Klobuchar withdraws

[cow451]

It is unreasonable to let Bernie run, and then take actions to tip the scale before the nominee is chosen. If the DNC wants to pick a candidate at the convention, and skip the appearance of primary elections, that would be more honest.

The rules are made by the party. It is a nominating process, not an actual election. Argue about whether it’s a good process, but most of the Bernie Whiners here are voting for Trump anyway.

 

[Hammster]

Pete endorsed Biden. Not surprised.

 

[tall73]

The rules are made by the party. It is a nominating process, not an actual election. Argue about whether it’s a good process, but most of the Bernie Whiners here are voting for Trump anyway.

I was explaining it is not a good process. As I stated, they would be better off just stating they will pick the nominee than pretending to have an election.

And whether most here complaining about it are Trump supporters, there are a lot of Bernie supporters who are concerned about it.

And no wonder, because the Democrats last time gave control of the party to Hillary almost a year before she had the nomination.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

 

[cow451]

I was explaining it is not a good process. As I stated, they would be better off just stating they will pick the nominee than pretending to have an election.

And whether most here complaining about it are Trump supporters, there are a lot of Bernie supporters who are concerned about it.

And no wonder, because the Democrats last time gave control of the party to Hillary almost a year before she had the nomination.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

It’s called politics.

 

[tall73]

It’s called politics.

No, taking money from a candidate, and in exchange allowing them to control party money, messaging, etc. when pretending to run a fair election is not just politics. It is deceptive. That is why the acting head of the DNC, who wrote that article, was describing it as wrong.

And to the degree that some Bernie supporters could not then bring themselves to support Clinton in the general election it may have cost them the presidency.

And if the Democratic Party leadership thinks that Bernie's supporters will go support the nominee if they cheat him again, they are likely to be mistaken.

 

[zippy2006]

It is unreasonable to let Bernie run, and then take actions to tip the scale before the nominee is chosen. If the DNC wants to pick a candidate at the convention, and skip the appearance of primary elections, that would be more honest.

It's not unreasonable and ending a campaign is not "tipping the scales." If any candidate receives a majority of the delegates they win the nomination, so it's not like the primaries are insignificant. The whole debate is about the significance of a plurality of votes, not sheer nomination fiat. As far as I can see the reality of superdelegates goes hand in hand with the reality of political parties.

And to the degree that some Bernie supporters could not then bring themselves to support Clinton in the general election it may have cost them the presidency.

And if the Democratic Party leadership thinks that Bernie's supporters will go support the nominee if they cheat him again, they are likely to be mistaken.

That's exactly why they are justified in wanting a different nominee. Many of Bernie's supporters are not Democrats and it is questionable whether Bernie himself is a Democrat. Democrats aren't going to receive that fact indifferently.

 

[cow451]

No, taking money from a candidate, and in exchange allowing them to control party money, messaging, etc. when pretending to run a fair election is not just politics. It is deceptive. That is why the acting head of the DNC, who wrote that article, was describing it as wrong.

And to the degree that some Bernie supporters could not then bring themselves to support Clinton in the general election it may have cost them the presidency.

And if the Democratic Party leadership thinks that Bernie's supporters will go support the nominee if they cheat him again, they are likely to be mistaken.

A political party is free to poop on its own carpet.

 

[tall73]

It's not unreasonable and ending a campaign is not "tipping the scales." If any candidate receives a majority of the delegates they win the nomination, so it's not like the primaries are insignificant. The whole debate is about the significance of a plurality of votes, not sheer nomination fiat. As far as I can see the reality of superdelegates goes hand in hand with the reality of political parties.

I do not think that having to win a plurality is wrong. I do think superdelegates are a problem. Because they don't represent the people's vote.

It was an improvement to hold their involvement to the second round. But they are not needed to begin with if the goal is to represent the people. The delegates representing each could still hash out an agreement without the party elites deciding it.

And as I mentioned, if they just want to pick the candidate, and skip the election, that would be fine.

In the previous cycle, there was no excuse for turning the whole infrastructure of the party to Clinton before she won the nomination. So Bernie voters are naturally suspicious about what is going on now, and whether pressure is brought by party elites on candidates to drop out.

 

[tall73]

A political party is free to poop on its own carpet.

And discussing that act is not just something that Trump folks are concerned about. How motivated will the progressive wing be to vote in the general if they feel they were cheated in the primary process?

 

[zippy2006]

I do not think that having to win a plurality is wrong. I do think superdelegates are a problem. Because they don't represent the people's vote.

But you receive benefits by running under a party label, and the party-candidate relationship is symbiotic. The party isn't a non-entity, and it makes sense that is possesses certain powers.

Bernie Sanders Files To Run As A Democrat — And An Independent

 

[tall73]

But you receive benefits by running under a party label, and the party-candidate relationship is symbiotic. The party isn't a non-entity, and it makes sense that is possesses certain powers.

Bernie Sanders Files To Run As A Democrat — And An Independent

If those powers are to pick whoever the elites want, then they should state that. If they claim to run a fair primary, that is out of step with elites deciding it.

And of course, they are quick to ask whether people such as Gabbard or Sanders would run as an independent if they don't get the nomination.

Last time Bernie played along, and actually campaigned for Clinton extensively. And she returned the favor by blasting him this time around. I don't think he will play along this time. But even if he does his supporters will not all do so.

 

[cow451]

And discussing that act is not just something that Trump folks are concerned about. How motivated will the progressive wing be to vote in the general if they feel they were cheated in the primary process?

They are free to step in the poop and track it throughout the house. The DNC May need to lose to Trump again to get the message that the house needs a visit from Service Master.

 

[tall73]

They are free to step in the poop and track it throughout the house. The DNC May need to lose to Trump again to get the message that the house needs a visit from Service Master.

Or folks might get a new house if it is always full of droppings.

 

[cow451]

Or folks might get a new house if it is always full of droppings.

True.

 

[zippy2006]

If those powers are to pick whoever the elites want, then they should state that. If they claim to run a fair primary, that is out of step with elites deciding it.

This is a false dichotomy. There is middle ground between the party having dictatorial power and the party having zero power.

 

[tall73]

This is a false dichotomy. There is middle ground between the party having dictatorial power and the party having zero power.

The issue is the party pretending the people have the power.

But let's see how you draw the line on last time. Do you think it was right of the party to take money from Clinton and then allow her to control the party and its messaging during the primary last year, while pretending it was a fair race?

 

[mark46]

The automatic delegates (called super delegates) are usually elected officials.

BTW, these delegates have no role unless the convention does not elect a nominees by majority vote on the first ballot. This has not happened in almost 70 years.

So, for me, the goal for a candidate is to secure 50% of the delegates. If no one can do this, elected officials will then have some small say, but only when no one can get a majority.
=====
Asking to change the rules is for 2024, not 2020.

I do not think that having to win a plurality is wrong. I do think superdelegates are a problem. Because they don't represent the people's vote.
.

 

[tall73]

The automatic delegates (called super delegates) are usually elected officials.

BTW, these delegates have no role unless the convention does not elect a nominees by majority vote on the first ballot. This has not happened in almost 70 years.

So, for me, the goal for a candidate is to secure 50% of the delegates. If no one can do this, elected officials will then have some small say, but only when no one can get a majority.
=====
Asking to change the rules is for 2024, not 2020.

The elites sold control of the party last time, and the super delegates had direct influence on the first vote. Some are already talking returning to that next time, and it was only because of the leverage of Bernie and the progressive wing that they changed it for this time around.

Again, if the people determine it, then the delegates from the earlier voting can work it out without superdelegates even without a majority being reached.

 

[zippy2006]

The issue is the party pretending the people have the power.

But let's see how you draw the line on last time. Do you think it was right of the party to take money from Clinton and then allow her to control the party and its messaging during the primary last year, while pretending it was a fair race?

Last time Bernie was arguing the exact opposite. He's flip-flopped:

"It’s a steep hill to climb," Sanders acknowledged to reporters. "At the end of the day the responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for the country and what is best for the Democratic Party." (2016)

AP FACT CHECK: Sanders’ shift on delegates needed to win

 

[tall73]

Last time Bernie was arguing the exact opposite. He's flip-flopped:

I see you didn't address whether the DNC leadership was right to have Clinton take over the DNC almost a year before she was the nominee.

I will respond to your additional post as well. Please address the question of whether it was right for the DNC to sell control of the party to Clinton long before she was the nominee?