Big Bernie Win: DNC to Reduce "Super Delegates" by 60%

[Anung Un Rama]

This is a good illustration of why the Intercept/DeBoer types are effectively just the left-outreach arm of the GOP propaganda machine. These people don't care about improving the lives of real people and don't actually want to change left politics. They just want to claim some kind of high road, while encouraging left-leaning voters to sit out elections and let politicians with a single-minded devotion to upward redistribution of wealth win and enact bad policy.

And this is a good illustration of a troll.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And this is a good illustration of a troll.

Why? My main point in that is that there is nothing Democrats can do to win people like you (and Greenwald or DeBoer) over, and you show it by that kind of reaction when they do something that you'd presumably like (many other examples of that, of course). Is that wrong? Some left activists are working to make changes in the party, and when they succeed, you guys just say that it's some kind of empty gesture and retain your view. The task of winning you guys over is literally impossible, and energy would be better spent trying to win over rational right-wingers.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why? My main point in that is that there is nothing Democrats can do to win people like you (and Greenwald or DeBoer) over, and you show it by that kind of reaction when they do something that you'd presumably like (many other examples of that, of course). Is that wrong? Some left activists are working to make changes in the party, and when they succeed, you guys just say that it's some kind of empty gesture and retain your view. The task of winning you guys over is literally impossible, and energy would be better spent trying to win over rational right-wingers.

Why? Because you're trolling. It's obvious what the dnc is doing. When they make real changes I'll acknowledge it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why? Because you're trolling. It's obvious what the dnc is doing. When they make real changes I'll acknowledge it.

You're only accusing me of "trolling" because you disagree with me, and you're unable to handle disagreement maturely. I think it's pretty clear that your view will never change about left-leaning politicians. They are all evil monsters unless they lose/are likely to lose, and when they change in any way, the change either cannot be trusted or had bad motivations.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're only accusing me of "trolling" because you disagree with me, and you're unable to handle disagreement maturely. I think it's pretty clear that your view will never change about left-leaning politicians. They are all evil monsters unless they lose/are likely to lose, and when they change in any way, the change either cannot be trusted or had bad motivations.

Looks like somebody woke up needing their trolling fix with a side of thread derail.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Looks like somebody woke up needing their trolling fix with a side of thread derail.

You're the one making empty attack posts in response to substantive points.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're the one making empty attack posts in response to substantive points.

Oh brother

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh brother

What I said is objectively true.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Trotsky, this is the kind of thing that drives my opinion of that guy.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What I said is objectively true.

 

[luckyshot]

TBH, I think the argument that this change would have helped Bernie is a tricky one to make. I think you're absolutely correct that Hillary's entire campaign strategy, both in the primaries and the general, was to carefully cultivate this air of inevitability that attempted to exclude the very notion of any legitimate challenger. Starting with a huge superdelegate advantage and pumping that narrative to the press was an important part of that strategy and I think it did have the effect of suppressing other establishment democrat challengers.

I agree up to here.

By the same token, however, I think it may be the very thing that created the opening for Bernie. Not only did the superdelegate structure alienate a measurable percentage of Dems, it made it possible to concentrate Hillary-opposition votes into a smaller pool of (and ultimately only one) potential candidates. While I do believe superdelegates helped Hillary I suspect removing them would empower some other mainstream dem more than it would Bernie.

This is thoughtful and plausible, but I disagree. Bernie was a popular political figure with the left before the primary. The spread of his popularity was greatly aided by social media. Ultimately, his popularity was a true grassroots movement that was based on many people agreeing with his policies and being excited about his vision for the country. Bernie's support was not primarily a reaction against Clinton.

The fact that Clinton was so antithetical to Sanders in terms of being the ultimate party insider and cozy with Wall Street (at least according to perception) became an important issue during the primary, but it is not the reason Bernie was known or popular in the first place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is thoughtful and plausible, but I disagree. Bernie was a popular political figure in many far left circles before the primary. The spread of his popularity was greatly aided by social media. Ultimately, his popularity was a true grassroots movement that was based on many people agreeing with his policies and being excited about his vision for the country. Bernie's support was not primarily a reaction against Clinton.

But Bernie got support from people who both wanted the party to move left and to move right. He got a lot of support just as "alternative." In a more open primary, he'd have been popular with one faction, but not with all factions that opposed the frontrunner.

 

[Fawlty]

These discussions make me wonder how people who don't like party structures would change them if they were in power. It's really unfortunate that our system is mathematically "rigged" toward having two parties, because the parties inevitably have to act as democracy surrogates. With fewer choices, people demand more options within their choice, which weakens party cohesiveness. It's not as if we have a process where two distinct left-leaning parties get together and work out their differences. All of the working out of differences has to get either the official Republican or Democrat stamp, and most differences are just set aside while popular resentment builds. I don't think there's a good solution to that in a two party system that isn't already in play. The Sanders faction had enough effect on the party platform. Job done. And if you want to help your faction, go to work in IT.

 

[luckyshot]

He got a lot of support just as "alternative."

I don't agree here. He got a lot of support because people love him. That's why he was able to raise a zillion dollars in $25 dollar increments.

The idea that the democratic party needed an alternative to Clinton was not a major narrative before Bernie emerged as an alternative.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

TBH, I think the argument that this change would have helped Bernie is a tricky one to make. I think you're absolutely correct that Hillary's entire campaign strategy, both in the primaries and the general, was to carefully cultivate this air of inevitability that attempted to exclude the very notion of any legitimate challenger. Starting with a huge superdelegate advantage and pumping that narrative to the press was an important part of that strategy and I think it did have the effect of suppressing other establishment democrat challengers. By the same token, however, I think it may be the very thing that created the opening for Bernie. Not only did the superdelegate structure alienate a measurable percentage of Dems, it made it possible to concentrate Hillary-opposition votes into a smaller pool of (and ultimately only one) potential candidates. While I do believe superdelegates helped Hillary I suspect removing them would empower some other mainstream dem more than it would Bernie.

Agreed up to the point that a lack of super delegates would have hurt Sanders. That narrative was that Hillary was a lock and Bernie was an adorable old Socialist, bless his heart. The superdelegates were just one part of that narrative, and an easy one for the media to regurgitate.

 

[Juventud]

Anything that helps stop the party automatically backing the establishment candidate is fine by me. The Dems need it. It's time to stop taking the safe moderate road. Those days are long gone.

It doesn't matter because when the DNC runs Dwayne Johnson in 2020 everyone will smell what the Rock is cooking.

Fuck it, Trump being elected means anyone can run now. Everyone likes the Rock, white/black. He's that acceptable shade of tanned/islander people find non-threatening.
Family Guy even did a good joke with a movie trailer narrator trying to figure what damn ethnicity he is.

His ex-wife is his manager and gets along with his current wife. Stops the broken black family attack from the right. His wife is white though that may trigger a lot of alt-righters & 'true' republicans.

Surviving the 'Tooth Fairy' to becoming the biggest action star today is the equivalent of Trump coming back from bankruptcies. And saving the Fast & Furious franchise.

Not only would he lay the smackdown if needed verbally but he'd crush any other leader like an ant. He keeps getting bigger.

Here's the Rock with a hard right winger & a racist. Great race relations reaching across the aisle.

 

[Jack V Savage]

These discussions make me wonder how people who don't like party structures would change them if they were in power. It's really unfortunate that our system is mathematically "rigged" toward having two parties, because the parties inevitably have to act as democracy surrogates. With fewer choices, people demand more options within their choice, which weakens party cohesiveness. It's not as if we have a process where two distinct left-leaning parties get together and work out their differences. All of the working out of differences has to get either the official Republican or Democrat stamp, and most differences are just set aside while popular resentment builds. I don't think there's a good solution to that in a two party system that isn't already in play. The Sanders faction had enough effect on the party platform. Job done. And if you want to help your faction, go to work in IT.

Seems that some people would want no superdelegates, all open primaries (not an NC thing, BTW), same-day registration (also not something the NC handles). But that would lead to brokered conventions every time (or if they didn't require a majority, maybe someone widely hated winning with 12% of the vote).

IMO, what it really comes down to is for some people, their preferred candidate losing=corruption or subversion of democracy.

I don't agree here. He got a lot of support because people love him. That's why he was able to raise a zillion dollars in $25 dollar increments.

The idea that the democratic party needed an alternative to Clinton was not a major narrative before Bernie emerged as an alternative.

Disagree. Bernie's popularity bumped when it was apparent that it was a two-person race. People loved him because they supported him rather than supporting him because they love him (how it is for almost all politicians). For a while, even though he never ran or indicated that he was going to run, Biden was doing better in betting odds than Sanders. And see my point about how Sanders got support from people who preferred a more right-leaning alternative.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I agree up to here.



This is thoughtful and plausible, but I disagree. Bernie was a popular political figure with the left before the primary. The spread of his popularity was greatly aided by social media. Ultimately, his popularity was a true grassroots movement that was based on many people agreeing with his policies and being excited about his vision for the country. Bernie's support was not primarily a reaction against Clinton.

The fact that Clinton was so antithetical to Sanders in terms of being the ultimate party insider and cozy with Wall Street (at least according to perception) became an important issue during the primary, but it is not the reason Bernie was known or popular in the first place.

Agreed. Bernie was popular on the left with people that knew who he was. His biggest mountain to climb was introducing himself to the majority of voters.

It still blows me away thinking back to Bernie being at 2%, and telling people about him. It was a meteoric rise.

 

[HomerThompson]

But Bernie got support from people who both wanted the party to move left and to move right. He got a lot of support just as "alternative." In a more open primary, he'd have been popular with one faction, but not with all factions that opposed the frontrunner.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It seems weird if you assume that voters are all informed and voting on the basis of policy preferences, but that assumption isn't accurate.

Good pieces that help make sense of this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/...nders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?_r=0

And here's a piece that discusses the issue more directly:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...re-conservatives-th-1462899743-htmlstory.html

Sen. Bernie Sanders' ability to beat Clinton in conservative places may seem counterintuitive. He is, after all, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. But the results fit into a consistent pattern: The Democratic Party doesn't have a lot of conservative voters in its primaries any more, but those who remain have tended to favor Sanders.

It's a fair bet that most of those voters are not Feeling the Bern. The evidence suggests they are not so much voting for Sanders as voting against Clinton, much as voters in some of the same places sided with Clinton eight years ago because they did not want to vote for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The best evidence on Sanders' conservative vote comes from a new compilation of exit poll data done by Langer Research Associates for ABC News.

Voters were asked whether they would like to see the next president pursue policies that are more liberal than President Obama's, more conservative or about the same.

Not surprisingly, Sanders has beaten Clinton by better than 2-1 among those who would like to see a turn to the left. Clinton, by contrast, has prevailed by an even larger margin among the biggest group — those who want to continue along the route Obama has followed.

The surprise comes among the 12% of voters who said they want to see more conservative policies than Obama's. By a narrow margin, they have voted for Sanders. They make up about one in seven of his voters overall.

The exit polls are consistent with a pattern of Sanders victories in conservative states, such as Oklahoma, and in conservative parts of more liberal states. In New York, for example, Sanders won heavily white, conservative areas including parts of Staten Island, Howard Beach in Queens and Bay Ridge in Brooklyn.

This one is linked to in the one above:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/...s&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Exit polls in Oklahoma, which allowed independents to vote in the Democratic primary for the first time, showed Mr. Sanders winning among people who wanted more conservative policies than Mr. Obama, or who trusted neither Mr. Sanders nor Mrs. Clinton in a crisis. These are probably not voters who are getting fired up for the Democratic revolution.