Who should pick presidents? Party leadership or the people?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

There has been a bit of contention with how Democratic leadership has fallen in line behind Hillary Clinton while shutting out Bernie Sanders on the democratic side.

On the Republican side party brokers are trying their best to make sure that Donald Trump is NOT the face of the party for years to come. Donald Trump has responded by threatening to run as an independent. Interestingly, Ben Carson has also blasted the RNC, threatening to leave the party.

The DNC and RNC are entirely different, yet their struggles are similar. Both Parties have their preferred candidates. Jeb Bush was supposed to be the guy. The people rebuked the party offer and went with Trump and Carson. The Republican party is now scrambling to prop up their next best choice.

Over on the DNC side Clinton has been protected via a lack of debates. Compare 2008 to 2016. In 2008 the Democrats had 26 scheduled debates. In 2016 the DNC scheduled ... Six? SIX lousy debates? You've got to be shitting me. And most of those debates are scheduled on days meant to leep viewership down (Saturdays, around holidays, against both football and baseball playoffs).

So the DNC clearly has their candidate and the RNC is working on finding an emergency candidate.

Shouldn't people be given as many opportunities as possible to learn about their candidates though? This is basically an interview process for possibly the most important job in the world. I find it shameful that so many party leaders were willing to make an endorsement before the 'interview process' of debates ever began. It undermines democracy when the party picks their candidate before the race has even started and frankly it makes me question their motives (backdoor deals, etc).

So... Who should pick presidents? Party leadership or the general voting public?

[reformist2]

1. I always count who has the most endorsements and vote accordingly, dont you?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

3. Haha. No. But I believe it shows the party as unified with the goal of getting one person elected.

[artislife]

39. hilllaryous!

[jwirr]

41. LOL

[merrily]

2. The Constitution says Electors--ay, that's the rub.

That's how Republicans get the Presidency, when they get it. Well that, dirty tricks, the Southern strategy, vote caging, etc.

[djean111]

4. Just got an email from Democracy for America - I voted in their online poll. For Bernie.

I didn't find the poll results, but got a DFA email from Hillary and Dean asking me to reconsider.
Yeah, the party has picked Hillary, and I am feeling more and more like the party is no longer the Democratic Party, but the autocratic Third Way party. I unsubscribed. They can get money from Jamie Dimon; after all, it is Jamie who would benefit, not me.

[MeNMyVolt]

8. All three candidates are soliciting via the DFA poll.

Stop spreading anti-democratic shit.

[djean111]

11. I will do as I please. Stop giving orders.

I don't care for this solicitation, as it should be obvious who I support, from my vote in the poll.

[MeNMyVolt]

13. You consistently post anti-democratic party thoughts all the time.

"Yeah, the party has picked Hillary, and I am feeling more and more like the party is no longer the Democratic Party, but the autocratic Third Way party. I unsubscribed. They can get money from Jamie Dimon; after all, it is Jamie who would benefit, not me."


That's you. DFA hasn't "picked" anyone. The party is still the Democratic Party. Your posting here just serves to discourage folks from the process and the party.

[djean111]

17. Living here in Florida, and seeing DWS back her GOP buddies has given me a pretty good idea

of where the Democratic Party has been heading. And that is to the right.

That being said, I am not all that influential, but how nice that you just recently joined and went to the trouble of looking up all of my posts!

If the DFA sends me an email with messages from Hillary and Dean, asks me to change my vote to Hillary, and gives me a link to the poll with the vote PRE-CHECKED for Hillary, then they are picking Hillary. And I have no obligation to go along with that.

[MeNMyVolt]

21. Jean, I've been reading posts here since '03. Check my profile.

I feel your pain with FL. I was born there, and I'm not a DWS fan. But there are ways to change the party without bashing it. As politely as I can, your posts dissuade people from hooking up with the Dem party or their candidates. I suggest you reconsider.

[djean111]

24. Currently, the party is oozing to the Right. You know that.

Down here, DWS actively discourages liberals. Actively discourages them. There is no way to change the party by keeping on electing Third Way types.

And I AM supporting a candidate of the Dem party. Bernie Sanders.

[FloridaBlues]

28. I have lived in fla all my live and DWS is not stopping any liberals from doing anything

Educate yourself in how the process works

[jwirr]

42. So the story that she supported to R candidates against

Democratic candidates is not true?

She is also the first Democratic DNC leader who decided we needed an exclusivity rule so that candidates could not take part in any debate other than the limited number she decided on.

[upaloopa]

27. It's a computer program for raising money

All it knows is what you tell it and it isn't a human being.

If you gave over $200 to a candidate you are listed as a donor. If not no body knows you

[bvar22]

31. The Party is behaving in an "anti-Democratic Way".

Otherwise, we would have more debates and more opportunities to view our candidates as they answer some (hopefully) tough questions.
That is how democracies do it.
The DNC has declined in order protect their 1% choice, and to keep the Top Down organization of The Party.
God forbid if people with dirty hands and who have to shower after work get to pick the President.

[artislife]

40. They don't like it that you have a mind of your own.

tsk tsk.

[DonCoquixote]

5. if the rnc brokjers their convention

and the DLC keeps crowning Hillary, then we might as well switch to a parliament and be done with it.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. I do think the parliamentary system is superior to the US Constitution.

It offers much more flexibility.

[upaloopa]

6. Denial is not a river in Egypt

I am wondering what will be the excuses when Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

One on the biggest mistakes on this board by Bernie folks is to think they represent "the people."

Well they represent some of the people.

Clinton supporters represent some of the people too.

But we represent more of the people, not on DU but DU isn't the real world either.

[reformist2]

10. How do you explain why Bernie is leading in NH? Careful, now...

[brooklynite]

14. 1.3 M (0.4% of the US population) is "some people"...just not a lot.

Add to which, Sanders is winning in the latest NH poll; Clinton has won six of the last ten.

[reformist2]

16. So we're going with the "deny the premise" option. Very well. We'll discuss this again in Feb.

[brooklynite]

19. Indeed we will...FWIW, I give him a 40% chance of winning NH...

...which says nothing about his abilities anywhere else.

[upaloopa]

25. Because it is small mostly White and next to Vermont

What is careful now mean?

[reformist2]

26. Well, America is mostly white. And "close to Vermont" implies something...

[ruffburr]

7. The Establishment Democrats-

Are Just Corporate Owned Shills as are the Republicans, Until we get Corporate control out of Our System of Government We are going to be Stuck on this Not So Merry go round.

[randys1]

9. 12 step programs teach you not to "should on yourself" because it is messy

Kind of an inside joke, should sounds like shit, and we say should all the time and it is counterproductive.

In other words, either do it or dont do it.

In this scenario it isnt what should happen, it is what does happen.

Right or wrong (and surely wrong), the people havent picked a president in forever.

[brooklynite]

12. I was under the impression we had Primary elections next year...were they cancelled?

Are you saying that YOU were able to figure out who the best candidate was, but apparently nobody else can?

Endorsements have ALWAYS happened before voting; you can choose to accept them or not. For some reason, Barack Obama was able to secure many of them in the lead up to 2008; why can't Sanders?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

15. My disappointment stems from so many endorsements coming before the first debate.

How could anyone know the best candidate so early? It's all about scoring political points and giving candidates an 'air of inevitability' before the general public are even thinking about the general election.

[brooklynite]

18. Hmm... how could a US Senator know anything about another former US Senator and a former SOS???

Don't tell me the answer...

[upaloopa]

29. Bernie is not very popular in Washington

He trashes Democrats and the President and you think he should get the nomination of other Democrats.

Your side is reaping what you have sown.

Stop blaming everybody else

You are living in the bad karma you create every day on this board and on social media.

[book_worm]

20. Obviously the people and so the person who wins the most primaries and caucuses

and popular vote will be our nominee. If it's Senator Sanders, fine with me. If it's Hillary Clinton, fine with me.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

22. Does the lack of debates compared to 2008 concern you? It does me, regardless of choice of candidate

Debates give people access to who a candidate is and what they stand for. Maybe I'm in the minority, but debates are important to me. They allow access to a candidate without the filter of the media.

[BlueCheese]

34. 20+ debates is too many.

Six may be too few, though I seem to recall a poll in which the majority said that was enough. I'll guess that by the time each state's primary rolls around, the voters of that state will have had more than enough opportunity to learn about the candidates.

[Angry Dragon]

23. The People

[Thinkingabout]

30. First, the DNC committee and Chairperson should be selected by a Democrat and this has happened.

Second I am surprised to see a post wanting more debates when it has been very apparent Sanders has not performed as well as Hillary in either debate. The first question in the second debate opened a large window into Sanders lack of foreign policy. He isn't as good in the debates, having more debates to show more areas where Sanders is lacking is not going to give him a big jump in poll numbers. Remember Hillary testified for eleven hours with hostile GOP trying to break her, they failed, she will not fade in a debate.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

32. More debates is better on principle. I want people to be informed regardless of who they choose.

When party leadership limits public discourse between candidates that doesn't reflect well on the party as a whole in my opinion. In fact, this is the fewest amount of primary debates hosted by the DNC since 1976. As it stands, it feels like the DNC just wants to keep things quiet until the general election rolls around. It might be the safer strategy, but it certainly isn't the most democratic.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Yes, some would like to see a Clown Car, I do not see any reason to compete with

The GOP for this title.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

36. You're right. We should just fall in line and vote Hillary because she was chosen by party leaders.

The people should fall in line with what party leaders feel is best for the party.

...But seriously, do you think the DNC debates with the remaining candidates of Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders would be tantamount to a circus? With Webb and Chaffee out of the mix we have some mighty competent candidates. We shouldn't be afraid to have them interview for the job.

[Thinkingabout]

43. No, she is running as a candidate in the DNC and if she gets the major amount of

The delegates she will be the nominee.

Now seriously if Sanders does nor get the major of the delegates you don propose he would be the nominee or for MOM to be the nominee. Having 26 debates would be clown shows.

[BlueCheese]

33. Your question is more properly, "Who should pick party nominees?"

After all, the people do choose the president in the general election.

The major parties in the US are rare in that for the most part, they allow their rank and file to choose their nominees at the national level. My sense is that in many other countries, parties choose their leaders in closed-door sessions. In fact, in the US, it's not just the rank and file, but their self-identified rank and file. You don't have to pay anything, such as party membership dues, to have a voice.

Having said that, no, it's not entirely democratic. The party leaders (members of the DNC, elected officials) have outsized influence. Some states have ridiculous caucus systems that limit turnout. Early states have way more impact than later ones-- Iowa and New Hampshire are more important than California and Texas. And yes, party leadership can make rules that help one candidate or another.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

38. Duly noted.

I appreciate the response.

[NCTraveler]

44. Me. Nt

[MisterP]

45. Scoop Jackson and Jeane Kirkpatrick's faction of the Dems started out in 1972 after they said that

too many primaries lost them the general: they are very much against party democracy