• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On May - 25 - 2016

Super-Delegates

One of this week’s top stories is that polls are showing a General Election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be neck and neck.

Let that sink in for a moment.

In a year when the GOP’s nominee is a chauvinist, bigoted, facist-styled and constantly lying billionaire who is disliked by most women, minorities and young voters, the Democrats are on the verge of nominating a candidate who is about as equally disliked and distrusted by voters (this isn’t a personal opinion, it’s the results of poll after poll including this latest one from NBC).

Superdelegates became instituted in the Democratic primary process after such non-establishment candidates as George McGovern and Jimmy Carter beat out establishment candidates in 1972 and 1976. It was an anti-democratic ploy intended to keep 40% of delegates needed to win the nomination, under the control of the Democrat Party elites to overrule their voters if it looked like an opponent to an establishment candidate could win.

The disingenuous reason given by Democratic Party elites for instituting the Superdelegate scheme into their primaries was that it was an emergency fire alarm to be pulled if somehow a candidate who looked too weak to win in a General Election, won their party’s nomination. Uh…right…what’s that latest poll say again?

NBC Poll - Trump-Hillary-BernieAs DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently declared to bizarrely both justify and diminish the rationale for Superdelegates, they’ve never overturned the will of the voters in Democratic primaries yet.

Then why should they even exist, if the major brag about them is that they’ve never interfered in an election? If the inference is that their overriding voters would be something awful, shameful and destructive to the party, then shouldn’t they be completely eliminated from the process?

And there is an argument to be made that they do indeed interfere in the primaries. As has been broadly reported, whenever Bernie Sanders has won a state, the results of delegates won by each candidate has been adulterated by adding in the Superdelegates “won”. Since Superdelegates are de facto members of the Democratic establishment and heavily behind the establishment candidate, Bernie may have won a majority of a state’s delegates in some cases but the news would report that Hillary added to her lead thanks to Superdelegates.

This is the DNC and their Superdelegates putting a finger on the scale of every primary outcome and falsely promoting the perception that Bernie simply can’t win because even if he does, he loses. It is especially dishonest when the fact is that Superdelegates aren’t actually committed to a candidate until they vote at the convention in July. So all those Superdelegate votes that are always “awarded” when a state has a primary? They aren’t real or legit and don’t count yet.

This is how propaganda works, hammering into the public’s head that the desired perception is the only feasible one to believe. By using this bogus addition of Superdelegates to the results of every primary contest, they have in fact been trying to influence the perceptions of voters that the elites’ choice for the nomination is winning and inevitable. They know that many people don’t bother voting for candidates that are perceived as destined to lose and they have been exploiting this anti-democratic manipulation from the beginning. The intent is to manipulate and control the outcome of the primary process while keeping up a facade of democracy. Again, Superdelegates are anti-democratic and the product of people who are themselves anti-democratic.

What is unsurprising is that when Bernie Sanders claimed that he would want to make his case for the nomination to Superdelegates, he was condemned by the same party elites who have been using Superdelegates to advance the nomination of their chosen candidate…as not respecting the decisions of voters. Yep, those same voters the Dem Party elite created the Superdelegates to override.

When one takes a moment to consider the competitiveness of the candidate who has the lion’s share of Superdelegate support, the irony is that the polls show they are marching behind the candidate who is the weakest against the presumptive Republican candidate, Donald Trump. As illustrated above, the latest polls show Hillary Clinton in a virtual tie (within the margin of error) with the heavily despised Donald Trump. Both are seen negatively by a majority of voters, Hillary at 54% negative and Trump at 58% negative. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has only 36% of Americans that view him negatively (and is the only candidate with a higher positive then negative rating, at 43%) and in this latest polling from NBC/WSJ, beats Trump by 15% in a General Election match up.

So if the true mission of the Superdelegates was to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating a candidate who is more likely to lose the Presidency to the Republicans, doesn’t Bernie have a point in lobbying them to support his candidacy instead?

Of course, since the Superdelegates’ real purpose is only to assure the nomination of establishment candidates and keep populists and “outsiders” like Sanders from getting the nomination, such pursuits by Sanders will surely turn out to be futile.

Personally, I don’t believe that there should be a Superdelegates system. It is anti-democratic, manipulative towards voters and a fraud. It has proven to be a tool of the establishment to influence primaries, sometimes against the will of the majority (in 2008 too when Hillary acquired a majority of them and hoped to use them to bring her the nomination even though she was losing in the actual pledged delegate count to Barack Obama).

That said, since Superdelegates have been used throughout the primary season to help advance the meme that Hillary was the inevitable winner of the nomination (and perhaps helped her win more pledged delegates than she would have), it is understandable that Bernie would hope to use them to turn things back in his direction.

Either way, Superdelegates offer nothing but division to the Democratic Party. Since most have stepped in to manipulate the perception of Hillary as winning more delegates in each primary than she genuinely has, many Bernie supporters are disgusted with the Democratic Party establishment (as well as for justifiable complaints of ex-co-chair of Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, using her position as DNC Chairwoman to support Hillary and undermine Bernie).

And if Superdelegates overrode the results of the primaries and handed the nomination to Bernie even if Hillary won a majority of pledged delegates, Hillary supporters would justifiably disgusted with the party.

Superdelegates have tainted this election as they did in 2008. They are a fraud and anti-democratic. They should be eliminated from the Democrats primary process for good at this year’s convention as an important step towards reunifying the party.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

48 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Assumed Name says:

    Okay, I have to say it: I’m **totally** psyched to be able to vote for a viable female democratic presidential candidate!! (Sorry, but there it is. :)

    Here’s hoping Sanders has the grace to “do a Clinton” a la 2008.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey Assumed, I really get it, it’s been a dream for so many women to finally be able to vote for a woman for President. It is kind of amazing that directly following the nomination and elections of the first African American candidate for President, the Dem Party nominates the first woman candidate.

      These are historic times.

      I have no doubt that by convention time, Bernie will join Hillary in unifying Dems so if he holds off for a bit as Hillary did in 2008, I think it’s understandable. They have invested so much of themselves in their campaigns, it would seem to be a bit of a process to finally reverse course and concede.

      And as Hillary negotiated the position of SoS for herself and DWS as DNC Chairman as part of the price for her concession, Bernie will have his demands as well on the platform, primary process, etc.

      All that takes time and as it worked out between Obama and Hillary, I’m confident it will be worked out between Hillary and Bernie.

  2. Assumed Name says:

    Greetings AdLib,

    I don’t fit “the profile” of either a Trump supporter or Sanders supporter, so I’ll play Devil’s Advocate in asking a (sincere) question: The whole issue of superdelegates notwithstanding, hasn’t Clinton more or less “won” the popular vote among primary voting Democrats per se? On the one hand, certainly I understand the appeal of Sanders for many, but on the other hand, it seems as if not merely the “Democratic party elites” favor Clinton, national polls regarding Clinton vs. Trump notwithstanding. Also, it’s not as if Sanders is new to politics: given the length of his political career why wait until this historical moment to complain about superdelegates? There’s a strong argument to be made that given what is at stake (namely a Trump presidency) it is now time to unite the Democratic party behind the presumptive nominee…and that is simply not Sanders. November is only four months away.

    Best,
    Assumed Name

    • AdLib says:

      Assumed Name, I think that the only metric that can or should be used in party primaries to decide who wins the nomination are those laid out by the rules of a party. For the Dem party, it’s not popular vote but delegate count.

      Pledged delegates are, by the rules, the only ones that are counted in the primary. Superdelegates are not able to cast their votes until the convention so while it may be indicative for them to say how they plan to vote at the convention, their votes aren’t counted yet by the party…even though the MSM has been adding them in from the start.

      So, to cut to the chase, if Hillary does indeed achieve winning a majority of all pledged delegates nationally tonight as MSM outlets are claiming that she will, she has indeed won the nom in the Dem primary.

      I am a Bernie supporter but as long as the projections hold up, I congratulate Hillary on her historic win.

      With regards to Superdelegates, I made my case above that they do in fact interfere in primaries and are very anti-democratic. They are embedded in the current primary rules by Dem Party elites to give them control above the voters. I do find them worthy of criticism. Just because those anti-democratic rules are in place, like Voter ID laws are in place, I don’t think they should be deemed out of bounds for criticism.

      As for Bernie conceding ASAP, I completely understand the desire for this, I felt exactly the same way in 2008 when Obama had attained the majority of pledged delegates and Hillary refused to concede. It was frustrating, I thought her selfish at the time and blocking party unity but after having days to come to grips with it all, she finally did concede. Her actions after that, how strongly she and Bill supported Obama and campaigned for him, wiped away the negative feelings I had towards them.

      I’d suggest that allowing Bernie the same kind of time to process things may pay off in the same way.

      • Assumed Name says:

        Greetings AdLib,

        Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

        I understand your reasoning above. Alas, Sanders, without the press’ interpretation, did “come off” as a bit whinny: his issue wasn’t only with superdelegate, but also with the fact that independents were not allowed to vote in every primary. The reason he came off as whinny has to do more with his history with the Democratic party than with his arguments against superdelegates per se: 1. Sanders has not been an active member of the Democratic party…whereas Clinton has been for her entire political career; 2. Of a piece with #1, Clinton has helped raise money for other Democrat candidates; 3. Clinton has been involved politics at both a national and international level; 4. In 2008, Obama’s lead was much more narrow than Clinton’s at this point of the primary process; 5. Clinton never complained that the process was unfair to her and that’s why Obama was in the lead; and 6. There is a perception, whether or not justified, that Sanders and his “Bernie Bros” are not a little sexist — perhaps they’ve been as forceful against specific Democratic male politicians as they have female, but if so, I cannot recall it.

        However, if I recall correctly, the current Democrat party rules regarding delegates and superdelegates were historically recently modified to give party elites less power in choosing the top of the ticket. I would research this but, alas, I’m a little overwhelmed with work and family at the moment. That is, their are or at least have been members of the party that have moved to correct the correction mentioned above. (I would note that, at least as I understand it, Carter was a bit of a hawk…that is, just as Bill Clinton went postal right on the poor, Carter was not a quintessential lefty by any stretch of the imagination.)

        Last, I should make explicit that although I am opposed to Clinton’s willingness to engage in hot hostilities, I very much trust her understanding of international politics more than Sanders’…that said, I’ll admit she had me at “equal pay for equal work.” As an African American woman, I know only too well that economics is both raced and gendered…and thus far, Sanders seems not “get it.” Speaking of class and nothing more misses the reality for many of us on the ground.

        I gotta commute! (…and as a result the above is not particularly well crafted — oh well.)

        All the best,
        Assumed Name

  3. James Michael Brodie says:

    I guess I’ll be the one to say it. At the end of the day, parties can do whatever they want to pick their candidates — even letting nonparty members to be run for office. These are not real elections. Those who want to vote for Clinton, Sanders, Trump, heck Rubio or Bush — can do so in November.

    What I find interesting is that the two most interesting candidates in these two primaries are not party members. Maybe this will open the door to a multi-party system.

    • AdLib says:

      James, you’re absolutely right, these are private organizations that can choose candidates however they wish.

      But it is no coincidence that both parties have been losing membership over the years. Indie voters used to be a minority and now they’re a plurality over the two parties.

      The problem is that they are political parties trying to win elections and their membership alone is insufficient. So the smart path would seem to be to try and attract and retain these indies as supporting their candidates (and retain their existing members) by letting them help fairly choose a candidate.

      It’s a should rather than must, it won’t stem the bleeding for a party to remain somewhat or become more undemocratic, it will only drive more people out of the party. But they sure do have the right to choose candidates however they want.

      With new leadership and compromise on their policies on Superdelegates and closing primaries to indies, the Dems could go into 2020 with much more support than they have this year.

      And the GOP? With Trump taking over their party, I think they have completely disqualified themselves from ever being seen as having the integrity needed to lead. They won’t stand up to Trump and cower behind, “I’m a Republican so I’ll vote Republican” or “Hillary would be worse”.

      The truth is, being unprincipled cowards is worse but Repubs just don’t get that yet.

  4. Haruko Haruhara says:

    I don’t think Superdelegates are the only problem; I’m not particularly wild about the caucus system, either. The irony is, while Bernie supporters have a lot of valid beefs about the lack of democracy in the primary system, Bernie has done as well if not better in the caucuses than Hillary.

    What I’m struck by is that there’s no hard and fast rules for picking party candidates, and perhaps there needs to be, but good luck with that. It’d probably require a Constitutional amendment. Primaries weren’t even used much until 1968 apparently, it was mostly all caucuses until then. And then before caucuses, parties simply picked their candidate at the party convention. What I try to tell people mad about how the primaries work is by pointing out that you know, they don’t even have to hold primaries at all, they didn’t until 50 years ago, there’s no rules or requirements to hold primaries. It’s not very democratic, but they really don’t have to do it. They could just pick their candidates at their party conventions.

    It’d be nice if we could get rid of superdelegates, caucuses and have some sort of standardised primary system. Now, some primaries are open, some are closed, some are winner-take-all, some are proportional. It’s kind of a messy deal that leaves people feeling disenfranchised.

    • AdLib says:

      Haruko, agree on both caucuses and Superdelegates needing to go.

      Since parties are independent organizations, it makes sense that there are no federal rules on how they choose their candidates.

      But as I mentioned above, if the Dems truly want to build a majority coalition, they should have a process that attracts a majority of voters to participate and ends up nominating a candidate chosen by that majority.

      That means opening up all those closed primaries to allow indies to vote and help select a more widely supported candidate.

      Left to their own devices, I think the GOP, after Trump’s yuuge loss in Nov, will go in the opposite direction and try to find ways to give the GOP Elite more control in anointing their candidates.

    • kesmarn says:

      HH, I agree on the need to get rid of super delegates. And to reform the whole primary process.

      If there’s one silver lining from this whole crazy 2016 primary season, it’s that a lot more American voters have been wised up to the ridiculous complexity and general silliness of both parties’ candidate selection process.

  5. Fergie1 says:

    I’m not sure where to begin because I’ve read all the excellent comments posted below and I would be here all day if I were to try and reply to each one individually. Therefore I will post a few of my own thoughts as a stand alone comment. I know that this will not be as erudite or comprehensive as those comments by AD,KT, Kes, PPO or others but I feel it’s time to voice my opinion. In the interest of self disclosure, I am in favor of Hillary Clinton as the nominee of the Democratic Party. I qualify that with the comment that I am not a proponent of gender voting by a long shot.

    First of all,for the most part KT and PPO’s comments have already said what I agree with.

    I understand completely and agree that the whole process needs a large overhaul. I understand that the gap between wealth, merely surviving and poverty are utterly unacceptable and so the electorate, quite rightfully, are mad as heck. I actually pay 25% income tax on my meagre Soc Sec even though I don’t live in the U.S., so I am a U.S. taxpayer ( more than Trump is!).

    I have usually admired Bernie for ‘taking it to’ the Democratic Party from the beginning. He has garnered extraordinary numbers of supporters to his rallies. Yes people are more than fed up with the Washington gridlock, the status quo ad infinitum. Bernie has every right to continue the fight and he has been able to cause a necessary shift in the Dem Party. Good. Yes, continue Bernie, but please stop taking the inevitable Dem nominee apart with your rhetoric, which seems to have become more strident in recent weeks. There is no possible outcome that could help Trump more than having Hillary enter the GE with “one arm in a sling” (to quote Ad). Also to use the phrase “I give up” is also not the best tone for Bernie to garner the support that is needed!

    Yes, a huge change is needed but this way will not work. Look at the dastardly Tea Party and what they have done and managed to do in the way of obstruction. How? Because they started a grass roots campaign to get their people elected to Congress.

    Where are the candidates that will be doing the same for Bernie? One man or woman cannot achieve a “Revolution”. So Bernie popping out of a cake, so to speak, and expecting to be elected Potus is unrealistic in the extreme. Absolutely, he has done brilliantly from a very low starting point and is to be admired for what he has accomplished, but has he done such a job that his supporters will now be bitter and take their bat and ball and stay at home for the GE?! Hillary needs a large turn out to win against Trump. Just what the GOP does not want to happen.

    I think that being a blind follower of any movement is unhealthy. But I know what I DON’T want and that is Trump in the WH! At the risk of sounding a little dramatic, that outcome will see the image and the power of the U.S.A. plummet to a dangerous level.

    When I read “never Hillary” , I question the level of thinking behind the alternative.

    I, too think that Bernie has become a bit egotistical of late and am looking at a hint of bitterness which never ends well.

    There is more going on in my brain than I have the stamina to write. So I will leave it there for the present.

    • Kalima says:

      Hello, Fergie.

      This is not a comment on your comment as such, or an opinion about your opinion, but I just wanted to point out that Bernie has been working hard to get these Progressives elected to Congress by sharing his time and campaign funds to help them do just that. The list is not complete as there are at least 6 more names, and they are all from immigrant families.

      I think it’s brilliant because even with Hillary as the dem nominee, having more Progessives in Congress who support Bernie’s ideas, is a winning situation, and might stop Hillary from going back to the center in policy making should she win the presidency.

      These are the things that the media don’t report on, about what Bernie is actually doing to help to bring about change. They are too busy reporting when trump farts, or there is another rumoured fight between Bernie and Hillary.

      I receive emails from the Bernie campaign, and the last time he mentioned Hillary, was to report that there were only 2 points between them in California. There was no bitterness or name calling, and never has been. The only criticism has been the same from the start, her campaign funding because he strongly believes in removing huge amounts of corporate money out of politics.

      Here is part of that list of Progressive candidates who support Bernie’s agenda.

      Tim Canova, a Progressive candidate from Florida challenging DWS.

      Jeff Merkley

      U.S. Senator from Oregon working on Climate Change legislation

      Russ Feingold WI

      Lucy Flores of Nevada,

      Zephyr Teachout of New York

      Mike Honda California (CA-17)

      Ruben Gallego Arizona (AZ-07)

      Keith Ellison Minnesota (MN-05)

      Donna Edwards Maryland

      Pramila Jayapal
      WASHINGTON — 7TH DISTRICT

      Here is a link to an article from an economist who agrees with many others that Bernie’s ideas for the future are not as far fetched or impossible as some are saying without really understanding how he plans to implement them. Maybe if people actually listened to what he is saying instead of throwing the word “socialist” around without knowing what it really means, his plans would make perfect sense.

      Here is that link in case you are interested.

      —-

      Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeffrey-sachs-bernie-sanders-easily-wins-the-policy-debate/2016/05/25/224209a0-21ac-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

      Sorry to butt in but I’m usually here working behind door #3 and happened to see your comment on my tea break. Hope that you are doing ok?

      Take care.

      • Fergie1 says:

        Hi Kalima,

        Oh my goodness, you are not “butting in”! Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my comment (or whatever……you know what I mean! :)

        I don’t have a problem with the term socialist one little bit. In it’s modern context, I’m one! I agree that the majority of people are not aware what it actually means.

        I also agree that the obscene amounts of money spent on campaigns are beyond disgraceful times infinity percent.

        Yes, I know that Bernie is supporting progressive candidates and that’s excellent. Hopefully they can make some progress.

        I will look into Jeffrey Sachs. Thank you for that link which I will read soon. There are probably as many economists who disagree with him which is fine. I guess the devil is in the detail and what is truly achievable.

        Unless Citizens United can be “undone” (which is my fervent hope), the U.S. political system is a financial horror. I don’t think anyone of sound mind would disagree with that.

        I think that too many unknowns are being thrown on Hillary and that she is more progressive than we all know.

        Sorry Kalima, I’m going to have to leave it there for now.

        Thank you for asking how I’m going. Not great, so can’t spend too long sitting in one place. Apparently the disks in my spine are drying out and degenerating! Thus pain!
        Hey ho and so we plod on!
        How are you doing?

        Take care also.

        • Kalima says:

          Thanks for taking the time to reply, Fergie, and I was glad to hear that you know what Bernie is doing behind the scenes. When you think that many European countries are doing just fine with a socialist government who provides all it’s citizens with access to healthcare, education, unions and so much more, socialist has no scary hidden meaning at all, it just stands for equality.

          Time will tell what Hillary will or won’t do, or can or can’t do.

          So very sorry to hear about further health problems, Fergie, and believe me when I say that I know what you are going through. I was diagnosed with premature aging of the spine in my early 30’s and get these attacks that last anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. In fact I’m just getting over one that lasted for a month. It was heaven to be able to stand up straight again, although bending is still a problem. We need to find some spare parts!

          My doctor always gives me a huge supply of heat plasters, and the warmth gets me through the night. Surgery was suggested years ago, but now there are too many disks involved to predict a good outcome. I hope that you at least find something for that intense pain, and will be sending out healing thoughts your way.

          Take care of yourself and I really hope that you have the right doctor to support you through this trying tim. I do, and feel very lucky.

          See you, and all the very best.

  6. pinkpantheroz says:

    Excellent, Ad, but why would we think otherwise? Your usual brilliance shines through!

    Here is Planet America for this week. some good thoughts in there.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/planet-america/

    OK, I’ve stewed over this comment and believe we need to bring it in to the open.

    I am getting more and more fed up with Bernie Sanders! Here is an avowed Independent who suddenly decides to hang his socialist messages on to the coat-tails of the Democratic Party and registers as a Dem. THEN, he starts biting the hand that feeds him by knocking his rival in the Democratic Party. This is continuing long after it has become evident even to the most one-eyed supporter that he cannot now achieve the nomination. He needs now to swing his support behind Hillary and get out of the fucking way, because he is screwing things badly and possibly handing the Presidency to Drumpf! Sorry if I upset a lot of Bernie supporters, but, c’mon now. It is time!
    OK, I feel better now. Time for a Scotch and beddy-byes!

    • AdLib says:

      Cheers, PPO! Very appreciated!

      I completely understand your feelings on this but I look at it differently.

      There is a legitimate split in the Democratic Party right now and the reasons behind that need to be addressed or we could indeed see a President Trump in our future.

      If Bernie simply said, “I give up, I can’t win, Hillary will be our nominee, I ask all my followers to get behind her,” I don’t think that would result in bringing the party together.

      A big chunk of Bernie’s voters don’t identify themselves as members of the Dem Party, even though many vote Dem consistently. They don’t have an allegiance to the Democratic Party, they are supporting Bernie for many reasons that they don’t see applying to Hillary.

      So just having Bernie concede and urge them to support Hillary wouldn’t bring many over.

      This does need to be a process if Dems and Hillary want these Bernie supporters to help push her and control of the Senate to the Dems.

      And I think an important part of this process should and I hope will be a welcoming of Bernie and his supporters into the party Hillary will control and respect for what they see as important.

      A smart leader knows when to crack the whip and when to compromise. Cracking the whip on Bernie and his supporters would be self-destructive for Hillary and the DNC. There is already a lot of resentment at a process controlled by DWS, Hillary’s former co-chair of her presidential campaign. Even if there was a way to prove that she didn’t game the primary for Hillary, the appearance of favoritism is inescapable.

      So if Bernie and his supporters keep hearing that they aren’t even legit Democrats, that Bernie shouldn’t have even been allowed to run as a Democrat, that his supporters are all “Bernie Bros”, naive and/or anarchists and that Bernie’s staying in the race just as Hillary did in 2008 is a terrible thing and destructive to her chances as the nominee (she never apologized for staying in until June against Obama and hammering him throughout)…what is to be gained but alienating the very voters Hillary and the Dems need to win in November.

      My thought is that the proposition that Bernie is being destructive by staying in the race until he is legitimately beaten, is just the opposite of what will help Hillary and the Dems.

      By staying in and keeping all of his voters energized, Bernie represents a real boon to Hillary’s chances in November once the DNC Convention is held and his and his supporters issues are considered and adopted in part.

      Hillary and the Dems need Bernie’s millions of voters. The long game is what’s important here. Hillary was unconcerned about damaging Obama in 2008 when she stayed in to the bitter end and though I was expressing the same sentiments as you against her back then, maybe it wasn’t a bad thing in the long run.

      Once the convention was held, Obama and Hillary negotiated a deal between them and their supporters and Hillary’s and Bill’s full hearted support for Obama washed away my resentments towards her while her supporters saw her as a primary part of the campaign, sworn in later as Secretary of State with unique power to hire many of her people in the department (and she got Obama to agree to DWS becoming the Chairwoman of the DNC).

      A negotiation is what’s needed here and it can’t happen until the convention.

      As someone who was in your shoes but on the opposite side of the fence in 2008, I totally relate to your frustration about Bernie still competing against Hillary right now when the odds and math are so much against him winning.

      But after seeing what transpired in 2008, I do see it as inevitable that Hillary and Bernie will come together at the convention, negotiate a deal that helps bring his supporters on board and validates her supporters and the Dems will go into the GE pretty well united against the monstrous prospect of a President Trump.

      • kesmarn says:

        AdLib, I wish I could give this comment more than one thumbs up. It expresses my sentiments much better than I’ve been able to express them myself.

        I agree with Nancy Pelosi that when we look at the big picture, Sanders’ campaign has been an overall positive for the Dem Party. It’s raised important issues and energized younger voters in a really significant way.

        Recently the crowd at one CA Sanders event was estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000 people. Voters don’t turn out in those numbers just to watch a cranky, befuddled old narcissist (which is what some have called him) rant and rave. What he has been saying is truly resonating with millions of people.

        Hillary herself has been fairly restrained in her remarks about Bernie (as has he regarding her — he’s never raised the issue of her emails or the Clinton Foundation’s potentially questionable activities), but some of her “people” have been very dismissive and even contemptuous of his supporters.

        As you said, those votes are going to be needed in the fall. What’s the point of alienating hundreds of thousands of Sanders’ supporters? It’s entirely possible that a platform that contains many of the Sanders’ campaign’s goals and positions would turn out to be a true “Trump-beater.”

        Something watered-down and centrist is going to push many good old FDR-style Dems away from the Party. I’ve already heard a number of life-long Dems say: “I’m not leaving the Party. The Party is leaving me.” If there’s enough of that going on, we might be looking at one of the “yoooooogest” mistakes the American voting population has ever made living in the White House. yelling: “Ya fired!”

        • AdLib says:

          Hey Kes, thanks so much!!!

          It does seem that both Hillary and Bernie have been laying down the rhetoric about each other and while I expect him to stay in it to leverage Progressive change to the DNC platform and primary process, I don’t have a doubt that he will end up endorsing and whole heartedly supporting Hillary at the convention.

          As I’ve mentioned, we saw this same type of situation in 2008 only it was Hillary then who was staying in even though the math said she couldn’t win, she kept attacking Obama until the end then…they worked out a deal and all we remember now is that they were allies in the GE.

          What you say is right on the money, the Dem Party began leaving Dems when Bill Clinton was elected and he triangulated the party into being a Repub moderate party. Obama has been moving the Dems more center left and that’s created a stronger appetite by Dems to return to its Progressive/Liberal nature.

          By embracing that movement (perhaps best done through her VP pick), Hillary could bring Dems together and make the party more attractive to Progressives who are indies.

          It just seems so obvious, you need a majority of voters to win an election, why not appeal to a majority of voters which all polls show are Progressive on nearly all issues?

      • Aquarius 1027 says:

        Hi, AdLib -- For the first time in my life, I found myself to be an undecided Democratic voter this election year. It was not until the end of March going into April that I finally just had to make a list of pros and cons for each candidate. My state primary was coming up on April 26th in PA. -- I am not a single issue voter and I delved into the platforms and backgrounds of each candidate, minus the social and news media hyperbole and denigration. It was quite simply my list and my own decision.

        I completely agree with the glaring flaws in our election processes for the Democratic party that you described so well. -- For me, these campaigns have emerged as both contentious and pretentious; aided and abetted by the social and news media. The truth has been hidden behind vitriolic hatred and opinionated persuasions of deception.

        The poll you referenced is but one example of finding that truth. When I first saw that poll, I had a natural concern as I had made my final decision to support Hillary. -- As with many conclusions based upon a small sample size, the NBC/WSJ poll gives an inaccurate impression using the results from a random sample of 1000 registered voters. A similar ABC/WSJ poll was from a random sample of 829 registered voters. From the U.S. Census Bureau statistics August 26, 2015 -- there are 146,311,000 registered voters in the U.S. For a Presidential election year, that number is quite likely already increased. -- That “virtual dead heat” between Hillary and Trump that was proclaimed as “BREAKING NEWS” 24/7 by the corporative news media is only spurious speculation to increase their profits.

        One other aspect of this election for the Democratic nominee is of concern to me. I dislike the splintering of the Democratic party. No candidate is absolute perfection and no candidate will be able to enact laws without Congressional support to get a bill to his/her desk. And ultimately, the agendas for the Democratic party remain the same. Democrats are working for good changes that truly represent We the People while the GOP seek to destroy the progress that has already been made in this nation. -- For me, the strongest on my pro list for Hillary was her experience and her education.

        Not sure about that inevitable part, yet I have hope that once the convention is over, the Democratic party -- and probably many Independents and even some GOP -- will be united as well against that “monstrous” prospect.

        • AdLib says:

          Hey Aquarius, I think it’s ideal to have the luxury of having to decide between primary candidates. It was like that for me in 2008, I eventually chose Obama but it did require a weighing of the candidates which was a good thing.

          As for polls, this far out from an election, polls just give a general sense of feelings at that moment in time but I am confident things will really change between now and then. As Trump subjects the currently undecided voters to more and more horribleness, they will veer into Hillary’s camp. I think the current polls may be seen as Trump’s high water mark. This week’s news and attacks that have gone against him are just the beginning.

          I do think though that there are divisions in the Dem Party that need to be addressed. No question that there is an elitist, pro-corporate segment of the party which does control the DNC right now. More members are Progressive though and are at odds with them so it is they who will have to step aside in the end.

          For Hillary to win, let alone be re-elected, she can’t act or be seen as part of that pro-status-quo segment of the Dem Party or her support will be paper thin.

          With what has been happening in this country, as the Trump and Bernie phenomenons have shown, there’s a lot of people out there who have had it with the status quo, economic injustice and Wall Street/Corporations dominating workers and our democracy.

          If Hillary continues following the path Bernie has blazed, she can accomplish a lot and build strong support in the public. If she follows Bill’s path though to triangulate with Republicans, she’ll have a hard time rallying support from a majority of the public that opposes nearly all Republican agendas.

          • Aquarius 1027 says:

            Hi, Ad lib -- As mentioned, I was actually undecided for quite some time. I looked for even more information than usual this time to be an informed voter. -- And yes, it was a quandary between Clinton and Obama; I ultimately voted for Obama as well. Yet much has transpired in the last eight years to alter the political arena. Most significantly, there have been the adverse ramifications of the GOP/TP in local, state and federal legislation. And the resultant blame game that transpired across the political spectrum.

            With splintering of the Democratic party, I meant between progressives and liberals and whoever else besides that status quo. I was not as involved with these intra-party labels and the subsequent negativity. Too busy working, raising kids and completing grad school. 😉 Yet I do think at some point one has to realize that one does not get 100% of everything they want all the time. -- For me, the political battle to win is against the GOP/extremist agendas and not against any so-called segment within the Democratic party.

            This phenomenon of all or nothing is unrealistic to me. There has to be compromise at some point for our government to function. And to declare any attempt at compromise as somehow negative is just as unrealistic. -- My vote for Hillary does not mean that I would not like to see changes in that status quo segment or changes in banking and finance systems, it is more a matter of who has the most realistic approach to implementing changes and actually getting things done. -- And I would have to say that my supporting Hillary should not be interpreted as somehow I have not “had it” with social and economic injustices. Quite the opposite!!

            As a Hillary supporter, I am not one of those who proclaim Sanders should end his campaign, that should be his own decision. Nor do I think that Sanders had created any new path for the Democratic party. -- As an example, it has been a continuous battle since 2009 to raise the federal minimum wage and even longer to decrease federal legislation that protects corporative profits. These have been and remain cornerstone issues of the Democratic fight for We the People against the GOP.

            As for another long standing economic inequality, I experienced first hand that gender pay difference for decades. No, this isn’t about Hillary being a woman -- it’s about what she has accomplished. During the 31 years in my professional career, my pay compared to men on the dollar increased from 74 cent to 77 cents. Three little pennies!!- Hillary co-sponsored the Lily Ledbetter Act, Sanders voted in support for this as well. She also introduced her own bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, in both 2005 and 2007 under Bush. For me, there is a difference between actively writing and introducing legislation and although important, simply voting in support after the work to implement real change has been completed.

            I would respectfully disagree with your projections for this election. With that “paper thin” support, there is an even greater concern than GOP agendas or status-quo this election for Democrats as well as for the rest of that public. IMHO, there will most likely be more than enough unified support from most demographics -- against the possibility of a completely unqualified Trump sitting in the oval office as President of this nation.

            The opportunity to discuss different points of view with equanimity here at the Planet is greatly appreciated. :)

      • pinkpantheroz says:

        I see where you’re coming from, Ad, and a lot of it is logical and makes sense. I don’t think, though, that the USA is ready for any ‘Socialist Revolution’ drama that the GOP will inevitably paint his positions as. Please don’t anyone think I’m anti-Bernie. Not so. I just don’t think he can win on his own and am afraid he will queer the pitch for Hillary.

    • Nirek says:

      Hi PPO, Ifeel that Bernie is more of a democrat than any of the others. Bernie has views that are democratic and he has always worked with the democrats. When he decided to run as a dem he brought a big bunch of us independents along with him.

      It bothers me when people are strictly for the party, not for what is best for America.

      I guess we will have to agree to disagree since I don’t think the party should be first.

      When I served in the US Army I took an oath to support the USA, NOT a political party.

      Peace my friend.

      • pinkpantheroz says:

        You’re so right, Nirek, that Bernie’s stands are more Old Democratic than current. I’m not arguing against his policies, merely that, in this day and age, it is difficult, if not impossible to get anything done without knowledge or cooperation from the Washington Political Machine, and I think Hillary is more qualified to tap into that demographic than Bernie. No doubt, the Dems need to get back to some of their old policies, but, unfortunately, unless they can empty Washington of the staus quo, nothing will happen and the race will default to the GOP.

    • Hey Pink! I pretty much feel the same way. On the one hand, I commend Sanders for entering the race and changing the national conversation.
      I saw him on an episode of Bill Maher’s Real Time, before he started his bid for the presidency, and Maher asked him if he thought about running. He said if he did, it would be to get the national conversation centered on the real issues of social justice and economic fairness. He registered as a dem so he could debate Hillary and possibly move her more to the left. He has accomplished all of that, yet still he persists. I think it’s now an ego thing. He’s really enjoying his new found national fame and I think it’s gone to his head.

      I also agree about him biting the hand that fed him. If he had run as an independent, without the democratic party, he would never have come as far as he has. Now he’s been attacking the party for a few weeks now. I don’t find that to be a desirable quality in people. He seems to be going the way of many “revolutionaries,” before him. He should know better.

      Now he’s beginning to remind me of the British Officer in Bridge Over the River Kwai who got caught up too much in building that bridge, and it became his downfall.

      • pinkpantheroz says:

        KT, you’ve put it far better than I could. THATS what I was trying to say! Thanks and Peace!

      • AdLib says:

        KT, as I mentioned in my reply to PPO, I completely understand your feelings about Bernie.

        In 2008, when it was Hillary staying in the primary, hammering Obama mercilessly despite the tiny odds that she could win (and claiming she would use Superdelegates to do so), I was very angry at her and felt she was damaging Obama’s chances to win.

        This time around, in a very close primary (where both are virtually tied in national polls), Bernie is in the same position Hillary was and has her supporters upset at him for not just quitting (before Hillary has even officially won) and throwing his support behind her.

        She didn’t do that and never apologized for that…and she didn’t have to. Instead, after working out a deal with Obama at the convention, she and Bill became powerful campaigners for Obama and the negative feelings towards her for staying in the race so long evaporated.

        That’s what I believe will happen this time around too and the end result will be a stronger and more unified and inclusive Dem Party…which is far better for Hillary.

        I don’t agree with the charges of ego and selfishness aimed at Bernie for not quitting before he’s actually lost. Hillary did the same thing in 2008 most likely for the same reasons, to have more leverage in negotiations at the convention on the platform, changing the primary process and advancing the issues most desired.

        We shall see what happens but I am pretty confident that by the time the convention is over, those feeling very strongly against Bernie will have good reasons to feel very differently about him and his supporters.

        • The big difference is, Ad, that Hillary has always been a loyal democrat, since she got over her Goldwater Girl phase. That cannot be said of Sanders. Hillary never attacked the party like Sanders has been doing. I just find that off putting. And I am not the only one.

          It’s over for Bernie, and he should let the remaining primary voters have their say, and bow out,especially if he believes what he says about protecting progressivism. Sanders should know more than anybody, the dangerous game he’s playing now. He knows how vile the republicans are, most likely more so than you or I do.

          We simply disagree on this. And that’s fine. I never expect everybody to agree with me, on everything, or a lot of things, in my case.

    • kesmarn says:

      PPO, kudos to you for being spunky enough to post the point of view of the “loyal opposition.” That’s what the Planet is really all about!

      My good friend in Australia (Brisbane) is also a Hillary supporter and she and I have had many a civil conversation about our differing takes on this election. So far no blood has been drawn.

      I would just say that (if I might presume to speak for Bernie) he doesn’t see his candidacy as a “hijacking” of the Democratic Party. I think he sees is as a restoration of the Party to its FDR roots. Its authentic self. I think it could be argued that the hijacking actually occurred in the 1990s. Rightly or wrongly, Dems felt back then that they were losing the culture wars to the GOP and the Religious Right — that the whole country was drifting to the right — and that if the Democratic Party didn’t swing right as well, it would soon be extinct.

      So we ended up with crackdowns on crime, oppressive welfare “reform,” and trade deals that benefited corporations much more than workers.

      Over time, that didn’t work out so well.

      Now we have a nearly-destroyed middle class and about half the population who are making $28000/year or less. This does not a happy electorate make. But the traditional system was working so well for both major parties’ bigwigs that they failed to notice that unhappy electorate.

      Which resulted in big surprises for both the Dems and the GOP. Surprises named Sanders and Trump — although that is definitely where the resemblance ends.

      Like you, I believe the odds of Bernie’s becoming the nominee are not great, but I also understand completely why he’s not dropping out. Every primary he wins, every massive (and massively enthusiastic) crowd he draws is political capital that he brings to the convention.

      The Dem Party is practically spring-loaded to twang back into centrism. It’s so appallingly safe. And it’s the politics that Hillary knows from the 90s. So the Party needs to be pushed, pulled, prodded and poked back to the left. Kicking and screaming if need be.

      Unlike some, I don’t believe that the Sanders campaign is hurting Hillary. If Bernie were running as a 3rd party candidate that would be a different story. But if she’s having trouble staying on her game now — with one person pushing her to the left and another just being a silly ass — she may not be ready for the presidency, where this would be considered a good day. And we all know she’s not that fragile. Not by a long shot.

      I believe Bernie will do the right thing — the thing he promised at the beginning — when the time comes. (Including not running as an Independent.) But the time isn’t here just yet.

      Donkeys are noted for their stubbornness.

      • Hey Homie. Even if Sanders managed to get the white house, the sweeping change he promises would not happen. Incrementalism is the only way to get any progress accomplished in DC. Hillary readily admits that, because it’s just a sad fact.
        I also don’t believe that a pure progressive/liberal, or a pure conservative makes for a good president. A good leader must know when to be liberal and when to take a more conservative approach. I think president Obama has proven that, time and again.
        No candidate, president or human being is perfect. Of course you know this already.

        • kesmarn says:

          I think the problem arises though, Homie, when we consider that there are many people in situations in which incrementalism isn’t an option. They needed help last week, not next Tuesday. There is a degree of genuine desperation out there that I think the bureaucracies of both parties are more or less oblivious to.

          These people are way past settling for a 5% improvement by 2019 in their living situations. And if the Dem Party doesn’t communicate that it understands that, there are other places these people will turn to. Trump. Gary Johnson of the Libertarians (God forbid also.) And Jill Stein with the Greens.

          This is not a good time in history to try to sell pragmatic “progress by inches” — however practical it may be.

          • AdLib says:

            Kes, you really nailed it here for me!

            There are times that require decisive and substantial action. The decades for incremental action have passed. People are falling into poverty and careening towards Social Insecurity as they age.

            Things have gotten really bad and a triangulating Dem Party would become part of the problem.

            There are always those who say people with ambitious goals are naive but gay marriage is now legal nationally, pot is legal in many states, a black man is President, a woman could become President, there are quantum leaps all the time in history, big steps that a society/government/country takes.

            As difficult as life is and is worsening for so many, I do think this is one of those times…which is why it’s possible for a radical like Trump to become the GOP nom and why such a hands down winner of a nom like Hillary is having so much difficulty getting the nom…Americans want real change and progress, not incremental and very modest policies.

            • kesmarn says:

              Thanks so much, AdLib! (I’m so sorry it’s taking me a while to reply at times. We’ve been on the road on and off over the past week.) I really appreciate that affirmation. When accusations of “class warfare,” “Wealth envy” and just plain “crazy” are flying in the direction of Sanders supporters, it helps so much to see that some people do get it!

              Speaking of “crazy,” I just have to say that I think this is one of the best political ads ever!

          • Hey Homie. My point about sweeping change is, it’s just not possible, for Bernie or anybody else. The republicans are going to be just as vile and uncooperative as they’ve been during president Obama’s near 8 years.

            I doubt that there is anybody in DC who dislikes the republicans more than Hillary. They have tried to make her life a living hell, since her husbands administration.

            I think Hillary would be able to whip more votes in favor of her policies than Bernie would. He shoots for the moon, and that is simply not how things happen in DC. He knows that better than the voters do. He’s got some great ideas, but if you can’t get cooperation on those ideas, what good are they?

            I think Sanders has done a good thing for America by running and changing the national conversation. I do commend him for that, but it’s over for his presidential bid. He knows it.

            • kesmarn says:

              I agree that he’s highly unlikely to be the candidate (something huge would have to happen) and that he also is aware of that, Homie.

              But I think he knows better than many suspect the “art of the deal.” You never announce ahead of time what you’ll eventually “settle” for. You aim high. Very high.

              And then — when compromise is finally reached — both sides feel they got a decent deal.

            • pinkpantheroz says:

              IMO, You’re spot on, KT. Wow, I didn’t know the fireworks would explode about this. Thanks everyone for a well argued theme.

  7. Nirek says:

    AdLib, this article is excellent!
    It seems to me that the parties both are silly not to be inclusive of indepentents. They put party before country. In this election cycle, Bernie is the best candidate I have ever known. His integrity, honesty, morality, and consistancy are unparrelled. Bernie’s visionfor America is nothing less than wonderful and is in keeping with the Constitution of the United States of America.

    To exclude independent voters from the Democratic elections is “cutting off the nose dispite the face”!

    As for the “superdelegates” , they should go with the majority of the voters in their states.

    It’s hard to type left handed, so I’ll stop here. Suffice to say I agree we should not even have “superdelegates”.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey Nirek, thanks so much!

      It does seem so obvious that this year, had the Dems welcomed Independents into their primaries, they could have hugely overwhelmed the Repubs across the board since the GOP is retreating into their “white power” core.

      If the DNC let Indies vote in primaries, they and Dems would be invested in the ultimate nominee in the GE. And the candidate would be the one who appealed to the majority of Dems and Indies.

      It’s so backwards to limit the choice of nominee (both by excluding indie voters and the DNC acting on behalf of the establishment nominee). The broader and bigger the voting base that elects the nominee, the more support they’ll have in the GE.

      But this is about retaining control and power. Very narrow minded and self-centered.

      Why are you typing left handed? Are you alright?

      • Nirek says:

        Ad, my right arm is in a special sling after surgery on May 4th. The rotator cuff has 4 muscles and I tore two of them in a fall on ice back in Feb. Still have to be in the sling 3 more weeks.

  8. kesmarn says:

    I’m with you in hoping that the whole superdelegate situation becomes ancient history after the Dem 2016 Convention, AdLib.

    My son is in town these days, and this gives me a window into the way the millennials think about political issues. (He’s been in grad school in Madison, WI the past few years.) He fills me in on what he and the students he teaches think about this year’s campaign and American politics in general.

    What I’m hearing is that party loyalty with these kids is considered to be somewhere between being a dark-humored joke and utterly incomprehensible. Most of them have been Sanders supporters and when they look at DWS and the Democratic Party, the last thing they feel is respect, admiration and/or loyalty.

    They’re stunned that a system that seems to have been the dream design for getting Clinton elected is supposed to make sense to them. And that after the way their candidate has been treated, they’re now expected to fall in line and support/contribute to her campaign.

    The superdelegates are a major reason that many of them say they’ll never identify with the Democratic Party. After this election season, they’re done.

    I think DWS and her cohorts have been “too clever by half” in winning the battle for Hillary’s nomination. They’ll likely succeed there. But they may find that they’ve lost the war.

    And they may have lost a whole generation of younger voters. Possibly forever.

    • AdLib says:

      Kes, really appreciate your son’s insight!

      I have to say, I think many people, young and old, are now seeing our archaic and corrupt party systems as unattractive.

      Sue mentioned below that she has changed her party affiliation to Independent because she has had enough of the Dem party. Many of the Republicans who handed the nom to Trump are rebelling against the GOP.

      Personally, I’m on the same page as your son and his friends. This system is de facto corrupt and not about creating a fair playing field or about inclusiveness.

      DWS and the DNC stacked the primary to hand the nom to Hillary, the Superdelegates have been used, as I mentioned above, to help assure that their establishment retains power…is that really a club that’s generating enthusiasm about itself or chasing so many away?

      And in their bubble, they’re oblivious. There is a degree of condescension that both parties exhibit towards their supporters. Almost a disregard for how offensive or dishonest their pandering and anti-democratic ploys appear to their members.

      I do think that at least in this moment, many who formerly were party faithful are now questioning why they should follow behind their party.

      This is complex because while many now see the DNC as a vehicle for party elites to dictate election results to Dems, Dems still like their candidates and aren’t running away in meaningful numbers to vote Green Party or GOP.

      Most all of the Dems who are dissatisfied with the manipulation of their party are still supporting Dem candidates strongly or at least, to prevent Repub control.

      The convention will be fascinating because I think the facade is being pulled off the Dem Establishment and neither Bernie nor his supporters, if Hillary wins the nomination as is most likely, will just roll over and say, “It’s unity time! We’re just the Get-Along Gang now!”

      For the sake of the Democratic Party, it needs to be dragged out of the clutches of the narrow minded, conservative, power-hungry elite. If Bernie could succeed in making this happen, helping to reform the primary process to be more open (especially to independents) and fair, the Democratic Party could really flourish.

      The Dem Elite are worried, more about their grip on power but also about the threat that Bernie and his supporters represent to enthusiastic support behind Hillary. They need Bernie and his supporters, who have been so often denigrated by them. They will need to compromise to get that support…and I think they will, even if many of them think it’s just a short term thing and they can grab back the power after the election.

      Things change. The party system has become so corrupt and narrow that both parties have been losing registered voters for many years to Independent standing.

      Donald Trump’s nomination and the gaming of the primary for Hillary’s benefit is presenting to voters on both sides that their party’s establishment is primarily concerned with their own power.

      This is a moment where there is both crisis and opportunity. The GOP looks to be buried in crisis, they are throwing away any semblence of unity and principle to get in bed with a know-nothing, lying fascist.

      The Democratic Party has damaged itself and divided Democrats because it could not be a fair and inclusive administrator of the democratic process. But at least for the Dems, it’s not too late. The convention could be very messy but if what comes out of it is a party that welcomes in Independents to its primary process and puts in place a structure to prevent the gaming of elections to help their fellow elite win, they could come out stronger than ever and ascendant while the GOP lies smoldering on the trash heap of history.

  9. Kalima says:

    This is really excellent, AdLib. I’ve been asking how superdelegates, the few chosen ones, can represent “for the people, by the people” and count that as being fair. No wonder Bernie protests that the primaries are “rigged”. They certainly are.

    States that don’t let Independents vote are also very undemocratic. It’s like telling them that their vote doesn’t count in this part of the political process. I find it appalling and dangerous.

    For months now I have read that Bernie has a better chance of winning against trump, and yet the DNC continue to spin their web of deceit. Do they want to lose the WH just to have the opportunity of a possibility of the first woman president? With her popularity at almost the same level as trump’s, do they think that will encourage people to vote for her in the GE? I don’t.

    Bernie has no damaging baggage. Anything trump would try to throw at him would roll off his back and not faze him in the least. Hillary on the other hand has a history of issues, some true, and not made up by republicans, and she will be in a fight that will have her defending the accusations from now until November, bringing up scandals that she and the Party’s establishment would rather forget. I see it as Mad Max and “Thunderdome”. If politics haven’t seemed crazy enough until now, just wait until she is announced as the Dem nominee.

    I don’t think that there has ever been a time in U.S. history where two nominees have been disliked as much equally.

    I agree 100% that superdelegates should be abolished, hardly democratic, as it robs the people of the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. The DNC won’t come out of this debacle smelling of roses and that’s a given. Fight fair or don’t fight at all. The voting public is not as dumb as you hope they will be.

    I admire Bernie for standing up to this crooked DNC establishment ploy, and for having the conviction to say it out loud.

    Should Hillary lose in November, it will be one of the most disgraceful and dishonest moments in American political history after the unbelievable and disgusting performance we have all witnessed from trump. Right along with the demonic racists who crawled out of the moldy woodwork in 2008 and stayed out for almost 8 years growing bolder every year.

    A few days ago I read this article you wrote last year, and it sums up what I have aleays felt about the Clintons.

    Thank you for explaining what has bothered me during this primary season, and for writing about what I’m sure many Dem leaning voters are feeling right now.

    Hillary Covers Up Truth of Why Bill Clinton Signed DOMA

    http://planetpov.com/2015/10/26/hillary-covers-up-truth-of-why-bill-clinton-signed-of-doma/

    And so it begins.

    —-

    State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, I understand the manipulative reasons for it but I too find it incredibly stupid for the DNC to exclude independents from voting in all states. They could be growing the party and ending up with a candidate that Dems AND Indies support and are vested in. Repubs would never have a chance as their party keeps shrinking.

      But instead, in choosing power and control over growing the party, DWS and the rest of the establishment running the DNC, have engineered a mini-civil war in the Dem Party and are forcing through the weakest GE candidate into the nomination.

      I don’t think that they’re doing this because they want the first woman President or anything as idealized as that, this is all about one thing, power. They are the establishment, they have the power now and they want to keep it at all costs. Hence, the single-mindedness to get Hillary nominated, whatever it takes.

      Here’s Hillary, with all the baggage and negatives already weighing down her candidacy, now being knocked down again by the State Department’s report on how she ignored all the rules on emails. She is clearly damaged goods that is only becoming more damaged and is supremely lucky that the Repubs have nominated a monster because that’s the only hope she would have to win in a GE.

      Meanwhile, as you say, Bernie has no baggage of any weight. Unlike Hillary, one doesn’t worry day to day that something damaging could come out and hand the WH to the Repubs. Dems have had a choice between a candidate who has decades of baggage and is seen as untrustworthy and unlikable by a majority of voters and one who has no baggage of note and is seen as trustworthy and likable by a majority of voters.

      Too many Dems seem though to have been influenced by the Superdelegates scam, the “First Woman President” meme or just voted for Hillary because they knew her and didn’t really know Bernie. If they were told, “If Hillary wins the nomination, Trump could become President,” would it have made them change their vote? Or if the affirmative was offered, “If Bernie is the nominee, he would lead Trump by double digits in the polls and be likely to bring Dems the WH,” would that have mattered?

      I don’t know. Those messages have been out there, either ignored or unheard.

      In the end, unless Hillary has a legit scandal come out between now and the convention or the GE, she will likely beat Trump because of the two most disliked nominees perhaps in American history, Trump is worse.

      But it sure looks like Paul Ryan is positioning himself to run in 2020 and I hate to say it but the way things look now, I think he would have a slam dunk win against a Hillary re-election. Hillary sure looks like a one-termer, she has such weak favorables now, they’ll only go down once problems arise during her Presidency (as happens to all Presidents).

      So let’s all vote for someone who could lose the Presidency to a lunatic this year or if not, is likely to hand the Presidency to the GOP in 4 years?

      Instead of a popular candidate who has the popularity to support him in a win this year and a re-election in 4 years?

      As we’ve seen in most institutions, what comes first far too often is protecting the power of the institution over doing the right thing.

      Some institutions eventually correct their course but usually only after scandals and protests that grow from how they have hurt people along the way. I hope Bernie’s candidacy, at a minimum, leads to a reformation of the Dem Party because if not, it’s on track to follow the GOP into extinction.

      And may I say how humbled and appreciative I am by your re-reading my previous posts on Hillary and the Dems? It is affirming to see that leopards don’t change their spots and what was true and predictable yesterday, is true and recognizable today.

      • Kalima says:

        So well stated, AdLib and I couldn’t agree more. In this frenzied battle to win, they will lose any respect they had left in the long run.

        It really does seem undemocratic to disallow Independents to vote. They will either vote Dem or republican unless there is some other party running with a chance of winning that I haven’t heard about. So it would be beneficial to either party and makes no sense to me at all. It just comes across as petty meanness by people who haven’t thought it through.

        I posted the link to your article to show how the Clintons play politics. Themselves before the needs of the country, and not just with DOMA, on many issues that left millions stranded in one way or the other while they moved more to the Right than to the Left.

        People remember Bill as a purveyor of a good economy, but he actually walked in when the Dot com start-ups were beginning to take off. He didn’t create the booming economy, he sailed through his presidency on it, and left before it began to collapse.

        To show you that all the negative hype about Bernie’s vision for the country is just negative hype, I found this article to be very interesting and have read that many economists share this writer’s opinion.

        —-

        Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeffrey-sachs-bernie-sanders-easily-wins-the-policy-debate/2016/05/25/224209a0-21ac-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

  10. SueInCa says:

    Ironic, that Tad Devine was a contributor to those new rules in 1988.

    In 1992, Devine served as a member of the Democratic Party Rules Committee and was a consultant to CBS News throughout the Democratic National Convention in New York. As lead negotiator for the Dukakis campaign at the 1988 Rules Committee, Devine was involved in the Democratic party’s 1988 reform that eliminated winner take all methods of delegate selection and established proportional representation as the exclusive system of delegate allocation in the Democratic Party

    I bet he is kicking himself now. The very rules he helped to create are hampering Bernie right now. I am not a Dem anymore but my votes generally go that way. But it is stuff like this and the total mismanagement of DWS that made me change my affiliation in 2014.

    • AdLib says:

      It may be less to Bernie’s advantage but I actually agree with the rule change Devine helped put in place. Proportionate awarding of delegates is more democratic and reflective of the voters in a state than winner take all, which is more about handing the nom quicker to the candidate most favored from the outset (the establishment pick, that is).

      To be clear, the Superdelegates were instituted in the 1984 primaries, 4 years before Tad Devine and Dukakis were involved (the Dem establishment’s glorious Mondale nomination was sailing into an iceberg that year).

      Absolutely agree that DWS has been a disaster for Dems (her chairwomanship of the DNC, as Hillary’s co-chair of her 2008 campaign, seems to be part of the deal along with Hillary being SoS that Obama agreed to in his deal with Hillary to support him in 2008). She has destroyed the 50 State strategy that helped elect Obama, has exposed her corporate ownership in lobbying for payday lenders against the American people and has created the divide in the Dem party by showing favoritism for Hillary and disrespect towards Bernie through her use of the DNC.

      She is more to blame for the Dem divisions than Hillary or Bernie. Had a more principled person been running the DNC and not used it to obviously tilt the primary towards Hillary, if Bernie supporters saw the DNC being honest and fair handed, I don’t think there would be this much hostility.

      I sure hope DWS gets beaten in her primary by the Progressive candidate running against her. That would be sweet!

      • SueInCa says:

        I actually changed my party after the 2014 midterms. I felt that if Dems could not be bothered to vote, why support their party anymore? I do not give to them, that is a given, but I will probably always support the candidate of my choice which is usually going to be blue.

        One thing I will admit is that I changed to American Independent without checking it out and that is precisely what the Libertarian founder of that party wanted. I was doing some checking on status for this election when I ran across the definitions of both parties. I went back and changed to NPP faster than you can shake a stick. I had changed back to Dem to vote in this primary and thank god I never actually gave the AI a vote.

        Pretty sure I never would have because I background check all my choices but even me, someone who considers herself to be pretty informed, made that mistake.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features