Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 09:10 AM Feb 2016

"...If this were any other country, we’d be quick to call this a CORRUPT ELECTION." [View all]

February 26, 2016
Common Dreams
Antidote to DNC Bias Against Bernie Is Massive Grassroots Turnout
by Howard Friel

Before supporters of Bernie Sanders vote in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, their candidate will already be behind Hillary Clinton in the participating states.

This is because the superdelegate count in those states already favors Clinton over Sanders as follows: Alabama (3 to 0), Arkansas (5 to 0), Colorado (10 to 0), Georgia (11 to 0), Massachusetts (17 to 1), Minnesota (11 to 1), Oklahoma (1-1), Tennessee (6 to 0), Texas (18 to 0), Vermont (4 to 3), and Virginia (11 to 0).

Even in his home state of Vermont, where Sanders holds a 75 point lead in the polls, he is behind in the superdelegate count.

In Massachusetts, where Sanders leads in the polls by 3.5 points, Clinton leads in superdelegates by 17 to 1.



.....Who are the superdelegates, exactly? A recent New York Times’ editorial identified them as “party bigwigs—712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors, and the like.”

But that’s not the whole story. The majority of superdelegates are actually DNC members. And the DNC superdelegates (432) outnumber senators (46), members of the House of Representatives (193), governors (20), and “distinguished members” (21) combined. In fact, all DNC members—that is, the unelected political apparatus of the Democratic party—are voting superdelegates.

Lee Fang at The Intercept has identified a number of DNC superdelegates: one works for the Clinton campaign and is a former lobbyist for a private prison group and for TransCanada to build support for the Keystone XL pipeline; another works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation; three DNC superdelegates, writes Fang, are officials at “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.”

Fang also reported that the same firm “was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage,” and that the firm had “previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.”

Another DNC superdelegate is a lobbyist registered to work on behalf of “the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.”

This is a small number of DNC superdelegates (although Fang lists more). But it’s difficult to find out what the other 400-plus DNC superdelegates actually do—either inside or outside the DNC.

Clinton’s huge advantage in superdelegates reflects a playing field tilted against Sanders by party officials who have a say in both the superdelegate vote and the conduct of primary elections, especially caucuses.

“One of the main differences between a caucus and a primary is that a caucus is organized by the political parties, whereas a primary is organized usually by the state board of elections as a regular election would be.” This statement comes from a 2016 New Hampshire state public service announcement, and it may explain why two of the first three momentum-generating primary elections are caucuses.

In the Iowa Democratic caucus, six of the seven Iowa state DNC members were listed as Clinton supporters, with one uncommitted. How is that a fair distribution of DNC officials?

In Nevada two of six DNC members were listed as Clinton supporters, with one supporting Sanders and three uncommitted. That might seem a little fairer. Then again, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a superdelegate, was also officially listed as uncommitted.

Yet, one day after the Nevada caucus on February 20, a veteran Nevada political reporter wrote a piece for USA Today titled, “Harry Reid Delivers for Hillary Clinton: Nevada's ‘Neutral’ Power Players May Have Saved a Campaign and Changed History.” It describes Reid’s interventions on Clinton’s behalf in Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, and which was the county that tipped a close caucus election to Clinton.


(I'm adding a discussion of the rigging of Nevada on Morning Joe~)



In short, caucuses, as opposed to straightforward elections, permit the party apparatus to exercise more influence. And the DNC—which features dual-role DNC members as superdelegate voters and election apparatchiks—clearly favors Clinton.

Perhaps the best way to literally see and hear the undemocratic essence of the DNC’s superdelegate voting system is to view two must-see short videos of party leaders directly involved in currently overseeing (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) and bringing (Harry Reid) this arrangement to the Democratic party.

In a televised interview with Fox News on February 12, the DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz, was asked to explain the fairness of the disparity between the actual votes in Iowa and New Hampshire that together favor Sanders and the delegate count afterwards favoring Clinton.

Wasserman-Schultz’s response was evasive and incoherent. (The relevant portion begins 1:50 into the interview.)


Wasserman Schultz: We Separate Superdelegates From The Voting Process So Party Doesn't Interfere With Voters

Likewise, in a televised interview with Reid, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked a similar question. Reid was as evasive in his response as Wasserman-Schultz was in hers.



It seems that the indefensible influence of the superdelegates is literally indefensible.


As of this writing, Sanders and Clinton are tied in the delegate count due to actual votes. Sanders and Clinton are essentially tied in the two most recent national polls reported at Real Clear Politics. And a February 23 poll by Reuters had Sanders ahead of Clinton nationally by six points.

Yet the tsunami of Clinton’s undemocratic superdelegate support has emerged as the dominant force in the election.

Recently, with media feedback, it has functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy for a Clinton victory, while sweeping away the legitimate votes for Sanders.

If this were any other country, we’d be quick to call this a corrupt election.


The only available antidote is a massive turnout for Sanders on Super Tuesday and in every primary state afterwards.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/26/antidote-dnc-bias-against-bernie-massive-grassroots-turnout

Not very Democratic of the Democratic Party......

143 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Massive K&R..... daleanime Feb 2016 #1
The founding fathers wouldn't recognize this government today newfie11 Feb 2016 #2
This isn't what they had in mind, that's for sure. RiverLover Feb 2016 #5
"He seems easily corruptible" GummyBearz Feb 2016 #38
I'm not sure the founding fathers would be upset. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #11
You're right. They would have been appalled.... Adrahil Feb 2016 #41
If you read the correspondence leading up to the Constitution 1939 Feb 2016 #61
They wouldn't recognize that black people are free or that women could vote either. Chicago1980 Feb 2016 #102
We've never had an election where they've made such a difference and, now that we have, Vinca Feb 2016 #3
Very disturbing. Along with us becoming the Party of Wall Street & War, can the poison RiverLover Feb 2016 #4
Well, the superdelegate issue is not very democratic of the Democratic party. Never has been. EndElectoral Feb 2016 #6
So you want to take the voice of the Young Democrats of America? scscholar Feb 2016 #80
Why should an organization have delegates. TM99 Feb 2016 #98
My favorite BS line about why these people get to be superdelegates: beac Feb 2016 #7
Exactly! ybbor Feb 2016 #10
Let's let it all play out ybbor Feb 2016 #8
Thank you. RiverLover Feb 2016 #13
You're right ybbor Feb 2016 #28
This is true sprts Feb 2016 #100
Let's not forget suppression of Sander's message by media - fm Melissa Harris Perry kristopher Feb 2016 #9
Dissension ag corporate rule is muted at MSNBC, again....She's my new hero, btw. RiverLover Feb 2016 #12
I don't see anything in that email about Sanders tularetom Feb 2016 #78
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Feb 2016 #14
Super delegates have always been a part of the process, this isn't anything new. lark Feb 2016 #15
Blame the McGovernites 1939 Feb 2016 #67
Super delegates haven't "...always been part of the process...." Petrushka Feb 2016 #111
OK, not forever, but since 1982. lark Feb 2016 #143
It seems that the time to make changes to the rules would be BEFORE the game begins... NurseJackie Feb 2016 #16
Agreed, no one wants to change the rules now ybbor Feb 2016 #29
And her standing firmly with monied interests and war profiteers, Rilesome Feb 2016 #53
Yeah, whatever. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #56
...define gullible Jezza Feb 2016 #64
Whatever consciouslocs Feb 2016 #88
righton. Jezza Feb 2016 #66
The important thing, IMO, is that many (if not most) voters don't know or understand . . . Petrushka Feb 2016 #114
If you had that problem in 08 and now again, don't you think it's time to fix it? Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #17
That situation would definitely lead to a loss GummyBearz Feb 2016 #44
Could we call on UN observers to over see and observe this election why not? INdemo Feb 2016 #18
The UN does not care how political parties pick candidates hack89 Feb 2016 #20
Massive K&R! peacebird Feb 2016 #19
Until Bernie wins enough a delegates for the super delegates to be a factor hack89 Feb 2016 #21
The very existence of Super delegates... gregcrawford Feb 2016 #22
Not really ... not when KPN Feb 2016 #86
Are you serious? gregcrawford Feb 2016 #90
I think the party leaders should get a vote TheFarseer Feb 2016 #23
Sadly - All Too True cantbeserious Feb 2016 #24
Like I've said for a while, some people were going to be Alex Jones fans at the end of this. OhZone Feb 2016 #25
Oh, no-o-o! Didn't think of THAT. My brother & other kin in SC would agree and . . . Petrushka Feb 2016 #121
The Ultimate Insider Represents Insiders Not The 99% Thus..... scottie55 Feb 2016 #26
+1 RiverLover Feb 2016 #30
Well, I have yet to meet a Single fredamae Feb 2016 #27
That's what the "revolution" is. We're trying!! /nt RiverLover Feb 2016 #32
The M$M media. GoneFishin Feb 2016 #40
It IS a corrupt election. davidthegnome Feb 2016 #31
Great post! No, we're NOT giving up just yet. /nt RiverLover Feb 2016 #34
If voting was legit, they wouldn't let us do it. nt valerief Feb 2016 #33
Damn. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #43
Our corporations and their political lackeys have corrupted every other country. Fuddnik Feb 2016 #35
From your lips.... RiverLover Feb 2016 #93
yep, only a landslide will show they can't do this. nt retrowire Feb 2016 #36
Ugh...DWS has GOT to go. SoapBox Feb 2016 #37
This is the pure evil against which Bernie Sanders is fighting. pangaia Feb 2016 #39
"Wasserman-Schultz’s response was evasive and incoherent." Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #42
The Exposure of the Vast Left-wing Establishment UglyGreed Feb 2016 #45
Excellent essay. RiverLover Feb 2016 #52
The author is spot on UglyGreed Feb 2016 #60
Great article, thanks. appalachiablue Feb 2016 #103
You're welcome UglyGreed Feb 2016 #106
your analysis is on point! Jezza Feb 2016 #55
I did not write it UglyGreed Feb 2016 #58
Lots to think about. Thanks for the link . . . posted to Facebook. Petrushka Feb 2016 #125
Voter turn out Geronimoe Feb 2016 #46
"We separate superdelagates from the voting process so party doesn't interfere with voters." Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #47
So you want to change the rules in the middle of the game dlwickham Feb 2016 #51
If the rule is both undeomcratic and unDemocratic, the time to change isn't as important rhett o rick Feb 2016 #81
So you want to make Trump president Albert Leo Feb 2016 #82
Sanders know what the rules were coming into this dlwickham Feb 2016 #85
+1 Rebkeh Feb 2016 #48
propaganda is effective Jezza Feb 2016 #49
"keep sand in your shoes" ;) RiverLover Feb 2016 #54
Why would Democrats not be biased against a non Democrat? Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 #50
That's what so strange, Hillary has republican principles but called herself a Dem most of her life. RiverLover Feb 2016 #57
Hillary started as Republican Jezza Feb 2016 #62
Hogwash Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 #68
study your history my friend Jezza Feb 2016 #70
I don't need you to school me on history Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 #71
not hogwash, and no intended insult of inteligence Jezza Feb 2016 #76
You need to study harder. She was in High School when she "supported" Goldwater Lucinda Feb 2016 #137
As a life-long Democrat, I do not feel that a candidate who is for war, cluster bombs, djean111 Feb 2016 #59
Hillary will win here in MA Chico Man Feb 2016 #63
it's looks like she has a good shot bigtree Feb 2016 #69
And the corruption doesn't bother you? senz Feb 2016 #83
Hillary is not corrupt Chico Man Feb 2016 #104
No she isn't corrupt at all. Millions from wall street leading up to campaign, set up a f*g PRIVATE RiverLover Feb 2016 #108
Does Bernie tell voters what they want to hear? Chico Man Feb 2016 #115
His words are backed up by his actions. His entire life. RiverLover Feb 2016 #141
What will you say Chico Man Feb 2016 #142
She certainly appears to be. senz Feb 2016 #113
Witch hunting is exhausting Chico Man Feb 2016 #116
Noting highly questionable business dealings of those who aspire senz Feb 2016 #119
Difference between vet Chico Man Feb 2016 #122
Every single one of those articles is factual. senz Feb 2016 #123
They are full of logical fallacies Chico Man Feb 2016 #127
Logical fallacies apply to argumentation, not straight reporting. senz Feb 2016 #132
Concluding Clinton is corrupt is an argument Chico Man Feb 2016 #140
By the way Chico Man Feb 2016 #118
I read this election is going to use up over nine billion dollars? polly7 Feb 2016 #65
"What happened to the PEOPLE?" Exactly!! THE most imp thin we need to do is RiverLover Feb 2016 #72
That's a good article. polly7 Feb 2016 #73
Yours is better!! Wow!! RiverLover Feb 2016 #74
You're welcome, I posted it in Good Reads already if anyone wants to see it. polly7 Feb 2016 #75
+1 Jezza Feb 2016 #77
You can partly thank Tad Devine for SDs. Regardless, if Sanders can win more regular delegates than Metric System Feb 2016 #79
The "Superdelegates" are members of the plutocracy. SciDude Feb 2016 #84
"If Bernie was winning, we'd call this the cleanest election EVAH." ucrdem Feb 2016 #87
Either way the shit's gonna hit the fan after the election. jalan48 Feb 2016 #89
SDs who lobby for private prisons & KXL, for Clinton campaign, & News Corp employee? senz Feb 2016 #91
Kick warrprayer Feb 2016 #92
LOL liberal N proud Feb 2016 #94
This wouldn't happen in any other country for other reasons Spider Jerusalem Feb 2016 #95
Massive K &R and kudos to Lee Fang for the research. snagglepuss Feb 2016 #96
Yes. In another country, it would be called corruption. nt Duval Feb 2016 #97
K&R! AikenYankee Feb 2016 #99
Spoken like a sore loser. Chicago1980 Feb 2016 #101
Question: Is there some money being released during the primaries that shouldn't be? MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #105
This is now moot BainsBane Feb 2016 #107
I must have missed the fat lady singing. RiverLover Feb 2016 #109
Rigged in that BainsBane Feb 2016 #117
You do understand that there are still a majority of states to still vote Karma13612 Feb 2016 #110
I understand that very well BainsBane Feb 2016 #112
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #120
I will not vote for Hillary in November. I will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot, JDPriestly Feb 2016 #124
Feel better now? still_one Feb 2016 #129
No. I feel very sad for my children, for my grandchildren and for my country. JDPriestly Feb 2016 #130
K N R Faux pas Feb 2016 #126
The Superdelegates are part of that legacy. Goes back to '72 leveymg Feb 2016 #128
K & R --- Thank you for all the research & links. Petrushka Feb 2016 #131
IF this were any other country, we'd have also called our coups d'etat coups d'etat, too, but silvershadow Feb 2016 #133
Superdelegates switch sides Onlooker Feb 2016 #134
Do you have any idea why the DNC is backing Clinton? JohnnyRingo Feb 2016 #135
Let me get this straight... KitSileya Feb 2016 #136
Hillary learned to sew up the super delegates from losing to Obama. lexington filly Feb 2016 #138
Absolutely discusted by what the Clinton's have turned this party into. Cobalt Violet Feb 2016 #139
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»"...If this were any...»Reply #0