2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWOW !!! - 'Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination Towards Hillary Clinton' - Lee Fang/TheIntercept
Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination Towards Hillary ClintonLee Fang - TheIntercept
Feb. 17 2016, 11:49 a.m.
<snip>
Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called “superdelegates” to the Democratic National Convention.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.
That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as “superdelegates” — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
•Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasingly scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
•Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
•Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
•Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobby for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the SuperPAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
•Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
•Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of AirBnB, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by moneyed special interests. In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
Asked about the role of lobbyists as superdelegates, DNC spokesperson Deshundra Jefferson referred us to a blog post on Medium by Patrice Taylor, the director of party affairs and delegate selection. The post does not explain why professional influence peddlers were designated as superdelegates. As many commenters have noted, the post by Taylor also uses a distorted pie chart that minimizes the share of superdelegates in the total number of party delegates...
<snip>
More: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I have noticed recently that the DNC big wiggs and my computers spell check booth seam to be on the fritzes
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Hillary did not leave NH with the same number of delegates as Bernie.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Thank heavens for the internet, but not everyone has a computer.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)does it work for you? 
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Check out the details. The propaganda laser focused on expectations and fear are particularly worrying.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Wins the most Primaries. As the delegates who had been for Hillary Clinton decided to do in 2008, when Obama took over as the Primary leader.)
But what if this process becomes monetized and corrupted as almost all other segments of our life have been? Then What? DO we have any recourse if Bernie wins the primaries and Hillary's delegates refuse to flip?
elljay
(1,178 posts)Maybe I'm more paranoid than most people, but when there is no rule that requires superdelegates to vote for the candidate who received the most votes, why do we keep assuming that they will do so? I understand that they have always done so in the past, but does anyone seriously think that if the superdelegates have enough votes for Hillary to win, despite losing the popular vote, that she will cave?
To answer your question, I don't think we have any formal recourse. In fact, we will be in a terrible position because our natural tendency would be to punish Hillary by not voting for her. However, that would mean an even worse result - President Trump or Cruz. We would need to vote for Hillary and begin the process of defeating her supporters in each and every political office and the leadership of the Democratic Party, and make sure that she is a one-term president. We need to serve notice now that any superdelegate who subverts the majority of the people should get his/her resume together.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...is formal recourse for a political revolution if the will of the voters is subverted... We simply write Bernie in. With such a large number of indys likely to vote Sanders in the ge, he could still pull off the win. Hillary and dws better not fuck around. They will kill the party.
elljay
(1,178 posts)But I don't think it would work. It requires herding too many cats. I'm trying to visualize my 85 year old mother and her friends in Florida ( where there is a BIT of a history of election problems) trying to figure out how to write in a candidate. It won't be pretty...
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Clinton would rather sink this ship than see a fair election.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...so if they game the primary we shouldn't take the next available step? We just let them?
Nonsense! It's much easier to write Bernie's name down than to suffer 4-8 more years of corporate leftovers...
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Just keep pushing that meme.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)Scmeme!
I think Bernie will win.
I don't want the establishment thinking they can rig elections and we'll just go along... That is just as bad as a goper winning. They'll never stop unless we make them...
It's about top vs bottom if you haven't noticed. The whole left right thing is just a ruse.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Goodbye.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...concerned with my family's well being than whether I can post on a website...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)popular with the Gatekeepers -
But quite a few of us understand.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)Most Super Delagates did not switch back to Obama in 2008 according to something posted here the other day, don't know if true. I wouldn't think they would for Bernie, TPTB do not want Bernie and will do ANYTHING to stop him!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)President, and so I guess it is totally possible that the superdelegates could be bought and paid for. I f not with actual cash but job promises once the woman is elected.
I had been wondering why so many celebrities support Hillary, and even considered boycotting Colbert due to his fanatical, unshakeable support for Hillary.
And then he had Olivia Wilde on the other night. Her parents are both to the left of Che Guevara, but she told Colbert she has friends who support Bernie, but she "has her reasons" for supporting Clinton.
I wonder ho w many reasons make a person switch their vote? Perry sold her vote for $ 70,000 - and I am sure Colbert could garner much more than that.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)CentralMass
(16,971 posts)From Florida and Michigan were part of it and if you do a search of the results you get conflicting numbers. I think it had to do with the party having sliced and diced and equalized the Florida and Michigan counts prior to the convention.
But rather then piss about that it comes down to it having been a virtual dead heat and in this case olI belive Senator Obama was the insider candidate and that he did get a disproportionate share of the super d's in what would conceivably ended up the other eay. Hillary, and I think rightly so, took it to the convention, but the party did "what they had to do to squelch her. I know MA voted for Hillary by double digits yet she got 11 of our super D"s, Senator Obama received 13 and 4 didn't pledge.
You could go through every state and do the math and theorize on how the super d's should have voted but IMO it's all bullshit. Superdelegates should be eliminated.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)For not just being a Hillary supporter back in 2008, but also speaking out about the many many discrepancies that enabled Obama to get the Primaries victory.
I followed her to another site and learned how crooked the process was in 2008.
And I totally agree with your last sentence - we need to eliminate the Superdelegates.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)And I, for one, will now boycott the GE if the popular vote is thwarted by super delegates.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)They would be suicidal to even try that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think MoveOn's petition is probably still up.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Go to this page: http://front.moveon.org/
Search on the word "superdelegates" to find the entry for this petition.
Click on "sign the petition."
The petition calls on the superdelegates to pledge to vote with the electorate ("back the will of the voters"
at the nominating convention.
merrily
(45,251 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... but I think the very existence of "Superdelegates" is blatant corruption. The Party elite don't even bother to hide the fact that they have their thumbs on the scales. The electoral college should be abolished altogether.
So there.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Petrushka
(3,709 posts)
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)Thanks for the link!
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)how do you think they became "super?"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)people then that will be the end of the party and I for one think they are correct.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)At the very least..
ananda
(35,141 posts)Obama is as corporatist as they come.
He's responsible for replacing Howard Dean!
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and is out there talking against progressivism. He is bought and paid for.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts) Chakab
(1,727 posts)back in '07?
http://thepage.time.com/2007/12/13/another-political-apology/
How the fuck is this clown a super delegate after working for a previous Clinton presidential campaign in the first place?
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)Today their on HRC's team. If she loses (PRAISE JESUS) they'll be knock, knock, knocking on Bernies' door. If they don't get in they'll be shocked and horrified. After all, there is no principle involved, only access to power and the money that brings.
Repeat after me: its just a game to these people. Just like a street hustler doesn't have any real concern or liking for his customers, these people are in it for what they can get out of it.
If Sanders looks to win, they'll throw HRC and Big Dog under the bus faster than you can imagine.
Could you imagine depending on DWS for loyalty in the face of adversity?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)It was disgusting. And now Hillary is trying to wrap herself in Obama?! Please. 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)K&R for exposure.
Nanjeanne
(6,588 posts)why young people see this system as propogated by the Clintons, the Bushes, the Party Elite - as a system that will never work for them.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Someone loosing the popular vote, but winning the nomination.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Someone losing the popular vote, but winning the nomination.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I can dream.
Arazi
(8,887 posts)And then you get evidence like this that backs it up
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)K&R. Thanks for posting.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Iggo
(49,927 posts)freebrew
(1,917 posts)Iggo
(49,927 posts)See?
freebrew
(1,917 posts)
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)That is some grade A bullshit right there . Maybe one day they can do away with voting altogether and just have the highest bidder wins all . What a joke of a system .
George II
(67,782 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....of the superdelegates".
They're hardly "tipping the nomination toward Hillary Clinton".
Beowulf
(761 posts)If endorsements continue to follow the current percentages of delegates who have made an endorsement, Hillary could have 25% or more what what she needs for the nomination. That just doesn't seem small to me.
George II
(67,782 posts)....so-called "lobbyists" as a "small proportion", not me.
At this time superdelegates represent 15% of all delegates. That number is about half of what it used to be.
By the way, suddenly Sanders and his supporters seem to be surprised by the concept of superdelegates, even though they've been in existence for decades.
Beowulf
(761 posts)I've known about them since 1980. We never paid much attention to them, because it didn't seem to matter to who the party ended up nominating. This election is different. First, a large portion of the electorate is fed up with a rigged economy and a rigged political process. Super-delegates just feed into this part of the electorate's dissatisfaction.
Regardless of this, here's the bottom line: if it appears that Hillary wins the nomination because of superior super-delegate support, the party will implode. I won't matter if Bernie is gracious in defeat, and I'm sure he would be, at least through the November elections, but you can kiss a generation of voters goodbye, and a lot of others on the left who have felt left out of the party for decades now. You can't sustain a party with cynicism. No you can't isn't a winning platform. Scaring people over what the GOP might do is a tired strategy. I stopped giving to the DNC a few years ago and got a call from the party. They started with the "you can't let the GOP win. They'll destroy the country." I told the nice young man, that he had to do better than that. He had to give me a reason to vote FOR the Democrats, because I'm not satisfied with the status quo and neither are millions of other Americans. If the party wasn't willing to fight for me, why do they think I would so freely give it my support? If these things really meant anything to party leaders, they would offer us a better candidate than one who is so flawed, so disliked, and so not trusted. Ramming Hillary down our throats isn't the way to reach an angry, unhappy electorate.
Beautifully stated. 
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)candidate. It is therefore the superdelegates who will decide the race unless they absolutely vote according to the popular vote.
We should not have even one superdelegate if we want to claim that the selection of the nominee is fair and reflects the will of Democrats who voted in the primary and caucus process.
No to superdelegates.
George II
(67,782 posts)And believe me, superdelegates won't decide who the nominee is.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....are a problem?
Should MLB umpires establish the NFL playoff rules?
CentralMass
(16,971 posts)So take NewHamshire Hampshire. Sanders won by 22 points but had 2 of the 8 superdelegates pledged while Hillary who had 38% of the vote had 6of the 8 pledged to her (75%). That is how you steal a close election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the super-delegate system because it favors your candidate. We have super-delegates to circumvent the democratic process and give a huge advantage to the Establishment candidate. As if having a biased DNC isn't enough.
Well gloat while you can but sooner or later the People will throw out the crooked politicians that take graft to make themselves wealthy. Why oh why would a real Democrat support the rotten culture of graft in politics?
George II
(67,782 posts).....this primary campaign began for either candidate.
At the Super Bowl post-game press conference I didn't see Cam Newton complaining that "allowing them to score on a fumble favored the Denver Broncos".
Perhaps Sanders (who isn't complaining about it anyway) and his campaign and his followers should have looked into how delegates are assigned and/or chosen way back in March before he announced his candidacy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)can cancel out a lot of genuine votes from Democratic voters who are barely listened to anyway in D.C.
The superdelegates are a symptom and proof of the corruption of the DNC.
Bernie is going to win the popular vote, and if the superdelegates vote against him, they will face a revolt in the party rank and file.
George II
(67,782 posts)CentralMass
(16,971 posts)"Overall, there are 4,763 Democratic delegates, and a candidate must win more than half of them (2,382) to earn the nomination. There are 712 Superdelegates so they make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The superdelegates are Establishment insiders like DWS and HRC. Many are fracking lobbyists. It's an undemocratic way to keep the status quo in power.
Need I remind you the damage the status quo has brought the 99%?
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)So once again, a false statement is thrown out, this time about "many" superdelegates being "fracking lobbyists". And once again, when challenged you can't come up with who they are - quite familiar, Rhett.
To observers that would mean there are none, or very few, certainly not "many".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to give the Party Elites more control over the grass-roots delegates. Doesn't sound very "democratic" does it? But if one is enamored with the Wealthy and Power Elites then I guess it is in their favor. And there are lobbyists/Super-Delegates like "Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines." How do you like that? A fundraiser for Clinton is a Super-Delegate.
There are some good articles out there in the intertubes if you wanted the truth, but probably no article from CNN, NBC, or other Clinton-Corp-Media. https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/
This fight is between hard working, honest, grassroots People against the Wealthy, Powerful, corporations and billionaires.
IMO no Democrat would side with money over people.
George II
(67,782 posts)That's what I responded to, asking you name just 10 of 714. That's YOUR statement which you're now running away from.
Sad that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that favors the establishment candidate because you want the establishment candidate. We are where we are because of the fracking establishment that you want to stick with. Your picking at my exact language is a sad attempt to distract.
The bottom line is that the Super-Delegate system, the Clinton-Corp-Media, Citizens United, all favor the candidate of the Oligarchy. We need to get big money out of politics.
zigby
(125 posts)On Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
That's easy to say but do you have any argument of substance? I am guessing you like
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1260369
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Saying someone isn't a "real democrat" is disruptive and rude. This poster has a habit of disagreeing and insulting in the same post, this is just another example of that. Please let's stop accusing each other of not being democrats and just stick to the issues. Please hide this post, thank you.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:22 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like a pretty rational attempt at a discussion to me.
The alert seems to be an attempt to shut down said discussion.
Alert is disruptive and rude.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary supporter here, but this isn't close to being a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *Sigh* I am SO tired of these creampuff, thin-skinned alerts. Why can't I serve on some juicy, interesting alerts and not this snipey alert-stalking, hide-seeking game that the worst partisans play? Alerter wrote:"Saying someone isn't a "real democrat" is disruptive and rude. " OMG PASS THE SMELLING SALTS I DO BELIEVE I'M GOING TO FAAIIINNNTT!!!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Saying someone isn't a "real democrat" is disruptive and rude. This poster has a habit of disagreeing and insulting in the same post, this is just another example of that. Please let's stop accusing each other of not being democrats and just stick to the issues. Please hide this post, thank you.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:22 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like a pretty rational attempt at a discussion to me.
The alert seems to be an attempt to shut down said discussion.
Alert is disruptive and rude.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary supporter here, but this isn't close to being a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *Sigh* I am SO tired of these creampuff, thin-skinned alerts. Why can't I serve on some juicy, interesting alerts and not this snipey alert-stalking, hide-seeking game that the worst partisans play? Alerter wrote:"Saying someone isn't a "real democrat" is disruptive and rude. " OMG PASS THE SMELLING SALTS I DO BELIEVE I'M GOING TO FAAIIINNNTT!!!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
zigby
(125 posts)I'm not a real Democrat?!
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)seems not.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts) AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
antigop
(12,778 posts)
Sophiegirl
(2,338 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
Yas Lawd.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)Thanks for the post WillyT.
Peace.
LT
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Crony Captialist Politics, to put it politely.
antigop
(12,778 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)The question is would the democratic establishment prefer a republican presidency over a Sanders presidency?
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Provides an accurate answer to your question.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)And am actually worried.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Hillary Clinton will be an illegitimate President represented by a corrupt party in my book and I'm sure their will be millions more who donated and worked for Bernie who will feel the same way....
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)It would be wise for the Democratic party to listen to its base.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Because they can't be that stupid... or CAN they?
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)They seem to think the base will fall in line.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)country might need a dose of ARSENIC to wake them up! I KNOW I don't want to think this way, I KNOW I don't want it to happen this way, but if Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb is all we have, WE NO LONGER HAVE A VOICE!
We've been hijacked for far too many years and have let OUR VERY OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY screw us, and I have no doubt that many here KNOW this, but we just swallowed the poison pill because these people told us they were DEMOCRATS!
I have so much bile in my stomach these days because I feel so much FEAR about what may happen! Even here with people who have seen clear EVIDENCE of who's in bed with whom and STILL fight tooth and nail to KEEP THE STATUS QUO!
It's mind boggling to me WHY we keep putting up with this. We see at least a spark of real HOPE and yet so many are willing to say NO WE CAN'T and they seem perfectly happy with this thinking!
As long as this continues, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE! I'm much older than some here and I had HOPED I wouldn't be around to see what I'm seeing. I've fought so hard against this S--T for my kids and my grand kids and I guess I've FAILED! Tears are running down my face right now because all I can do is fight back, but I only have ONE boxing glove and THEY have a thousand.
Gotta go...
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)but I believe people are waking up. No matter what happens in this election I don't think people are just going to roll over. People know they've been ripped off. They will no longer buy into the bootstrap talk, and blame themselves any more. Maybe I'm naive, but I've never seen this much passion and anger, and this energy has to go somewhere.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)"After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.
Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?
Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024586209
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts) cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... even if they voted against that Democratic Party shill in 2010. THAT is why we need to replace these corrupt MF'ers that are screwing over traditional Democratic Party members!!!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
yourout
(8,820 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Arazi
(8,887 posts)welcome to DU!
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Or the fix is in.
Or the election is rigged.
How is she anything different from a pre-bagger Republican?
We're being stove piped into having to vote for Trump or a Teabagger or a Republican wearing a Democratic button lapel.
NewJeffCT
(56,848 posts)It was all set up for Hillary to sweep the superdelegates and triumph over the more popular Obama.
https://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/the-fix-is-in-for-hillary-democratic-party-superdelegates/
How did that work out?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)In 2008 the corporatists didn't care who got the nomination, Hillary or Obama because they knew that BOTH candidates would play nice with the .01%. It's why the superdelegates had no problem switching from Corporate Hillary to Corporate Obama. This is NOT that situation. They know Sanders will not play nice with them so they're NOT going to switch to Bernie unless there is a big enough outcry AND they know that manipulating the super delegate to lean toward Hillary will result in an end to the Democratic Party. WE have to fight this so resoundingly that there can be no mistake what will happen if they cheat Hillary into the nomination.
NewJeffCT
(56,848 posts)John Edwards had superdelegates committed to him as well.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)who voted for the IWR.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to take away votes from anyone like a Kucinich from being a factor later in the election. Edwards and the PTB probably knew well in advance that his campaign was being "shut down" right before super Tuesday with "the news"... All conveniently timed for then.
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)This is how party politics have always worked, and both parties have mechanisms to ensure an electable candidate not too far out of the mainstream. Ask Ron Paul how the GOP quelled his revolution for the sake of an election. Besides, Sanders has done nothing for the Democratic Party that he wants backing from. Unlike Bernie, Clinton raises money for the DNC that funds all candidates in tight races.
For months Bernie supporters have been bragging about how he's not the "establishment candidate", but now call foul when the establishment works against him. If it's any consolation, the super delegates back Howard Dean in 2004, so it's not a done deal.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)At least according to Wikipedia in '82 for the '84 election, so I'm not sure why people say that's how it's always worked.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I don't want a freaking lobbyist to choose the leader of our party.
Bernie is not out of the mainstream. Everything he wants, a large majority of Americans want as well.
If you think it's OK for the establishment to choose for we the people, then the party is on the road to hell in a hand basket and will not survive. If they do this, they will be handing the GE to the Republicans. 100% guaranteed.
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)If that's mainstream, I need a refresher course in math. I know he's a "Democratic Socialist", but try spending the rest of the year splitting that hair with voters who equate the term with Josef Stalin. There's a reason why Clinton is the hands down favorite to win in spite of your protests.
As for "handing the GE to the Republicans", every poll, Democratic Party politician, and credible pundit say a Sanders nomination would do exactly that. Celebrities like him though.
CentralMass
(16,971 posts)the party redistributed to votrs in Michigan and Florida
406-Boz
(53 posts)The more she speaks, the more disgusting she is. I started this season not disliking her, now she appears to be just another R fascist.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)Total Lobbying Spending 2015 $3.20 Billion 11,465 Lobbyists
100 Senators, 245 in the House
That's $9,275,362 and 33 lobbyists per elected member of congress
We saw relationships with the big firms investing in lobbyists ... and giving Hillary $250,000 speaking fees
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Bernie, so no worries.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)I don't like the way this is shaping up.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Show up on large numbers and protest on their front lawns. Show them what reality is.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)It reminds me of Tammany Hall politics. This is not democracy.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)
I don't know wether to laugh or cry. THESE ARE 'SUPER DELEGATES' FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY supporting Clinton?!!!!!
The contempt for ordinary Democrats is unfriggingbelievable! She doesn't even try to hide it!
I've been a Democratic Party member, supporter and activist for 56 years, and a Democratic voter for 54 years (when I came of age--was party activist as a teenager), and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this--so blatant, so in your face, so arrogant and so very, very very corrupt.
Well, she may cheat and buy her way into the nomination, but I predict a revolution within the Democratic Party that could make Chicago 1968 look like a picnic, OR, another possible result of this vast and horrendous corruption, the END of the Democratic Party.
I don't know if I will abandon the Democratic Party. My deceased parents and grandparents, New Dealers all, would roll over in their graves. But it makes me sick to see their loyalty to the party of The People, and the loyalty I've shown all my life, spit on by Clinton and this rancid crew of lobbyists and corporate shills.
I have tried to be heard. I got teargassed for my trouble, and saw a whole lot of peaceful people tear-gassed and beaten by police in Seattle protesting the WTO and Bill Clinton's assault on the sovereignty of our country (WTO secret process to overturn our labor and environmental laws!). I've fought that and other citizen battles against Corporate Rule, for many years in many ways. It didn't even cause a ripple of conscience to Hillary Clinton or her husband. They can't hear. They don't care. They are simply bought and paid for, and proud of it, and that is the reality that we must face as Democratic Party members and as Americans.
My hope is that, this time, the revolt within the Democratic Party, and the revulsion that many other Americans also feel, at the viper's nest of corruption in Washington DC, will be overcome peacefully and in a well-organized and effective manner, as the Seattle protestors tried to do (even in the face of the police riot), as the Black Lives Matters activists have tried to do (even in the face of police brutality and murder) and as the Bernie Sanders campaign has exemplified.
We must stay active and we must vote, no matter how rigged it all is. Our democracy depends upon it. Our lives and the lives of the poor, the black, the brown, the elderly, the unemployed, the 'overly employed,' the poorly paid, the imprisoned, the homeless, the sick, the poisoned, the young, and the future of our very society depend upon it. The life of the very planet we live on depends upon it. And, indeed, the lives of millions of people in other countries, who have been robbed or have seen their loved ones murdered for profit, by our "military-industrial complex"--they depend on us as well, to create a decent society HERE, with a government that will not allow our corporations, our banks and our military to harm them.
Peaceful and effective. Those must be our watchwords.
I will say no more now. I'm always too wordy. And I will just refer you to this video of the brave and brilliant Erica Garner, a Black Lives Matter activist, and a supporter of Bernie Sanders:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511258005
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)Thanks for telling it like it was, and is.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I will vote for all Democrats on my ballot but never, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever will I vote for Hillary Clinton.
How utterly disgusting.
She is not just raising money from creeps. She is hiring super-delegates or relying on delegates hired by the corporate interests.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I CANNOT comprehend HOW MANY WAYS this is OVER THE TOP.
This completely usurps the right of the people to vote.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The concept was developed specifically to prevent what Sanders is trying to do. The intention was to guard the nominee favored by the party regulars against an attack by a grassroots campaign, a populist candidate, someone trying to steal the nomination from the party's regular candidate. Of course, the most important part, it was intended to make sure a presidential candidate could not divorce the party from the lobbyists and corporations that contribute big money to the party. Yes, it's highly undemocratic, but I hope nobody thinks we should be all democratic just because we use the word in the party's name.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)•Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobby for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the SuperPAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Michael fucking Bloomberg...you know, that Michael Bloomberg who's threatening to run for POTUS as an independent if Bernie wins the nomination
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Said it once, I'll say it again, that entire team needs to go down!
Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)It's becoming quite a tell that at any given time there are more anti-Clinton posts from Sanders supporters than there are posts actually supportive of Bernie.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Lots of fabulously positive offerings in the Bernie Sanders group.
We just had a YUUUUUGE successful online fundraiser Monday night in response to a Sanders' campaign email. Raised over 500k in less than 3-4 hours. The grand total was over $1,000,000!
Really amazing and inspirational how the little people can pool their pennies together and raise that kind of money in a matter hours!
Check us out sometime,
JudyM
(29,785 posts)Or are you just diverting because it's uncomfortable to think about how it doesn't fit with your own values?
Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)The primary is underway, so whether you or I or anyone else agrees with the process is now moot. If you don't like the superdelegate component of the process, work to get it changed before the next primary. Personally, I have no problem with some mechanism to ensure that the process isn't completely determined by emotion and short term trends.
What I don't have, however, is the slightest shred of sympathy for a candidate who complains about a process he had no interest in creating, because it conflicted with his 30 year effort to demean and undermine the Democratic Party. Bernie had his chance to make the party better. He chose instead to grandstand and resist joining, at least up until the point that doing so provided a net benefit to his own objectives.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Jesus fucking Christ.
Show of hands - Who is so fucking stupid that they can still say that this isn't rigged? We will accept that you don't give a shit, but don't try to say it isn't' rigged.
mdbl
(8,650 posts)I mean, at least we can keep track of the bullshit side of the election that way.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . the people would have held a revolution by now!!!
Duppers
(28,469 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts) silvershadow
(10,336 posts)ill of the DNC.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Whether they like it or not.
Expose them...show their pictures...track them down at events...and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that this election will NOT be stolen from the American Voters!
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)There are those who take the idea of democracy for all people, regardless of wealth, seriously, and there are those who daily toil to increase the divide.
It's not hard to grasp the idea of being a stalwart for democracy, but it is hard to live up to it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I kid. 
Some people could care less about this ethical compromise. I see it as the most important consideration in a potential Democratic candidate for President. I see Hillary as unfit for office.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Either ya get criticized for talking ponies and unicorns, or you're accused of being a Debbie-downer.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I think if we absolutely must have superdelegates they should not be allowed to be lobbyists. Lobbyists already have enough power.
But, again. Solve this by banning superdelegates.
zomgitsjesus
(41 posts)then the super delegates will go against the will of the people. If they do this, I guarantee Hillary won't be president.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Super Delegates, in this elections just like ones past come from 5 sources:
Distinguished Party leaders: 20
Governors: 20
Senators: 47
Representatives: 193
DNC members: 432
First, let's take a full look at the members that are being libeled by this blogger:
Jeff Berman: Not even close to his first round. Hell in 2008 He was Candidate Obama's Delegate mastermind
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/06/09/532746/-Jeffrey-Berman-160-Obama-s-Delegate-Mastermind
Perhaps you can show where you had an issue with him then?
He's a long standing DNC member, and has earned his place as a delegate.
Bill Shaheen (DNC): he WON his position on the DNC via election.
http://nhjournal.com/updated-state-democrats-choose-bill-shaheen/
Perhaps you all here also agree with Republicans that Obama shouldn't appoint the Scalia replacement? You're making the same kind of argument here. Bill has EARNED his place as a Delegate, and cry me a river that you don't like him because of the very legal work he has done for the party.
Joanne Dowdell (DNC): Another DNC leader with a long and established record in the Party (she's been an ACTUAL Democrat for decades longer than Sanders to say the least)
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Joanne-Dowdell/1872940244
...
Joanne served as a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 & 2012 for President Obama.
Board of Directors - Joanne Dowdell
These are your first 3.. Should I go on? Point: Each person you listed has EARNED their place (much more so than your Candidate has earned his at that).
On to the second point. Now that you have so gleefully opened this can of worms, let's take a look at some of those few delegates Sanders has been able to win over:
Erin Bilbray Kohn (DNC) - Here's one of Sanders star supporters.. and.... *drum roll please* in 1996 and 1997 was a LOBBYIST.
Larry Cohen (DNC) - is the president of the communications workers of America labor union.. a Union that has endorsed Sanders. Is this a conflict of interest? I don't think so, he's earned his place just like all of the ones who are throwing in for Hillary earned theirs.. but if we want to talk conflict of interest.....
Troy Jackson (DNC) - Rated 100% by the NRA. Was also endorsed by the NRA.
Paul G Kirk (Democratic Leadership) - American lawyer, politician, and .... lobbyist.
At the end of the day, every one of these people who have been selected to be Democratic Party Primary Super Delegates have earned their spot, and it is downright disgusting the attempts to disenfranchise their voice just because you don't like a cherry picked part of their background.
George II
(67,782 posts)...that few, if any, of the superdelegates are active lobbyists. The fact that one time in their lives they were lobbyists, or registered as lobbyists, has little to do with what they're doing as of this moment. I know three people who are "lobbyists", yet haven't "lobbied" in decades.
It's a petty and irrelevant tag to put on people to further belittle the concept of superdelegates. As you note above, 280 of the superdelegates are elected officials, not lobbyists, and more than 200 of them have endorsed Clinton, only two endorsed Sanders.
One has to wonder why, if Sanders is so effective and easy to work with in the Senate, why 39 of 44 Democratic Senators have endorsed Clinton, none have come out for Sanders.
No doubt we'll now hear about that ominous, and fictional, "hit list"!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts) SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Great post, and so very true.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He was chosen because he knew his way around the Hill and wasn't going to gum up the works for the next election. Of course, we ended up with Scott Brown after that. The governor should have nominated Vicki.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)And you're not in it.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
begin_within
(21,551 posts)And isn't that a familiar theme in American politics after all?