Sanders supporters cry foul over Working Families endorsement of Warren

[brooklynite]

The Hill

Supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I) presidential campaign are crying foul over the Working Families Party’s (WFP) endorsement of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Warren won the group’s endorsement on Monday after a vote by the WFP’s national committee, which includes representatives from state and local WFP chapters, and a separate vote of WFP members and grassroots supporters.

WFP spokesman Rob Duffey told The Hill that Warren won 60.9 percent of the ranked-choice vote. The two votes by the national committee and the group's members and grassroots supporters were weighted equally.

But the progressive, union-allied group declined to release the vote breakdown.

[emmaverybo]

1. Her center-piece is working families. She is all about working families. He's like Revolution, dude.

What the hay? Always with the unfair to Bernie whinge. Sorry, Bernie, you aren’t owed what others earn.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Weighted equally means

...the votes of 56 WFP officials were considered 50% and the votes of thousands of WFP members were considered the other 50%.

[beastie boy]

7. No way to tell from the OP what exactly "weighed equually" means

It seems to me that if WFP officials voted 61.9% in favor and 58.1% against, and rank and file voted 49% in favor and 51% against, that would bring us to 60.9%

Likewise, if rank and file voted 61.9% in favor, and WFP leadership voter 49% in favor, that would get us the same results.

No way to tell.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Here is an article stating how it could happen.

(snip)

They won’t release the member vote because they don’t want to release it. If they wanted to release it, then they would, as they have in years past.

But why don’t they want to release it? You hate to speculate about such things, but the only answer is because the member votes went for Sanders while the leadership votes went for Warren, and the organization is embarrassed to reveal the degree to which the leadership overruled the membership.

How stark was the vote split? We don’t know for sure because they won’t release the information. But the figures they have released allow us to do some math to back out some ballpark figures.

What we know is that (1) 80 percent of members voted for Warren or Sanders and (2) 60.9 percent of the weighted vote went for Warren on the first ballot. If this is true, then the following graph shows what percent of WFP leaders had to vote for Warren to achieve this outcome by what percent of WFP members voted for Warren.



(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/working-families-party-elizabeth-warren-endorsement

[beastie boy]

29. Actually, the chart is incorrect. It assumes that 100% of WFP leadership voted for either Warren or

Sanders, which is not a fact. But even if one disregards the (unintentional?) statistical fudging and the chart you posted is taken at face value, the possibility exists that Warren was endorsed with as little as a 40% support from the WFP leadership. Furthermore, to justify his insinuations of foul play, the author assumes that support for Sanders in the WFP rank and file is on par or greater than that of Warren. A dubious assumption unsupported by data.

Like I said, there is no way to know, and making conclusions (or insinuations) based on the absence of facts is never a good idea. Just because we don't know who built the pyramids, doesn't mean it's aliens.

[Uncle Joe]

30. The chart only uses 100% in the case that 20 odd percent of members voted for Warren. If

you keep following the graph, that bar descends as increased numbers of members are used in the tabulation in order to get the end result published amount of 60.9 percent of the weighted total going for Elizabeth.

It also states in the article that in total 80% of members voted for Bernie or Elizabeth so the chart begins at 20% and tops out at 80.

There is of course only way to know for certain as to who built this pyramid, and that would be for the WFP to publish the total % breakdown of votes; members and leaders.

[beastie boy]

31. It's not the numbers ON the chart I am questioning. It's the assumption that the chart is

based on. This is what makes the chart incorrect.

I also stated that even if the chart is taken at face value, it is wrong to assume that Bernie was somehow marginalized, which is what the author insinuates.

I see nothing wrong with your calls for WFP to publish additional data, but unless and until they do, let's hold our outrage over Bernie deserving more than he got.

[Uncle Joe]

33. The assumption is based on at least the minimum, full transparency for democratic processes

(even if it's not truly one person one vote,) and mathematics.

I'm not outraged so much as curious.

[beastie boy]

34. I just agreed with you on transparency of democratic process. I don't know what else you expect.

But comparing 80% of something to 100% of something, or, more precisely, comparing 80% of something to an unknown proportion of something, is just bad math, period.

And the outrage I was talking about is evident in the article you linked to.

I don't know how I can be much clearer than that.

[lark]

3. Another true title - Sanders supporters errupt with calls of foul play because their guy lost.

This response seems to be true of all situations where Bernie isn't #1, regardless of what happens.

Typo - edited for clarity

[NurseJackie]

12. Did they feel ENTITLED to the endorsement?

I can understand why they'd be disappointed... but it really serves no good purpose for them to respond in such an ugly and divisive way. That's how endorsements go... win-some/lose-some. They should just stand up, dust themselves off, pledge to do better next time, accept it, get over it and move on... that's the behavior I'd expect from mature voters.

These repetitive cries of "we were cheated" creates resentment and suspicions that generate negativity. Negativity suppresses voter turnout. Low voter turnout makes it easier for the GOP (and Russia) to steal elections.

All I'm saying is that people should avoid doing things that help the GOP and Russia. That's reasonable, isn't it?

[smb]

27. Sanders Supporters: "I'll Respect The Outcome Of The Vote If We Win"

The plagiarism lawsuit summonses from the Trump Organization are probably already in the mail....

[Cha]

38. Pre-cisely, lark!

[TCJ70]

4. They should probably just release the vote breakdown...

...end any opaqueness in the process.

[TwilightZone]

5. Guess it's not so meaningless after all.

As some here have insisted.

[ritapria]

6. Release the Full Vote WFP

Did due paying WFP members support Bernie while the WFP board was on board with Elizabeth ? Why not release the full results ?

[BlueMississippi]

20. It is proof that the "establishment" rigged the election

[brooklynite]

22. "Dues Paying"?

Does any Party require "dues" to participate?

[TwilightZone]

36. The WFP doesn't require dues.

They request financial contributions (like any party) to help support the party, but dues are not mandatory.

Also, there's little reason to believe that the WFP members are financially supporting the party, but the board is not, as your post seems to insinuate.

[George II]

8. I wonder if all those complaining today remember last year when the WFP endorsed and RAN...

...Joe Crowley on the ballot in the 14th District?

[brooklynite]

16. Not exactly what happened

The WFP endorsed Crowley as they do for virtually every incumbent Democrat in NYS. However, the nomination was made by WFP members on the ballot in the same Primary. AOC didn't seek the WFP nomination, and once a candidate is nominated, the nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate dies, runs for another office or is appointed to a Judgeship.

[NurseJackie]

10. Aw.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Yes, lack of transparency is sad.

[NurseJackie]

13. The sense of entitlement is even sadder.

[Uncle Joe]

14. "Entitlement" to transparency is sad? How curious.

[NurseJackie]

15. Ha!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=286464

[LiberalFighter]

17. Supporters are complaining but not the campaign itself.

[NurseJackie]

18. Figures.

[BlueMississippi]

19. Rigged by the "establishment"

The sequel....

[BannonsLiver]

21. This is disqualifying.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

23. Nobody is entitled to an endorsement

The Sanders supporters should be thinking closely why Warren has got it and why she is polling better. Maybe because she's running a strong campaign and trying to build a coalition, not just preaching to the converted and attacking those who are not bought in.

[Hortensis]

24. :) On schedule, even tho the WFP normally endorses a Democrat or Republican.

I would have guessed they'd choose Warren, and hoped by a large majority like this.

The WFP's not overall extreme in the way Sanders' most zealous supporters tend to be. The conviction that they represent the real majority, and thus that losses show the evil establishment is oversetting the people's choice (again!), takes a lot of self delusion. But they never seem to run dry.

Speaking of, poor Hillary and poor state parties. They went through this every election that "the people's choice" didn't get a sizable majority in. And that was a lot of elections, all reported "scrupulously" by the national media.

[JI7]

25. weren't they saying this endorsement makes no difference ?

[SharonClark]

26. Here's the link to the WFP rules

[link:https://workingfamilies.org/2019/09/wfp-to-hold-2020-endorsement-vote/|

[crazytown]

28. April 22, 2015 Working Families met with Elizabeth to 'Draft Warren'

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/warren-met-privately-with-draft-warren-supporters-117671

Sanders was a second best choice from the outset.

[honest.abe]

32. Sanders supporters cry foul over [fill in the blank].

It would be a long list.

[brooklynite]

35. Surprise! Sanders declined to meet with WFP leadership...unlike Warren

[TwilightZone]

37. Apparently, "crying foul" involves racism, sexism and threats.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287286899