Klobuchar withdraws

[tall73]

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

I agree there was some inconsistency. It started before now. In February of 2016 he was stating that super delegates should vote per the wishes of the people. They were already a part of the rules at that time so he was stuck with them.

However, after those initial contests demonstrated that reported delegate counts were impacting perceptions, and were partly based on super delegates, and therefore it was already hurting his chances of winning, he indicated that the super delegates should do what is best. That was by May or so of 2016. It was indeed a flip.

Bernie has flipped on some other stances as well, including his views on immigration.

However, the flip was how to deal with a gamed system of super delegates to start with. He has consistently wanted the popular vote to be the determining factor and wanted super delegates removed. Progressives managed to have them removed only on the first round, but wanted them on the second as well.

Now I disagree with Bernie that the one who wins a plurality should take the nomination. I think at that point it could go to negotiation with the various delegates pledged, but without the influence of the super delegates.

 

[mark46]

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.

1) Clinton had more popular votes.

2) Clinton had more elected delegates.

3) Clinton had more delegates if the super delegates were forced to vote as the state voted.

4) The nomination was stolen.

There are two political factions that support logic like this. One is the politics of Trump; the other is the politics of Sanders.
============
The current rules are those rules that were changed at the insistence of Sanders. He negotiated them and signed off on them. Now that he, yet again, seems unlikely to get the majority of delegates, Sanders wants to change the rules NOW in the middle of the process.

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

What is the evidence for this ?

 

[tall73]

What is the evidence for this ?

Please see post 23.

 

[tall73]

1) Clinton had more popular votes.

2) Clinton had more elected delegates.

3) Clinton had more delegates if the super delegates were forced to vote as the state voted.

And this is misleading. She gained momentum based on the report of the number of delegates coming out of the early contests, partly due to the super delegates.

And she benefited from the DNC debate schedule, which scheduled few debates, at strange times. And she benefited from taking over the DNC apparatus long before she was the nominee.

4) The nomination was stolen.

The nomination process was intentionally skewed. I cannot claim to know what would have happened if it were not skewed.

There are two political factions that support logic like this. One is the politics of Trump; the other is the politics of Sanders.

I think the logic that says it is fine for Clinton to buy control of the party before she is the nominee is the politics of the establishment. Not too surprising that camps behind two politicians the establishment doesn't like agree on this point.

However, I think if more knew of what happened, they wouldn't like it either.

The current rules are those rules that were changed at the insistence of Sanders. He negotiated them and signed off on them. Now that he, yet again, seems unlikely to get the majority of delegates, Sanders wants to change the rules NOW in the middle of the process.

Negotiated, indeed. However, what he wanted was there to be no super delegates. This was a compromise position.

There was some discussion regarding it for some time. Since this was the compromise the discussion for a while has been to try to get to a contested convention to make sure Sanders cannot win.

Kaine sides with Sanders, calls for eliminating superdelegates

Other solutions open to the party if they did not want to give party insiders more control?

a. eliminate super delegates altogether, making only the votes of the people count.
b. institute rank voting so the winnowing process of candidates falling out can still be accounted for.

 

[mark46]

this is not happening in this country

If you think that a majority of delegates in a party shouldn't be enough to determine a nominee, perhaps we should go back to 2/3 as we had in the old days. What we are NOT doing is allowing a minority of delegates to determine the winner of the nomination of the Democratic Party.

And, yes perhaps next time there will be no super delegates, so that we can have 4 or 5 or 6 ballots instead.

Bernie's followers want the Democratic Party to ignore the majority and give the nominee to candidate who does not have the support of a majority. I would hate a Sanders nomination. However, I will fully support it if a majority of delegates support him.

.
b. institute rank voting so the winnowing process of candidates falling out can still be accounted for.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

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.​

 

[mark46]

And Hillary forced a majority of elected delegates to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie?

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

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.​

 

[tall73]

this is not happening in this country

If you think that a majority of delegates in a party shouldn't be enough to determine a nominee, perhaps we should go back to 2/3 as we had in the old days. What we are NOT doing is allowing a minority of delegates to determine the winner of the nomination of the Democratic Party.

And, yes perhaps next time there will be no super delegates, so that we can have 4 or 5 or 6 ballots instead.

Bernie's followers want the Democratic Party to ignore the majority and give the nominee to candidate who does not have the support of a majority. I would hate a Sanders nomination. However, I will fully support it if a majority of delegates support him.

Actually rank voting already happened in the early voting for the Nevada caucus. There is no reason it could not be done in this country.

And I did not say a plurality should get the nomination. I did say it is better to have the elected delegates work it out, even if it takes longer.

 

[tall73]

And Hillary forced a majority of elected delegates to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie?

If you control the decisions of the DNC, and funnel money to your campaign, that gives a definite edge.

Was the relationship in which the DNC took money and put her in charge over a year before the nomination fair or not?

 

[mark46]

???
The DNC didn't have any money that the Clinton campaign didn't give them. The DNC was bankrupt, so what does it mean for the DNC to funnel money to Clinton?

If you control the decisions of the DNC, and funnel money to your campaign, that gives a definite edge.

Was the relationship in which the DNC took money and put her in charge over a year before the nomination fair or not?

 

[tall73]

???
The DNC didn't have any money that the Clinton campaign didn't give them. The DNC was bankrupt, so what does it mean for the DNC to funnel money to Clinton?

Did you read the article?

And I am still waiting on whether you think them controlling the communications etc. of the DNC before she was the nominee was OK.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Next up: Lizzy

Hmmm

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Shorter, richer, smarter, more competent...but less narcissistic.

Less WHAT? Have you listened to the guy lately? LOLOL

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

And Hillary forced a majority of elected delegates to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie?

She controlled the finances,
She controlled the strategy
She controlled ALL the money raised

Do you really believe she did not use that to her sole benefit?

 

[DaisyDay]

Less WHAT? Have you listened to the guy lately? LOLOL

Yes, have you listened to each of them? Much shorter, much smarter, much richer, much more competent while far and away less narcissistic.

 

[mark46]

Did you read the article?

And I am still waiting on whether you think them controlling the communications etc. of the DNC before she was the nominee was OK.

No, it wasn't Ok, because of the lack of transparency.

She could have decided instead to not send all the money to the DNC, and use the money in her own PAC's communication.

What is 100% OK is for the party "establishment" to have their choice or choices for the nomination, and to work hard to support their candidate, and do all they can to oppose those who they oppose.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Best things for me with all the primary this year .. to see how much GOP care about Sen. Sanders.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Yes, have you listened to each of them? Much shorter, much smarter, much richer, much more competent while far and away less narcissistic.

I’ll just attribute that to your poor hearing or comprehension.

 

[DaisyDay]

I’ll just attribute that to your poor hearing or comprehension.

Back at 'cha.

I lived in NYC under Bloomberg. He does have a good opinion of himself, but he doesn't tout himself as the best, healthiest, smartest, richest guy in the world. Aside from stop'n'frisk, he was a pretty good mayor. Not corrupt, policies for the public welfare. With Donald, not only does every little thing revolve around Donald, but he sees anti-Donald conspiracies everywhere.