one with the majority of votes over the top...I can't imagine the fight that would have ensued if they had not been there...and I think this is what getting rid of the supers is for...some think they might not have a majority of votes but could fight it out if no candidate meets the thresholds which would result in multiple votes and has always resulted in a loss for our ticket in the general...consider McGovern.

[Hortensis]

170. Good point. And as partisans for the main candidates

became even more intractable as they tore each other apart, opportunity would open up for someone who hadn't even run in the primary to step in. A way for someone who hadn't run because he knew he couldn't win, to maneuver into essentially being appointed the nominee.

[Demsrule86]

184. That has happened before...and in every instance I can think of we lost the general.

[Hortensis]

189. Really? I know it's happened in both parties,

especially back in the days when party apparatuses were strong, instead of weak like now. but I didn't know the results. Very believable. Would voters of either party turn out enthusiastically in the GE for a candidate who managed to get the person they'd just elected in the primary discarded?

A big reason we have superdelegates is to greatly eliminate the possibility of that kind of breakdown in the democratic process of choosing between those candidates who ran in the primary.

And given that we are limiting the number of superdelegates among other adjustments to make that process work better, I strongly suspect the continued push to demonize and eliminate this safety net entirely has malignant motives to it. Same for open primaries.

Especially with the dreadful disaster that befell the Republican Party, which would be an inspiration to exactly the kind of dangerous leaders we have to watch out for, also to the Kremlin and the Koch types.

[Demsrule86]

194. Well technically...we never got to the smokey rooms but there was drama and deals made and we lost

in a number of years.... and in 48 we did win a brokered convention and won.

[Blue_true]

82. WRONG, ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

In response to the tea party, the Republican Party gutted their super delegate numbers. It did not hurt them in 2012, but gave the country Trump in 2016. A second problem was too many republicans in the field in 2016, that maximized the power of the Trump vote in early primaries.

Some people want democrats to make the same mistakes.

[RandomAccess]

83. Too late

Someone else already made that point.

I'm unpersuaded it's something the Dems have to worry about.

[Blue_true]

89. When have super delegates decided a nomination?

When? Show when super delegates changed primary results after the Democratic Party went to primaries instead of party bosses picking the nominee (post 1960). Please show me because I have not seen that happen, other than 1968, which resulted in rules that gave us the current system (in 68, Humphrey did not enter primaries, but was handed the nomination over McGovern).

[KPN]

112. Wait a minute there. Who won in 2016?

[Demsrule86]

168. It benefits a candidate who wants to fight it out even if they don't win a majority of the votes.

[NewJeffCT]

180. agreed on 2016

The "sane" republicans like Jeb Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio and one or two others divided up the vote while the crazy half of the Republican party rallied around Trump. By the time Jeb, Rubio, Christie, etc dropped out, it was too late for just Kasich and slightly less crazy than Trump Cruz.

While Bernie isn't crazy, I think Democrats may do the same thing in 2020 - Sanders gets his base of support and Democrats divide up the remainder between Harris, Booker, Kennedy, Murphy, Cuomo, etc and by the time the field is winnowed down, Bernie will be too far ahead to stop.

[Blue_true]

192. Exactly. nt

[musette_sf]

69. +1

[former9thward]

99. Not true.

The Republicans have never had the percentage of super-delegates that the Democrats have. Look up the numbers. Super delegates are a minor group in their party.

[triron]

108. exactly

[Azathoth]

160. Why is that a problem? Trump IS an honest reflection of the GOP

It's not as if he's unrepresentative of his party.

Besides, if superdelegates had been there to step in at the end, we'd have President Ted F'ing Cruz.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

183. But I remember reading on here during the primaries that

the superdelegates would never go against the popular vote. So, what's the point?

[JCanete]

186. Teh republican base is a hell of a lot different than the democratic base. There's no corrolary here

[hack89]

2. When Bernie becomes a Democrat is when he can have a say in the party.

right now he is an Independent. Until he needs our money again.

[George II]

56. +1,000,000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. So, by that logic, why haven't the Democrats barred Bernie from caucusing with the Party?

Yet, he gets committee assignments, which gives him a say in how the Party conducts itself. It's an outrage I tell you!

[still_one]

64. For the same reason that Angus King caucuses with the Democrats. That is what independents do.

They are free to caucus with one party or the other without belonging to that party

[politicaljunkie41910]

68. As an Independent he can caucus with whom he wants. If he thinks he can go caucus with the GOP

Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

and take over their Party, he's welcome to give it a try. Somehow I doubt they would allow it to happen

Giving him committee assignments, as you say, gives him I'd say (a 1 in 50 say in the Senate like everyone else.) in how the Party conducts itself. It is not the same as turning over the entire Party to him to run as he sees fit. Sorry.

[EffieBlack]

98. Boom.

Nicely done.

[NurseJackie]

152. YES! This is the correct analysis! You nailed it!!

Personally, I have difficulty in TRUSTING anyone who can't make an honest commitment to the Democratic party. Someone is either IN or OUT... which is it? Decide! If someone can't commit to the party, then I can't commit to them. It's a matter of trust and honor for me.

[BoneyardDem]

107. +1,000,001

Spot on

[BoneyardDem]

110. Honest to god, what an utterly stupid idea

I remember hearing that many Republican wished they hadn't gotten rid of (completely gutted it so it was useless) their super delegate system, for just such a situation as a Trump nomination.

[MANative]

3. Couldn't care less what Bernie or his "camp" have to say. Nt

[hueymahl]

11. Apparently you do. NT

[Cha]

32. No, I take him at his word.

[Hortensis]

91. Yes, but we really should wonder about MOTIVE.

Just what are they up to here?

Sanders asked the superdelegates to set aside the vote and name him our nominee. It was an amazing thing, but he apparently really believes his constant claims that Democrats are corrupt and must have been surprised at the flat refusals he received from everyone. I'm guessing anyone who could think our superdelegates would betray their party then is not now ascribing their flat refusal to anything like honor or belief in the democratic process.

But to Turner's call to eliminate the superdelegates, they are meant to be a protection against a Trump or other malignant candidate, such as one Russia might promote, becoming our nominee. Our party is already planning to cut back on the superdelegates. So, WHY aren't the reasonable changes we're making enough?

Why would Turner be campaigning to remove this protection?

[Cha]

93. Hi Hortensis.. I meant I take MANative at his word..

"3. Couldn't care less what Bernie or his "camp" have to say"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10533960

[Hortensis]

94. I know. But I think we really NEED to care about

what all political factions are up to. That's my point. Russia and our own right wing are actively trying to take us down. Again. And they will of course try to employ third parties and dissident leftists against us.

[Cha]

100. Oh sorry.. yeah, we should know

you're right.

[BannonsLiver]

4. ...

[DanTex]

5. Bernie should distance himself from idiots like Nina Turner immediately.

[George II]

31. +1,000,000

Sadly though, she's "president" of his Our Revolution, so that ain't gonna happen.

[comradebillyboy]

104. Bernie is not going to distance himself from his own PAC

which Nina runs on his behalf.

[Gothmog]

139. Nina Turner is toxic and hates the Democratic Party

[Demsrule86]

6. Had Sen. Sanders and his supporters admitted defeat then who knows what might have happened.

They were right. And supers always go with the candidate that wins the most votes.

[ehrnst]

123. Sanders apparently didn't think they so corrupt that he would refuse to be one. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

134. Very true. And of course supers have always voted with the candidate who received the most votes and

never 'selected' a president. The person with the most votes won...end of story.

[ehrnst]

135. "The GOP would have given their right nut for superdelegates."

- Samantha Bee

[Demsrule86]

165. So would I...would have been spared Trump.

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Absurd and ridiculous assertion (speaking to the Sanders camp, not the person posting this)

[dameatball]

28. Yep, they had to pry the nomination out of his cold dead hands. I joke, but it did hurt HRC.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. I cant comment but if I could I would and I would RAGE about it for a while.

[dameatball]

34. Go ahead. I admired Bernie (still do) because he was bold on some issues. But we have to win.

Let it play out.

[Demsrule86]

8. No and more no...here is what this is about...given proportional voting ...it is unlikely a

candidate could win enough votes to meet the threshold for a first ballot win...thus it would be thrown into multiple ballots...like McGovern. Sanders thinks he could achieve the nomination this way. If we did away with Supers and I think it is a bad idea...you have to have all primaries (no caucuses) and winner take all primaries.

[Gothmog]

9. Congressional Black Caucus: Keep superdelegate system in place

I agree with the CBC http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place

The Congressional Black Caucus is against eliminating superdelegates, putting the group at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.

Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.

"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.

It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[OilemFirchen]

22. Perhaps Ms. Turner could brush up on her history a bit.

Oh, who the fuck am I kidding.

[Gothmog]

71. Agreed

[Cha]

75. Yeah, insert some reality into her proclamations

Nina Turner: Americans Should Be Concerned About Cohen FBI Raid Going Too Far

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210497378

[aka-chmeee]

10. Cheese with your whine, Sir? nt

[George II]

29. Bazinga!

[Cha]

33. Who are you talking to?

[NewJeffCT]

12. WRONG

the superdelegates were just an excuse.

IN 2008, supporters of Obama and Edwards complained that because Clinton had so many early superdelegate commitments that it made it impossible for them to win - the nomination was "fixed" for Clinton. How did that work out?

Barring her incapacity, Clinton essentially wrapped up the nomination on the first Super Tuesday on March 1. (or, the "any day now" indictment that HA Goodman and others swore was coming every week for months)

[NCTraveler]

14. Why are these people so against coalition building?

It makes no sense. We need to accomplish things and the party is our best vehicle. Yet they want to harm party building at all costs.

[Cary]

41. Great question

When faced with a complex question with multiple possible answers, choose the simplest answer. Why are these people against a coalition?

Because they don't want a coalition. They want to be radical. Being radical is an end in and of itself. If they were to agree and be reasonable then they could no longer be radical. Radicalism is subversive.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Thats not entirely fair is it?

These kind folks welcome coalitions. Provided nobody questions or disagrees with anything they say or believe.

[Jim Lane]

101. This thread features quite a lot of opposition to coalition building.

Say, did you know that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat?

[NCTraveler]

109. Outside of about five times in his career, yes. Nt

[Jim Lane]

114. Circumspice. (n/t)

[Hav]

15. What bad taste?

By the time of the Cali primary, it was already over because of the lead Clinton built up in earlier states. Clinton won California convincingly and it was expected. Also, the only hopes Sanders had back then was that the Superdelegates in general would have switched over to him.

[ehrnst]

16. Senator Sanders was a Superdelegate himself.

In 2016, no less.

[Me.]

19. THey Say A Lot Of Things

don't know anyone who's listening or cares what they say

[Cary]

20. They should start their own party

[MrsCoffee]

39. This

[DURHAM D]

21. What drivel. nt

[Adrahil]

24. Nope. NT

[ProudLib72]

25. Please Bernie, please throw some divisive remarks our way

50 bucks says Nina Turner would jump at the opportunity to work for Rump if he offered her a position at the WH.

[guillaumeb]

26. Recommended and agreed.

[George II]

27. How can someone who isn't a member of an organization dictate their rules or policies?

It's like Michael Jordan telling MLB to get rid of the designated hitter.

[RandySF]

35. No correlation

Maybe we do need to get rid of superdelegates but they have nothing to do with the grneral election and I don’t know why we need to act on the whims of someone who is not a Democrat. Bernie is asking only for those changes that thinks will help him with the nomination.

[Amimnoch]

36. If we get rid of caucus and open primaries, Id be onboard.

Eleminate the voter disenfranchisement effect of the primary caucus, and get rid of open primaries, and I’d be open to it.

Otherwise I want the Democratic Party to have the continued option of overruling potential spoilers.

[Demsrule86]

169. No...not unless we have winner take all primaries...I don't want a candidate to fight to the death

for a nomination he/she did not earn...I shudder to think about 2016 if this had been in place...we would have lost the popular vote too.

[George II]

37. They don't understand (and no, I'm NOT re-fighting the primaries!) that....

....without superdelegates Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination on June 7, more than six weeks before the Convention.

They keep complaining about superdelegates but superdelegates had zero effect on the nomination, same as in every other previous Convention.

[MrsCoffee]

38. He was against them before being for them when he thought they could benefit him, but they didn't so

he's against them again.



Turner wants to start talking about fairness and transparency, let's start with Bernie's tax returns.

[msongs]

42. only closed primaries. ditch caucuses cuz they exclude too many people nt

[gratuitous]

43. Is Sen. Sanders a Democrat now?

Because if he's not, I'm not sure that the party really needs to listen to him. If he wants to determine party policies, he can join the party and go from there. As it is, I'm disinclined to listen to him about Democratic party mechanics for selecting delegates to the national party convention.

But thank you for your concern.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. For all intents and purposes, Bernie IS a Democrat yes... a damn good one at that!!

[comradebillyboy]

106. Nonsense, Bernie has never felt that the Democratic Party

was good enough for him. He's spit on us for his entire political career.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

111. THAT'S nonsense... then why does Bernie caucus with the Democratic Party if it's

supposedly not "good enough for him"?! Your statement makes no sense.

[MrsCoffee]

132. He has flat out said I dont consider myself a Democrat.

That’s a quote.

Can’t get any clearer than that.

[Cha]

76. No, but he's always complaining about our Democratic

Party.

[Paladin]

44. Way too many Bernie threads popping up here, all of a sudden.

I'm suspicious, and I advise other for-real Democrats to be the same. Let's not get played or distracted, again......

[BannonsLiver]

45. Relax, Im sure its not coordinated or anything

[Wounded Bear]

50. I know what you mean...

Funny how these things start popping up, right on schedule.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. It does make one wonder.

[Wounded Bear]

49. Of course he said that...

Considering he didn't win many states (I think it was one? ) that weren't caucus states, perhaps he should review his own support for "democracy."

[Hekate]

51. So, Bernie is a Democrat again? Is Nina? Any intention of sticking by us at all?

Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Or are they going to keep lobbing spitwads from the sidelines?

Across the country there's a combination of caucuses and actual elections, which are not at all the same thing, really. A candidate can swing a few caucuses and still lose the primary election -- in any year, including 2020. Are Bernie and Nina trying to change that system?

And the so-called superdelegates are party stalwarts who have in many cases devoted years of their lives to Democratic Party ideals, platforms, and functions. People who want in on that probably need to put in the time.

Edited to add: My ire and wuestions are not aimed at the OP but at Nina and Bernie.

[Civic Justice]

53. what's up ???

When some write posts and reference anything related to 2016, they get dinged, with a scrip that say's something to the effect... Not to rehash the 2016" yet, Sanders can talk about 2016, and criticize the Democrats in the process, and now the system of delegates. Yet, on this forum its ok to post such. What's really happening here?

Well... the reality is... THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, is the Democratic Party, and Independent is an Independent. Thus so, why is an Independent telling the Democratic Party how it should function?

Maybe a bit of "Clarity about the nature of Political Party's" is necessary.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210530322

What is a Key may be many things, but one thing that is important, is Not Splitting the Vote.... Votes Win Elections.

We need to get past November !!!!!! Then... we can consider as A Democratic Party, who will be the best person to support and promote the Democratic Platform....

[sheshe2]

54. Nina talks about fair and transparent.

"What happened in 2016 put a bad taste in the mouths of people who believe in fairness and transparency," Turner, the president of Our Revolution, a progressive group inspired by Sanders's presidential campaign, told Newsweek. "

Yet gives Bernie a pass at not filing his tax returns. He said Jane was looking for them.

Fair and Transparent should apply to all and not a select few.

[Cha]

78. Nina Turner is a hypocrite.

She has high horse syndrome

[GoCubsGo]

121. Is this the same Nina Turner that was a regular on Ed "RT" Schultz's radio show back in the day?

"RT" as in "Russian Toady."

Using Bernie Sanders to try to sow discord among Democrats again? Hmmmmmm....

[ehrnst]

118. +1000 (nt)

[NastyRiffraff]

55. This is bitterness, pure and simple

Bernie did not lose because of superdelegates. I could go on and prove it, but that would be "refighting the primaries."

[Cha]

79. So bitter of Nina Turner..

Such a hypocrite.

Riff

[ehrnst]

119. Yep. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

173. No he did not.

[still_one]

60. Even without the Super Delegates Hillary won California, and she also won San Francisco. This is

the same group that thinks open primaries will help them win, except the results of the Dan Lipinski race against the progressive Democrat demonstrate just how wrong they are.

Get rid of the caucus and the open primary, and maybe eliminating SDs makes sense

Open primaries give an opportunity for NON-DEMOCRATS to help choose who the DEMOCRATIC nominee is, and the caucus discriminates against people who cannot appear in person, so until that happens, thanks but no thanks.

The key to 2020 is people coming out to vote, not a group of self-identified progressives refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee, and contributing to the undermining of the Democratic nominee every chance they had to hurl lies and distortions that muddied the waters, and encouraged people to either not vote or vote third party.

[mcar]

61. They couldn't be more wrong

[Codeine]

62. I dont give two tugs of a dead dogs dick

what the Sanders camp has to say about the nomination process of a party to which he does not belong.

[still_one]

65. LOL. I never heard that expression before, but its great!!!

[Codeine]

66. I am pretty sure I got it from a comics writer

named Warren Ellis.

[still_one]

67. I need to check Ellis out. Thanks

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Why the hate?

[Codeine]

77. No hate.

His opinion, and that of his camp, should be considered of no import, and do not need to be posted here as news.

[NurseJackie]

181. Oh, GMAFB! In what reality does someone "not caring" mean the same thing as "hate"?

74. Why the hate?

[Garrett78]

63. The race was essentially over by the 2nd week of March.

[ehrnst]

124. Well, only if you take math into account, and the notion of "majority." (nt)

[Garrett78]

145. Silly math, always getting in the way of a good narrative.

[StevieM]

72. The super delegates played no role in the outcome of the race, nor was there ever the possibility

that they would affect the outcome. 2008 established that the winner of the PDs would get the nomination.

The claim about SDs was just a talking point by Sanders to discredit his opponent so he could win more PDs. At least at first. Then Bernie tried to get SDs to give him the nomination.

[BlueTsunami2018]

81. Bernie didnt win because he didnt think he could from the beginning.

Bernie entered the race to pull Secretary Clinton to the left. That was the goal originally. If he truly thought that he had a shot from the beginning he and his supporters would have known the voter registration rules in all the states. They would’ve known and rectified the situation by getting their supporters registered in the Democratic Party when they had to be registered. States like California and New York require you to be registered a full year in advance of an election, crying about it after the fact because your supporters couldn’t vote and because of superdelegates is just sour grapes.

If Bernie would’ve won New York and California and other states with closed primaries, the superdelegates would’ve had to switch to him, as they switched to President Obama in the 2008 election.

Bernie lost because he didn’t really believe he had a shot and by the time he realized he did, it was too late. I believe Bernie would have beaten Тяцмр, cheating, Russia and all. But that doesn’t matter now.

[Blue_true]

86. You know.

With all the Bernie worship happening among some, lots of his supporters will remain Indies through 2019, then be pissed when they can't vote in closed primaries like California, New York and my state of Florida. They are so fucking naive that I almost want to scream, while tearing my hair out.

[BlueTsunami2018]

87. Youd think someone would mention the fact to them.

Like right now, while they can still do something about it.

[NurseJackie]

182. "...so fucking naive..." -- Agreed!

so fucking naive

Agreed!

Oh well.

[ehrnst]

122. Indeed - when one decides to run as a candidate, one is aware of the rules and policies.

Crying foul about them later shows that one either didn't bother to learn the rules and procedures before running, or one is simply angry that the rules didn't work to their advantage.

[dlk]

84. Bernie is Not a Democrat by Choice

Why would he focus so much time on energy on "fixing" the Democratic Party when he doesn't belong to it? The same goes for his supporters. It makes no sense.

[JI7]

85. Weren't Superdelegates his Excuse for staying in the race

After it was impossible for him to win without them ?

[yardwork]

92. Yes. Bernie himself planned to use superdelegates to win the nomination.

The superdelegates declined to vote against the will of the voters, so Bernie turned against them.

[LiberalFighter]

90. If they bring that back up again. Screw them.

If they tie themselves with Sanders then they don't have a right to challenge the use of "superdelegates".

They don't have the right to dictate party rules when Sanders is not a Democrat.

There needs to be a rule that does not allow any delegates going to any candidate that is not a Democrat.

[bigtree]

95. they wanted a fractured convention

...wanted delegates to overturn the popular vote for Hillary.

Their strategy was exposed as anti-democratic and contradictory to all of their blather about elites and the party choosing the nominee.

[NurseJackie]

96. Ha!

He's still on that, huh?

[EffieBlack]

97. Of course, they do. And the sun rose in the east this morning.

Next ...

[pnwmom]

103. EVERYONE releasing the damn TAX RETURNS and shaming DT into releasing his -- that's the key.

There's nothing wrong with superdelegates that were put into place to help ensure a proportion of delegates would be POC.

But I agree -- we need TRANSPARENCY. No reason not to release 5 years RIGHT NOW -- the rest to come later. You've got plenty of time to call your accountant, Jane and Bernie.

[boston bean]

105. IRCSTG

[ucrdem]

113. Total revionist koolaid. His cali campaign was toxic hype

and he'd lost before he got here. He pulled all his tricks and the media dutifully repeated every ridiculous whopper but apart from suburban "swing voters" (ahem) and motor-voter newbies wandering around with their earbuds and ipads he had no appeal to Californians and got zero endorsements apart from a few random mayors looking to get their names in the news.

[TCJ70]

117. Superdelegates are a strange idea...

...everyone gets one vote, except these special people who get more votes. They can go as far as I’m concerned. They stand in the way of bold ideas and were abused in the last primary.

[ehrnst]

120. In what way are they "abused?"

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2018, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

[TCJ70]

125. They were included in delegate counts before anyone even voted...

...giving the appearance of a lead for Clinton that didn’t reflect any voters. It was so bad that DWS had to go on air and ask networks not to do that. They didn’t stop.

[ehrnst]

128. So how was that different from any other primary?

And why wasn't it "abuse" those other times?

Do you think that any and all endorsements should be suppressed until after the primary?

[TCJ70]

130. As I dont think superdelegates should be a thing...

...any count, in any year, that includes them is inappropriate in my view.

As for endorsements, I don’t put much stock in them personally. If your endorsement comes with a side of an extra vote then you absolutely should keep it to yourself.

[ehrnst]

131. So you aren't going to answer the question about what was different

from other primaries where superdelegates made their preferences known?

And if you don't put much stock in endorsements - which is essentially what Superdelegates revealing their choice is - why do you assume that the rest of the Democratic voting population is so easily led by the nose by Superdelegates?

Why do you think Sanders agreed to be a superdelegate?

[TCJ70]

133. You're putting a lot of words in my mouth

I didn’t say anything was different in the 2016 primary. I didn’t say anyone is easily “led by the nose” by endorsements. What I did say is that they can be used to paint a different picture than the voting presents. When you include in unoledged delegates in a count, who can change their vote at any time up to the convention, the risk of manipulation exists.

As for Sanders being a superdelegate, don’t we always say change the system from within? Get involved and work for change?

You ask a lot of questions. Here’s one for you: do you think there should there be a group of people who get two votes in a single electoral process? I don’t. One person, one vote.

[ehrnst]

136. You stated that Superdelegates gave HRC an advantage by stating their preference

And they were "abused in 2016," (your words) but how was it different in 2016 than any previous time Superdelegates announced their preference - and also "giving the appearance that didn’t reflect any voters?" - your words.

You refuse to clarify that. Why?

Why do you think that "appearances" that are given by Superdelegates matter any more to other voters than they do to you? "As for endorsements, I don’t put much stock in them personally." - your words.

Do you have any polling or stats that indicate that outsized influence on other voters (abuse - your word) you claimed happened suddenly in 2016? Or at any time?

And why is it that when HRC is called a "beltway insider" it's a smear, but when Sanders is an insider, suddenly he's praised because "don’t we always say change the system from within? Get involved and work for change?"



I have lived with the idea of the Senate giving individual voters in Rhode Island far, far more of a voice than individual voters in California in a single decisionmaking process. And I think that the Black Congressional Caucus might have some idea of what they are talking about when they say that Superdelegates are a good thing. Do you think that they "think there should be a group of people who get two votes in a single electoral process?"

Why do you think the Black Congressional Caucus would want to harm the primary process? What reason would they have?

[TCJ70]

137. Good grief

I'm not saying it was any different. If a count included unpledged delegates in any year throughout the time of their existence it's wrong IN MY OPINION. The delegate count is what determines the winner. Inflating those numbers with votes that haven't been cast yet creates a different picture than what actually exists.

I can only account for my experiences. I had people asking me why the primary wasn't over when the delegate count (they didn't know the difference between pledged and unpledged delegates) passed the number Hillary needed. It happened. Do I have polling? No I don't. I only have what I experienced. Do I think it's widespread? I have no idea.

When did I say anything critical about Hillary in our conversation? Again...trying to put words in my mouth.

Roll your eyes all you want, but you didn't answer my question while I've answered yours repeatedly. Do you think a certain subset of people should have two votes in a single electoral process?

[ehrnst]

142. So how was it was "abused in the last primary?"

You stated that "They stand in the way of bold ideas and were abused in the last primary."

Are you now retracting that? Is that your answer?

And how do they "stand it the way of bold ideas?" Did that happen in 2008? If not, why was it different? Why were Superdelegates not "abused" in 2008? Or are you saying that it wasn't different, and that they were abused, and stood in the way of bold ideas then?

"They were included in delegate counts before anyone even voted..." in 2008, too.

Good grief! Are you backpedaling now that you are being asked to clarify what you found onerous about Superdelegates in 2016?

I simply pointed out that what you deem is a "good thing" for Bernie, has been smeared in Hillary, especially by Sanders supporters. I didn't say that you said that. Is that clearer?

"Do you think a certain subset of people should have two votes in a single electoral process?"

Perhaps you skipped over this part of my reply to you:

I have lived with the idea of the Senate giving individual voters in Rhode Island far, far more of a voice than individual voters in California in a single decisionmaking process. And I think that the Black Congressional Caucus might have some idea of what they are talking about when they say that Superdelegates are a good thing. Do you think that they "think there should be a group of people who get two votes in a single electoral process?"

Why do you think the Black Congressional Caucus would want to harm the primary process? What reason would they have?

[TCJ70]

144. Fuck this. I'm out. You're being obtuse and divisive.

I've answered your multiple repeated questions numerous times and you refuse to answer my one. It's a simple yes or no.

Later.

[ehrnst]

146. No you haven't answered my questions - just tried to change your original claims

and I have a good idea why. Being obtuse in that way is a cya tactic when you can't really back up your first statement when asked for clarification.

And no, if the question isn't relevant, there isn't a yes or no answer.

Such as: "Did you quit using heroin? yes or no?"

"Fuck this," indeed.

You either don't remember the role of superdelegates in 2008 elections or are ignoring them conveniently in order to damn the winner of the last primary.

Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

The first official Superdelegate count was in November 2015, long after all candidates had declared.

[ehrnst]

163. You mean like in the 2008 primaries when the popular vote was a near tie (under 1%)

but Obama was up by 100 pledged delegates?

Clearly, even in a pledged delegate system, some subsets of voters were given more votes than others.

Wouldn't that be an "abuse" by pledged delegates, by your definition?

[Demsrule86]

174. That is nonsense. How did Obama win then?

Everyone knows the primaries matter...had enough people voted for a different candidate, he would have been the nominee but they didn't and he wasn't...math.

[George II]

141. Since you brought it up, not officially.

[ehrnst]

147. I think that someone is also conveniently forgetting about

the "abuse," as they refer to it, by superdelegates in 2008.

But the person benefitting from superdelegates then was likely a candidate that someone preferred.

Aparently it all depends on who benefits from superdelegates, as to whether or not they are suddenly "abused."

[George II]

148. The bottom line is, unless I missed it, superdelegates have never determined the nominee.

[ehrnst]

150. I think because the superdelegates have experience and knowledge

about the candidates and the job of POTUS, and Democratic voters do as well. They haven't diverged, and I don't think that they will.

I'm with the Black Congressional Caucus on this.

[Vinca]

126. I don't like the idea of superdelegates at all.

You can end up with a situation where the rank and file vote for one candidate, but the supers come in and swing the state to another candidate. The votes of thousands and thousands negated by a handful. No.

[ehrnst]

129. Why do you think Sanders agreed to be one? (nt)

[Vinca]

171. I have no idea and I don't really care. This isn't about Sanders, it's about superdelegates.

[Demsrule86]

175. I don't like the idea of disputed conventions...which is what would happen unless you also

do a winner take all system...and lose caucuses.

[Vinca]

187. That would be fine. Every person's vote should count.

[Demsrule86]

195. No we need to win elections and if you end up with multiple ballots because the winner of the

majority of the votes can't meet the threshold and delegates pick the 'loser'...than the will of the voters is discounted.

[Vinca]

197. If the delegates happen to pick the loser that's too bad, but it's their choice.

Nothing pisses me off more than the thought that a vote from Donna Brazile or some other notable Democrat might negate the intent of the masses. If the votes of the "little people" can be overwritten, why bother having primaries? Just have the party bigwigs name the candidates so we don't have to bother voting in primaries that don't count.

[Demsrule86]

198. Oh really so the voters don't matter ...changed your tune...well it won't happen so...and

you were right the first time.

"That would be fine. Every person's vote should count"

[Vinca]

199. The voters DO matter. That's why their votes shouldn't be negated by superdelegates.

[Demsrule86]

200. No Democratic votes have ever been negated by supers...but a contested convention where a person

could win the nomination even if he lost the votes or maybe didn't even run...would disenfranchise primary voters...and that could happen if we get rid of supers because with proportional primaries, we could have candidates who did not reach the threshold for a nomination but there was clear winner in terms of votes...I shudder to think what would have happened in 16 without supers.

[Vinca]

202. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Demsrule86]

203. Ok have a great day...

[disillusioned73]

127. K&R..

lesson #1 - learn from your past mistakes.

DNC's own party Chair(at the time) that was forced to step down before the convention explains "super delegates"..

Key point;

"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."

[brooklynite]

138. I don't remember Superdelegates being a "problem" until Bernie came along...

[George II]

143. Precisely.

[ehrnst]

149. Yep. Same with closed primaries.

Clinton led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

I don't recall hearing from anyone how "corrupt" or unfair that was. Or that closed primaries were "VOTER SUPRESSION!"

Of course someone other than HRC won that primary, didn't they?

[Azathoth]

158. There was A LOT of criticism of superdelegates in 2008

And how they were the very definition of an "establishment" which made the hurdle an upstart or outsider candidate had to jump that much higher. Hardcore Hillary supporters were floating the idea of super-delegates working together to overturn Obama's caucus victories right up till the end of primary season.

The rose-tinted view of history here is surprising.

[ehrnst]

161. Did Hillary claim that that the very notion of superdelegates was corrupt?

or rigged?

She dropped her bid to win over superdelegates—she trailed Obama in pledged delegates by 100, but essentially tied him in the popular vote.

I don't remember "hard core Hillary supporters floating the idea of superdelegates working together to overturn Obama's caucus victories." Can you provide links to documentation?

Also, who was saying that the Superdelegates were "the very definition of an "establishment" which made the hurdle an upstart or outsider candidate had to jump that much higher."

Can you provides some links for that?

Certainly Senator Sanders didn't see Superdelegates as corrupt, or too "establishment" when he became one after the 2008 election.

[Azathoth]

164. lol, no, I'm not providing "links to documentation"

This isn't an esoteric historical claim. Anyone who was in the midst of the 2008 primary remembers the controversy over Hillary's initial supposedly overwhelming superdelegate lead and the (somewhat desperate) talk from her side of getting superdelegates to overturn the caucus results (which is where Obama ran up his delegate lead). If you want to play the "please show me documentation the moon landing was real" game, that's fine, but I'm fairly confident there are enough people here who remember the controversy from 2008.

[Demsrule86]

172. Nonsense...Pres.Obama had the majority of votes...and if Pres. Obama could beat Hillary with supers

in place, so could others . And keep in mind that Hillary lost Florida because their votes didn't count/Florida was being punished...Only one year was supers a problem 2016...and they were not really a problem. We should not get rid of Supers unless we change to winner take all...because I don't want a disputed nomination if no one reaches the threshold and even though one has more votes some candidate refuses to concede and we have a disputed nomination...no f'ing way. I think supers should stay.

[Demsrule86]

176. I didn't hear any criticism at all...and Hilary did not try for a disputed convention either.

And that election was much closer than 2016.

[Azathoth]

157. Oh come on, it was quite the issue back in 2008

[ehrnst]

162. In what way?

Yes, HRC came within 1% of the popular vote, but was behind by 100 pledged delegates, and wanted superdelegates to endorse her.

She did, however accept her loss once the primaries were over...

[Demsrule86]

177. It was not an issue.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

140. Ummmm......

Superdelegates had NOTHING to do with Trump winning in 2016. They didn't alter or affect the outcome of the primary either. Is he implying that his supporters refused to vote for Hillary because the superdelegates didn't make Bernie the nominee instead (and there was no Earthly way that was ever going to happen)? Or is he suggesting that his supporters were so upset about the existence of superdelegates that they refused to vote for Hillary? If so, that was a REALLY dumb way to protest a system that's been around in the Democratic Party for a long time (and one that Bernie's campaign manager- of all people- actually helped devise).

[Adrahil]

151. You know what left a bad taste in my mouth?

The fact that Sanders perpetuated the divisive behavior of his campaign, even after it was clear he lost. He wanted to exact a price for his support, and he did... a candidate damaged by constant attacks from the Bernie camp, and a terrible schism on the left, egged on by the like of Trumpster HA HA Goodman (who was constantly promoted on these pages).

[NurseJackie]

153. Not just you. Many people noticed the same things...

... and many people feel the same way. (Sadly, that type of divisive behavior you describe continues even today. It weakens the party and continues to perpetuate resentment and distrust.)

[Demsrule86]

178. And it looks like history is about to repeat if Sen. Sanders and that person I despise Nina Turner

keep it up.

[BoneyardDem]

154. I do believe Bernie has another motive

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2018, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)

and it's not what's in the best interest of the Democratic Party

Isn't Bernie a Super delegate? Did he resign that position as a show of good faith and in support of his own attempts to elliminated the influence and votes of super delegates??

[Demsrule86]

179. My personal opinion is that he thinks he can get the nomination even if he doesn't win the majority

of votes because, often there are not enough votes to reach the threshold for nomination which would require more than one ballot without supers...yep, I think he wants a contested convention...this way he has a shot at winning the nomination no matter what. I am totally against it...everytime we ever had a contested convention, we lost. We must win in 18 and 20 or we are finished for a generation.

[LonePirate]

155. Bernie will not be mistaken for an astute pundit if he keeps making idiotic observations like that.

[KitSileya]

156. Well, then, I expect him to be clear that he will not vote as a superdelegate in 2020

Change begins at home, to paraphrase a well-known saying and if Bernie Sanders is so against superdelegates now (when he was desperate to get their support before), then it is only right that he starts with himself. He should refuse the honor given him by the Democratic party, and make it clear that he will NOT vote for a nominee at the convention in 2020, unless he is elected a pledged delegate from Vermont for that nominee.

[Blue_Tires]

159. Turner and her ilk want the mob rule of caucuses

I really hope nobody is seriously considering making permanent rule changes just to satisfy ONE candidate running in ONE election...

This is the part where I ask once again if Bernie hates the primary system so much, why doesn't he just run as an independent?

[Mike Nelson]

185. I think it's...

...important to look at caucuses, super-delegates and open primaries. But, Nina Turner is not a person I would trust to make the best decisions for Democrats... she doesn't seem to even be a Democrat!

[Gothmog]

193. I do not want to remake the Democratic Party just to make Nina Turner happy

I really do not care what Nina Tuner thinks

[DFW]

196. DFW camp says

A GOTV effort that will make it impossible to overcome the Democratic candidate's majority of electoral votes is the key to winning back the White House in 2020.

Not all camps follow the same line of thinking, it appears.

[AllaN01Bear]

201. never even heard of superdelegates untill 2016

are these new ? idk

[Blue_Tires]

204. I'll just leave this here...

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

205. LOL! Bravenak totally nails it...

...again.

Why is he trying to imply he got cheated out of something?? This is the kind of accountability we need to apply to all distorted statements like this.