And this is how you destroy a party

[AverageJoe]

“Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.”





https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html?action=click&module=Top

[TwilightZone]

1. Nope, that's how democracy works.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=590075

[JudyM]

7. It's not how it's "supposed to work," it's what the party leaders insisted on, at the expense of

the voting populace. Parallel to the way the electoral college hurts Dems.

One person one vote.

[TwilightZone]

33. Sanders was involved in the rule changes. He also supporting using SDs in 2016.

If he had a problem with the rules for 2020 that he was involved in changing, he shouldn't have readily agreed to them by running as a Democrat. His entire stance on the issue vs. 2016 is the peak of hypocrisy.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

https://www.newsweek.com/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-nomination-1489428

[JudyM]

57. It's called working within the system.

The system had superdelegates in force so of course you work with what you’ve got. As soon as everyone regrouped after the election Sanders worked hard to try to get rid of the superdelegates so that the popular vote would actually matter more than the preferences of those with an interest in the status quo.

[PAMod]

104. Wait, logic check -

Even without superdelegates, the “leader” after the primaries would need to pick up delegates on subsequent ballots that had previously been assigned to other candidates from the voting.

How is that any different/better?

[JudyM]

106. Because one is still democratic, originally based on population, and the other is based on clout.

[PAMod]

109. Yes, but the voters sent them there to vote for their candidate

...and now they might be voting for the candidate they voted against.

The right answer is it’s not better, at all.

Bottom line - either somebody wins on the first ballot, or the primaries failed to choose a candidate.

And it doesn’t matter who the “leader” is.

[JudyM]

112. Superdelegates are not sent by voters.

Only delegates are sent by voters, superdelegates aren’t.

[PAMod]

115. Yes, sent by the voters to pick THE VOTER'S PREFERENCE

at the convention.

NOT to vote for a different candidate.

[JudyM]

116. This isn't the reality.

I’m going to bow out of this, with all due respect.

[TwilightZone]

37. Sanders was involved in the rule changes. He also supported using SDs to help him win in 2016.

Sorry, but Sanders could not possibly be more hypocritical on this issue. Intentional ignorance doesn't change that fact.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

https://www.newsweek.com/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-nomination-1489428

[ehrnst]

89. So a candidate trying to convince superdelegates to overthrow the will of the people...

the candidate who clearly got far more pledged delegates would be disrespecting the will of the people?



Good think that the Superdelegates have never done that, isn't it?

You know Bernie was a Superdelegate, right?

[ehrnst]

92. "Supressed" by whom and how?

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. I'm not arguing against the rules. They were fought over and arrived at

They represent a compromise of sorts between those who wanted them to differ in contradictory directions. They now are what we are playing by, OK.

It's not the rules, it is the mind set of many leaders of our Party. It is the implications of the phrase "Overwhelming opposition". Let's not play games. What is being talked about here isn't simply an intellectual defense of "playing by the rules", it is a "Stop Bernie" movement.

I'm not in any way pretending to speak for all Bernie supporters when I say the following but; if Bernie comes into the convention with 38% of the pledged delegates and Biden comes in with 34% of the pledged delegates, that's one thing. If Bernie arrives with 46% of the pledged delegates and the next nearest contender comes in with 31%, that's a completely different animal. I don't expect Super Delegates to exactly mirror the sentiments of actual voters in the Democratic primaries, but I don't expect to them to simply throw those results onto a rubbish heap and vote dramatically in a direction opposite to that taken by rank and file Democrats voting in our primaries either.

THAT would be what would tear our Party apart.

[LonePirate]

84. You might want to place your finger on the pulse of this country

You seem to have no clue how dangerous it will be for party insiders to anoint someone other than the clear plurailty leader going into the convention.

About the same acceptable convention alternative would be if the candidates in second and third place team to form a President/Vice President ticket that has more delegates together than the first place candidate. Otherwise, the party will burn down and 45 will romp in November.

Overturning the voice of the people in a democracy is never a good idea.

[TwilightZone]

87. Then Sanders shouldn't have agreed to the rules.

As for "party insiders", if you're talking about the SDs, they may not even be needed to attain a majority. If Sanders comes in with, say, 30% (or 35% or 40% or whatever short of a majority) of the vote and the delegates of the other candidates coalesce behind one candidate, there's your majority. No SDs required.

That's the problem with burning bridges. You might need to cross them at a later date.

"Overturning the voice of the people in a democracy is never a good idea."

If the majority support another candidate at the convention, that is the very definition of the will of the people. Are you seriously asserting that if 70% of the delegates agree to rally behind one candidate that that's overturning the voice of the people?

That's laughable. Telling people their votes automatically go to the guy with 30%, regardless of their wishes, is about as un-Democratic as it gets.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. This is how you save a Democracy

Too bad they did not do that with Trump.

[OliverQ]

98. If Dems do this, Trump will win guaranteed.

[jimfields33]

3. Ridiculous

Bernie just keep working for the people.

[TCJ70]

4. If he's the delegate leader, yes. If not...

...then it should go to whoever is.

[ehrnst]

91. Let's hope no candidate who is behind by even one pledged delegate tries to pressure superdelegates

to usurp the will of the people!

[Happy Hoosier]

5. If he can't rally majority support...

In a brokered convention, he is not fit to lead the party.

When Sanders entered the race, I knew it would split the party.

[NurseJackie]

11. Agreed. We need better controls and filters and conditions.

How long until Jill Stein tries to stick her nose in the tent?

The Camel's Nose In The Tent !

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

Author unknown

[apcalc]

30. You have to wonder about a guy who runs for prez the FIRST

time at age 74 and 78, after serving 30 years or so.

Without any longtime party friends, without much of a record.

Motivation?

I wonder all the time.

[Happy Hoosier]

35. The man has a VERY healthy ego. NT

[Fresh_Start]

76. +1000 NT

nt

[Happy Hoosier]

53. Entirely different situation.

A party convention is not a one-off election.

The convention is where we pick who will be our banner bearer. We need a candidate that can convince a majority of delegates that they will unite and represent the party well. If a candidate cannot convince a majority of even our own party to support him in such a situation, how will he lead and unite the party? Answer: He cannot. So let's see if Sen. Sanders can be a leader and uniter, or if he just likes preaching to the choir.

[AverageJoe]

72. Exactly right

In the long run, it’s not that Sanders’s supporters would be angry because was denied the nomination, even with the most delegates. It’s that Sander’s supporters would be given a strong message that their votes and support for the party don’t matter. People can talk about all the rules they want, or suggest Sanders’s supporters just need to suck it up and move on, but that’s missing what is starting to look like the arc of history.

After the way things went last time, I see such a move as suicidal.

[ehrnst]

78. You mean giving the nomination to someone with fewer pledged delegates would be

un-democratic?

What would you call a candidate who asks superdelegates to do that, even if another candidate has a very clear, wide lead over them?

[ehrnst]

85. More than any of the other candidates... and got relected.

So there's that.

[WhereAmerica]

6. No, this is how your save a nation

Poll after poll has shown that a substantial -- in some cases, an overwhelming -- majority of voters don't want a socialist. Period.

Sanders will lose in a landslide, especially after the Trump/Russian machine makes his socialism front and center, in ways that will scare everyone over 45 and some below. It will be a bloodbath.

If the Democratic Party needs to find a nominee that most Democrats prefer, in order to save the party, democracy and the rule of law, then so be it.

[CentralMass]

42. Head to head polls from RCP show Bernie beating tRump in most states.

Even in Florida where he has a small 0.3 point advantage.

[redstateblues]

94. That would change once they started running ads about Bernie's past

We would most likely lose the House as well as the White House

[Autumn]

55. Yet poll after poll has Bernie winning over Trump.

Are they all wrong?

[ehrnst]

80. So the wealthy will see Bernie's loss as a win?

Hmm...

According to Our Revolution’s tax returns showing contribution amounts but not contributor names, data compiled and first reported by the Associated Press, from 2016 to 2018 Our Revolution raised almost $1 million dollars from contributors who gave in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit, including multiple contributions of between $100,000 and $300,000. Our Revolution has not disclosed any of its contributors to the FEC, as required by federal campaign finance law

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

[Autumn]

8. I don't believe they will do that if he has a majority of delegates. That would be a stupid move.

They should relax and have a glass of wine before they panic. Personally I would think any party would be stupid to not rally behind the front runner.

[Demsrule86]

14. They should not hand him the nomiation unless he has a winning majority.

[Autumn]

15. That was just what I said.

[Demsrule86]

17. I doubt he will and operation chaos has to be consdered as well. We need

Closed primaries.

[TwilightZone]

19. Irrelevant to the article or its topic.

"if he fell short of a majority of delegates"

It's right there in the sub-heading in the event that you didn't bother to read the article.

[Autumn]

62. This was my relevant response "I don't believe they will do that if he has a majority of delegates"

that was in the header of MY response to the OP that you didn't bother to read to
this part of the

found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.”

that I did fucking bother to read and respond with my opinion.

Reading and words and stuff. Yeah sometimes it's hard.

[Happy Hoosier]

59. If he has a MAJORITY he will win the ballot.

And he should. But if it just a plurality, he has more work to do.

[treestar]

9. If a candidate does not have a majority

They haven't won the nomination.

[SidDithers]

10. Handing the nomination to someone who hasn't earned it is how you destroy a party...nt

Sid

[redstateblues]

95. A Sanders nomination would destroy the party. Down ballot races would be disastrous for Democrats

[Demsrule86]

12. Sanders wanted these rules... so now he can live with them.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Sanders is the opponent Mitch wants to reelect Trump

We are going to lose

[zackymilly]

86. I'm counting on Joe to start gaining some ground over Bernie.

[Squinch]

16. BERNIE DEMANDED THOSE RULES!!!! A plurality goes to a contested convention.

IT WAS BERNIE'S IDEA!!!!

[DanTex]

18. No he didn't. I have no idea where this talking point came from.

The DNC wrote the rules, not Bernie. Bernie was in favor of getting rid of superdelegates.

[Squinch]

20. You are simply wrong.

[DanTex]

23. I clicked on your link, and it doesn't support your argument.

[Squinch]

36. .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

This was one of his bones of contention going into the convention. In order to unite the party rather than, I don't know, having people boo the Democrat in a race in which we were running against the most corrupt person ever to run for or hold the office of president, they gave him everything he asked for. Both with respect to superdelegates and the rules on plurality candidates.

There is also the point that he knew these were the rules going in. If he wanted them changed - AGAIN - he could have mentioned it then.

[DanTex]

40. That link, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with Bernie writing the rules...

Because Bernie didn't write the rules.

[Squinch]

46. I didn't say he wrote them. I said he demanded them. And he did so at a time when he

had the Democrats over a barrel. They wanted to give him what he wanted so he would control his supporters in the convention.

Fat lot of good it did.

But your hair-splitting is noted, as is the fact that it shows you know how weak your argument is.

[DanTex]

63. He didn't "demand" them either. He wanted there to be no superdelegates.

The DNC refused, and instead there was a compromise made so supers wouldn't vote on the first ballot. But to say Bernie and his supporters wanted this is outright false.

[Squinch]

65. I just gave you a source that says its true. But there is no sense arguing with you.

[DanTex]

82. The source didn't say anything remotely like that.

[PunkinPi]

79. Point is, Bernie agreed to the DNC rules when he decided to run as a dem.

If he didn't like the rules, he didn't have to run.

Listen to Liz here -->

Link to tweet

(not my tweet, using for video)

[DanTex]

81. Yes, he did, but he didn't "demand" or "write" them.

The rules, with superdelegates, are anti-democratic and favor insiders over voters, which is a shame. Hopefully the people in charge of carrying out those rules will decide to respect the will of the electorate.

[TwilightZone]

27. He knows.

He just doesn't care.

[TwilightZone]

25. Stop playing dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

https://www.newsweek.com/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-nomination-1489428

[DanTex]

29. Neither of those say that Bernie wrote the rules. Because he didn't.

Bernie's always been against having superdelegates be part of the process, because they are undemocratic. Let the people decide. I have no idea why anyone would disagree with that.

[boston bean]

39. Sanders did not want superdelegates to vote in first round. That was his demand.

So, he handed them even more power on the second round. Where any delegate can vote how they want.

He made the bed now he must lay in it.

I like it much better when ALL had a vote on the first round.

If Bernie does not have the delegates needed to prevent a second round, then he’s got to live by the rules he pushed for and agreed to.

[DanTex]

44. Bernie didn't want superdelegates at all. Everyone knows this.

[boston bean]

67. Bernie fought against them voting in the first round.

It doesn’t matter what you say about it even if it were true, which it is not.

He wanted on the dem ballot. He agreed to the rules.

[DanTex]

70. He didn't want supers at all. The DNC took them off the first round as a compromise.

[boston bean]

88. He is running by the same rules as all.

It does not matter what you think he wants.

[mr_lebowski]

111. If you say someone 'wrote' or 'demanded' the rules to be as they are ...

The clear implication from such verbiage is that you're arguing the person got exactly what they asked for.

Bernie asked for NO super delegates.

There are super delegates.

There's no 'thinking (about) what Bernie wanted' involved here. We KNOW what he wanted.

He did not get exactly what he asked for, he compromised and got some of what he wanted.

Ergo, saying he 'wrote' or 'demanded' (and received) the rules to be as they are is logically disingenuous.

Period.

That said, the fact that he had input into and agreed to them (and should now live with them) is a separate ... and valid ... point.

[boston bean]

120. I am arguing he wanted the ability for a more likely brokered convention.

And he got what he wanted.

[Sunsky]

121. Karma

Oh sweet poetic justice He is now asking for the same thing Hillary asked for in 2016 and what he railed against in 2016. His supporters were behind him when he made his pitch to the DNC and they are behind him now when he opposes. The height of hypocrisy but, I do not expect better from the my way or the highway crowd.

So he griped about superdelegates and the "Democratic establishment" in 2016, triggered a rule change, agreed with the compromise solution and now is griping about the solution he helped to create. Why does Bernie seem to have problems with order and rules? These rules were in place before he entered the 2020 race, and similar to 2016 he's now going to cause friction over the process that IS ALREADY IN PLACE because it does not suit what he now believes will be his position at the convention. I'm tired of the divisiveness and I hope the electorate sees the most common denominator.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/democrats-rules-superdelegates-sanders

The change was approved by acclamation. The key procedural vote before that showed the overhaul had 329.5 yes votes to 106.5 votes in opposition. The approval drew a standing ovation from progressive activists, many of them Sanders supporters.

“This is a great day for America and for the party,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager. “When you have a system subject to gaming, there is incentive to game it. To the extent the system can’t be gamed, you have more credibility with voters.”

In a written statement, Sanders called the move “an important step forward in making the Democratic party more open, democratic and responsive to the input of ordinary Americans”.

Perez said settling the issue means the party can focus exclusively on the November election, when Democrats are aiming to reclaim majorities on Capitol Hill and regain power in statehouses around the country.

All sides went home feeling at happy with the solution (full stop)? Nope. One side now sees a disadvantage for said side with the new rules. So here we go again... Griping about superdelegates and the "Democratic establishment".

[honest.abe]

21. If Bernie cant convince the superdelegates then he shouldnt be our nominee.

Period.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Blame the victim logic. NT

NT

[honest.abe]

38. Its the canidate's responsibility to convince the voters.

If he cant get majority delegates and he cant get majority Supers then he shouldn't be our nominee.

[Eric J in MN]

69. Convince the voters in elections

...not corporate lobbyists who were given the title of “Super Delegate.”

[honest.abe]

73. I think you are confused by who are the super delegates.

They come form all sorts of backgrounds such as former presidents, congressional leaders, mayors, labor leaders, longtime local party functionaries and prominent fund-raisers. They were put in place for just such a scenario as may play out this year where a candidate has a plurality of delegates but the majority want someone else. The supers can help give the nomination to the candidate that most represents the majority Democratic voters.

[sheshe2]

119. You do realize...

Eric J in MN
69. Convince the voters in elections

...not corporate lobbyists who were given the title of “Super Delegate.”

You do realize that Bernie was and is a super delegate, correct? I hardly think he is a corporate lobbyist anymore than Warren is.

[TwilightZone]

41. He was involved in writing the rules and readily agreed to them when he chose to run as a Dem.

He can't be a victim of something he helped write and then agreed to.

Besides, he was perfectly fine trying to get the SDs to overturn the will of the voters in 2016. Were you OK with it then?

Always a victim, poor Bernie.

[Eric J in MN]

74. That's like saying someone

...who voted for Hillary Clinton and lost food stamps under Trump can’t be Trump’s victim because he or she participated.

Bernie Sanders’ appointees to the Unity Reform Commission wanted to eliminate Super Delegates but they were outvoted.

[boston bean]

90. And yet he still agreed to the rules.

We don’t change them in the middle of the race.

If he doesn’t have enough delegates on the first round. He lives with the result of the second round. Period end of story.

[Squinch]

52. The victim. Who is a victim of having to stand by rules he demanded.

It just gets too ridiculous.

[Eric J in MN]

75. Bernie Sanders' appointees to the

...Unity Reform Commission wanted to get rid of Super Delegates. They were outvoted.

[Squinch]

77. Bernie Sanders wanted a contested convention. The rules were changed to allow contested

conventions in the future and to remove Superdelegates from the first round of voting.

So yes, they didn't take dictation. They held on to one thing, namely superdelegate participation in successive rounds. They did not concede that to a person who by that point had already left the party and declared himself, once again, Independent.

[showblue22]

93. He agreed to the rules that is what matters

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11305780/sanders-superdelegates

[Squinch]

49. Superdelegates were put in place for exactly the situation we find ourselves in. After the

McGovern debacle.

[honest.abe]

51. Yep.

[honest.abe]

66. Superdelegates are good solid longtime Democrats.

They come form all sorts of backgrounds such as former presidents, congressional leaders, mayors, labor leaders, longtime local party functionaries and yes prominent fund-raisers. They were put in place for just such a scenario as may play out this year where a candidate has a plurality of delegates but the majority want someone else. The supers can help give the nomination to the candidate that most represents the majority Democratic voters.

[Squinch]

68. Good gawd.

[George II]

22. As Warren said last night, Sanders helped write the rules, and everyone agreed to the rules....

....prior to announcing their candidacy.

Why change the rules now?

[Sloumeau]

24. Thank God that these Democrats care about their seats enough...

that they want to make sure that the nominee does not end up causing them to lose their seats.

[Squinch]

54. +1

[MrsCoffee]

26. By letting him run on our ticket, you may be right.

Since all he does is trash the party and sow division.

[beastie boy]

28. Bernie is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.

Every Democrat, whether they support or oppose Bernie, is aware of it. Some welcome it, others oppose it.

This is the definition of democracy. Hate to be pessimistic about it, but the party risk destruction either way. The majority will decide how the party will be destroyed.

[Squinch]

50. +1.

[redstateblues]

99. A Sanders nomination would destroy the party. Down ballot races would lose the House. FL is gone

The minute Bernie is nominated.

[HarlanPepper]

48. Sounds great to me.

Bernie brings another 4 years of Dump.

[uponit7771]

58. Sanders swing 3 month state numbers are NOT as good as Biden's

[Skidmore]

71. Key words ...

"...if he fell short of delegates" means he lost. Period. What is hard to understand about that? They cast their votes for the winner.

[redqueen]

96. It got me to switch my vote.

Avoiding a brokered convention is now Job 1.

[LenaW]

105. Same here.

I don't know why people think a brokered convention and giving the nomination to the people's second choice instead of their first choice will somehow motivate people to come out in droves for the down ticket races - or the top race.

I'm hard pressed to think of a shittier Get Out The Vote slogan than "Your Vote Doesn't Really Matter to Us."

[redqueen]

117. Right?

Seems like a sure fire way to depress turnout.

[OliverQ]

97. This will absolutely decimate the Democratic party

and guarantee a Trump win. Massive amounts of people will refuse to vote again if this happens.

[redstateblues]

100. A Sanders nomination will decimate the party. Say goodbye to the House

Candidates are already putting distance between themselves and Bernie. FL is probably already gone.

[OliverQ]

103. There is no evidence of that

and you all need to stop with this defeatism.

[redstateblues]

122. Socialism is not popular with the majority of Americans.

It would help if Bernie would stop bashing the Democratic Party. He is a very divisive candidate

[PAMod]

101. The primaries will have failed to choose a nominee

if no one gets to 1,991 on the first ballot.

It’s really as simple as that.

Subsequent ballots will be where everyone will have to work together to name a nominee.

[wyldwolf]

107. It's how a party is saved

[PubliusEnigma]

108. Letting people who aren't in the Party run for the nomination is absurd.

[polichick]

110. This is why people end up desperate enough to vote for Trump.

[Apollo Zeus]

113. Adding Bloomberg has hurt Biden

We knew the superdelegate issue but letting Bloomberg in is the bigger mistake IMHO because it keeps ALL the non-Bernie options fighting each other.

[BusyBeingBest]

114. Couldn't Bloomberg release his delegates to Biden in that event? Am I not

understanding how it works? I just assumed he would do that, since he would prefer Joe.

[Aaron Pereira]

118. When Sanders said 'take on the Dem establishment' this is what he meant.

People were angry about that comment but taking them on will be required to win the nomination.

[Hekate]

123. This is what democracy looks like, actually. BS helped write the rules, too.

Plus, the party he may destroy is not really his party, as he tells us repeatedly. It's like he's the stepson who keeps saying "You're not my mom," but shows up for meals nonetheless.

What to do with such a person?