Democratic Presidential Nomination Super Delegates are here to stay….

Anybody who thought they where going to be phased out was fooling themselves…

Bernie Sanders complaints and wishes are just that,,,,’

The guy isn’t a Democrat….It isn’t his party….

The Democratic Party this week plans to name 75 people including lobbyists and political operatives to leadership posts that come with superdelegate votes at its next presidential convention, potentially aggravating old intraparty tensions as it struggles to confront President Donald Trump.

The new members-at-large of the Democratic National Committee will vote on party rules and in 2020 will be convention delegates free to vote for a primary candidate of their choice. They include lobbyists for Venezuela’s national petroleum company and for the parent company of Fox News, according to a list obtained by Bloomberg News. At least three of the people worked for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in 2016 while also casting ballots as superdelegates.

The superdelegate system has been a focus of complaints from supporters of Sanders, the Vermont senator who challenged Clinton, and activists on the left, who have said the party’s nominating system is rigged in favor of corporate interests. While most superdelegates are elected to a public or party office, the at-large DNC members are chosen by party leaders….

More….

Share on Facebook

32 thoughts on “Democratic Presidential Nomination Super Delegates are here to stay….”

  1. The Democratic estblishment won this battle. James can cheer – lobbyists and operatives making the party rules.

  2. Rhode Island’s Democrats voted heavily for Bernie Sanders last year’s primary (in contrast to 2008 when they heavily supported Hillary Clinton). But the delegates they elected were out-numbered by unelected super-delegates who all supported Sec. Clinton.

    Rhode Island’s new Democratic National Committeeman (and thus super-delegate) is former Providence Mayor Joe Paolino, who is clearly on the Establishment side and conservative on the Democratic spectrum.

    The inheritor of a local real-estate empire, he’s often the one to hold expensive Democratic fund-raisers and was appointed Ambassador to Malta by Bill Clinton. He wants to “clean up” and displace the homeless from Kennedy Plaza in the middle of downtown Providence, facing one of his biggest properties. He ran unsuccessfully in the primary for ex-Cong. Robert Weygand’s seat in 1996 on a program that was hostile to bilingualism and immigration (which he partially retracted in making peace with Latino leaders during another unsuccessful race, to succeed Buddy Cianci as Mayor of Providence in 2002.

    ****

    However, the article James excerpted above says that 75 superdelegates won’t be those who already hold another office such as state chairman or DNC member, governor or member of Congress.

    They will be selected by the national Establishment itself.

    *****

    The question, James, is not whether Bernie Sanders is a “real” Democrat; it’s whom do Democratic voters and volunteers support ?

  3. Yes guys….

    The Democratic party IS doing what it can to ignore requests from the Sanders faction….

    It IS THEIR party….

    If things get sideways?

    It IS THEIR problem….

    But in light of the fact that Sanders did NOT win the nomination LAST time?
    And hasn’t put his guy at the head of the party?
    and again?
    Is NOT a Democrat and doesn’t seem to want to be one?
    I think the Democratic party will be fine….

  4. When was the last time the “delegates”chose the nominee?

    As everyone knows, the nominees are now chosen in the primaries and state caucuses.The “delegates”just perform the ritualistic duty of ratifying that choice.

  5. That is cotrrect Jack
    The left Hillary in 2008 when it became apparent she wasn’t gonna he winner
    Sanders does tell the party what to do

  6. Just as we thought it unlikely that the Electoral College would again vote for the candidate with fewer popular votes (not since Benjamin Harrison in 1888), you could assume that the Democratic presidential nominee will always be chosen in “primaries and caucuses” rather than by delegate count (and possibly a contested vote at the national convention).

    But (after more than a century) the former has happened twice in the last two decades; why presume that (with superdelegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses) that the latter will always hold ?

    Superdelegates came as a moderate-conservative reaction to the McGovern Commission reforms, to McGovern’s nomination, and to his landslide defeat, on the theory that mere voters and caucus-goers didn’t represent the “real” Democratic Party. In the phrase used at the time, “to prevent another McGovern”. Obviously this wouldn’t be an effective method unless the superdelegates could swing the convention away from the delegate chosen by the primaries and caucuses.

  7. Why would you assume differently?

    You are conceding that the superdelegates have Never chosen the nominee(nor do I believe they ever will).

    As we all know anything is possible ,but due to the structure of modern campaigns ,the idea that the “delegates, will actually choose the nominee , is nothing more than a remote possibility that raises its head every four years.

    The “delegates “are nothing more than window dressing and an audience for the extended campaign commercial which is all modern conventions have become.

    Personally I believe they should be abolished.Even the television networks rarely cover more than a small portion of them anymore.Theyre boring and useless.

  8. I remember the outrage by the Sanders folks about Super Delegates, and those folks have never decided a nominee against the votes of the primary electorate.

    It will be the same in 2020.

  9. Keith, In truth, we don’t know whether Sanders would have won or not if not for the super delegates. There were people who voted for Hillary because her election was inevitable. In fact, I recall several posts here from you arguing that Sanders wins were depleting the Democratic warchest as an argument that Democrats should vote for Hillary.

  10. Hillary got four million more votes and had more elected delegates. How does that equate to “we don’t know….?” The Super Delegates have always raritified the choice of the primary electorate. Why would they have voted for Sanders? After all, they know Bernie first hand. What would the overriding reason be to deny the choice of the Democratic electorate?

    I know of no one who voted for Hillary because her nomination was inevitable. I know lots of people who didn’t vote or threw their vote away in the general because they thought her election was inevitable.

    At some point, when it was numerically impossible for Bernie to get the nomination it was incumbent on Bernie to withdraw. But, it has always been about Bernie and certainly not the Democratic Party.

    It is also without question that Sanders hurt Hillary, and the Russians exploited the divisions he created. Did Bernie have a right to run, of course he did, but I also contend that because of the already existing “anybody but Hillary” people within the Party, Bernie got more traction than if he had been running against (for example) Joe Biden.

    The main reason I believe he will be a non-starter in 2020.

  11. I am not sure that anyone who campaigned for Hillary has any credibility in attacking candidates for only thinking about themselves. It clearly wasn’t, for example, in the Democrat Party’s interest for Hillary to take hundreds of thousands of dollars for closed door speeches to Goldman Sachs in which she wouldn’t release the transcripts.

    But Hillary surrogates (including you and James) were busy attacking Sanders for everything – including wearing rumpled suits – until well after Hillary won the nomination. Not sure why you and James haven’t figured out why many of Sanders supporters never warmed to Hillary?

    Sanders kept registering voters until until well after you were calling him to drop out. And the voters he registered were more likely to vote for Hillary than Trump.

  12. I was for Howard Dean in 2004, but voted for Kerry in the Louisiana primary solely because I felt Kerry’s nomination was inevitable.

  13. Zreebs, I supported Obama in 2008 remember, even though I had previously worked for and supported both Clintons in the past. Why, because, among other reasons, I knew what would happen to her in a Presidential election campaign because of her name and gender. And, because I wanted a Democrat in the White House after eight disastrous years, and didn’t want to lose with a woman. Your snarky comments about her simply confirm what I always believed would happen to her if she ever got the nomination. Was she perfect? Far from it. But so much better than any of the alternatives last year.

    Can anyone honestly say they would want a Republican again after eight years of race and gay baiting Bush, and these horrible first months of the Bigot-in Chief? But that’s what we got, our new Republican President and his Republican enablers.

    I figured out long ago that men, white men particularly, don’t like powerful and intelligent women, Bernie was just the natural recipient of these prejudices — and Trump put it all on heat. People resented the Clintons for all sorts of reasons. My particular favorite was the fact that Bill only lifted seven million people out of poverty and not more during his Presidency. So disappointing. And then came Bush, you remember, the uniter not the divider, who lifted millionaires to billionaires, sent thousands to their deaths, and almost started another depression. But, she was a woman, too secretive, and a pragmatist (for shame). Oh, and she would start WW III, right?! So, we can’t have her.

    And, oh my God, Hillary gave a series of speeches for money!! How could she?? The same way every politician has, including Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. But, how dare that woman get a check for her words!! Unthinkable!

    Question, what did she do for those checks? (Lots of them went to charity as I recall.). What illegal act was committed? As Hillary said, it was a very artful smear by Bernie. The man who simply prefers to get his by paying his family out of his campaign account (you know, those $27 contributions). No silly speeches for him, saves time and effort. There is a very good reason that we haven’t seen his last campaign disclosure form. My favorite Bernie, I only think about myself, story was his refusal to leave the Vermont Governor’s race when he was in danger of electing the Republican – saying “both parties are the same.”

    After all we know and have experienced, does anyone believe these parties are even remotely alike? One wants to make rich people richer at any cost, and one gave us social security.

    And as much trepidation I may have had about Hillary this time there was no one in the primary field that could hold a candle to her. Certainly not a do-nothing big talker from Vermont.

    But hey, her emails right? The left snooted their way into a disastrous election result and they are still determined to blame Hillary Clinton for the outcome, and not their own narcissistic and misogynistic self righteousness. She was uninspired and uninspiring, remember? No man with her accomplishments would ever be referred to in this manner, and how could we ever forget her pantsuits. Nope, It’s Hillary’s fault she lost. Vladimir had nothing to do with it.

    Finally, it’s a very well established empirical fact that people vote for who they want to vote for whether they think their choice has a “snowballs” chance or not. Strategic voting is limited to local runoff elections almost exclusively. Certainly not a Presidential pick. But, it is one of the more inspired excuses for Bernie’s four million vote loss (those Super Delegates notwithstanding) – yep millions were certain Hillary would win so she got their votes by default. Here in California the Berniebots simply believe Hillary had two million Bernie votes shredded to win our primary. No, it couldn’t be that Democrats voted for her because they thought she would be the best nominee. I know Scott and Jack did.

    Come to think of it, the Trump and Bernie people have a lot in common.

  14. Yes,I believe thatHillary Clinton was the best candidate in 2016 out of those running.

    I still believe that.

  15. I also think Clinton was the best nominee of those who ran in 2016.

    I’d implore the Sanders supporters not to fall for the Republican line about Democrats picking the wrong candidate. They said that about Obama too.

    Make no mistake–Trump and the Republicans would have savaged Sanders. Could he have won the rust belt states Clinton lost? Possibly. There might have been some angry whites who couldn’t stomach Clinton but would have been OK with the old white socialist man.
    On the other hand the minority vote drop off might have been higher with Sanders on the ticket. And don’t forget voter suppression in urban areas –which likely caused Trump to win Wisconsin. That woukd have been a challenge for the Democrats no matter who was on top of the ticket

  16. Scott, I don’t recall the GOP line that the Democrats picked the wrong candidate, but if they said it, that certainly didn’t influence me. I am not convinced that Sanders would have beat Trump either, but I believe that he would have. He was way ahead of Hillary in the polls in head-to-head vs Trump and ahead of Trump by double digits.

  17. I wasn’t enthusiastic about Hillary….

    But I NEVER considered Sanders a serious candidate to be President of the United States

  18. You weren’t enthusiastic about Hillary? That’s a laugher.

    You declared all throughout 2015 that “the lady has the White House in the bag and will be the second Clinton President.”

    Others here insisted that she would not face a primary challenger capable of winning a single state against her.

  19. I have my doubts that Sanders would have won against Trump, although it less likely Trump would have been nominated if the opponent was going to be Sanders.

    I do know that if Trump had beaten Sanders, everyone would have insisted that Clinton could have won instead.

    I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that O’Malley, Chaffee, or Webb could have beaten Trump, because of Trump’s weaknesses, but those candidates never had a chance in the primaries.

    By the early summer though, it was clear that Hillary was no longer the “most viable” Democrat, and if the party had made a switch and picked Biden at the convention instead of her (and he would have run with E. Warren, placating the Sanders people), then Biden would have beaten Trump, due to Trump’s weaknesses, even though there was the natural resistance in the country to a third Obama term.

    Her not being indicted cost the Democrats in the long-run.

  20. Can we now move on to discuss the current occupant of the White House and the morally corrupt Republican Party.

    You know relevant issues to the demise of our Democracy under their leadership.

    Or some of us can talk about pant suits.

  21. CG?

    Someone here asked me back then about her…

    I had to think….

    I gave a list of why she was the BEST for the job…

    I still belive that….

    Hillary Clinton ‘s problem is she is NOT a good campaigner even if she BEAT Trump by almost 3 million votes and of course managed to win the nomination against the iconic Bernie Sanders!

    One of the reasons is she has come across as a cold person without the feel for the voters…

  22. You never really gave any reasons (I used to ask you) about why she was qualified beyond “she’s a woman and it will be exciting for them” and “she’s married to Bill who was a President.”

    But it’s crazy to pretend you were not enthusiastic about what you believed to be her overwhelmingly strong chance of winning the White House, and was not from the earliest possible time after the 2012 election and probably even before.

    That’s like how you spent all of 2014 insisting that the Democrats would keep the House and Senate in the midterms, and then when they lost both, you declared you knew it all along and were happy about it. Yeah right.

  23. Reason’s given where expereience as First Lady, Senator and Sec of State….

    It is even MORE EVIDENT everyday of Trump….

    Shit yea I wanted a Hillary Presidency…
    Shit YES we ALL though she had it in the bag!

    And yes…
    I get things wrong …
    JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE…
    Even YOU...

  24. CG must be happy with Dubya’s comments from yesterday.

    Of course for as newsworthy as it was it doesn’t change the fact that the GOP is the Party of Trump for now and for the foreseeable future.

    But hey let’s keep talking Hillary here huh?

  25. I don’t know what the “forseeable future” is.

    I am sure people thought that Republicans would always be the “Party of Bush” but they have sure moved away from that, so there’s no reason to think that another shift could not occur.

    It was the Democrats here that were talking about Hillary on this thread. Obviously, there are some major schisms.

    What about the Democrats of today and those who would seek to replace Trump? There should not be much reason for optimism there at the moment either.

  26. James was outspoken rhat he thought Hillary had it in the bag, but if you do back to the posts just before the election, neither DSD nor I did – although we both thought she was likely to win.

  27. In 2015, there were numerous posts from regulars (not saying Zreebs or DSD) which suggested that Hillary was going to win all kinds of white votes that Obama could never get because of #racism and that she would put Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc. into play and do better than Obama in the rural parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

    As it turns out the opposite happened and a whole lot of white people who had voted for Obama decided they could not vote for Hillary. Maybe that was due to #sexism or maybe it was not, but in any event, the theory did not hold.

    I maintained from the beginning that she was a fundamentally weak candidate who would find it extremely hard to win absent a calamity of a Republican opponent. It turned out that not even a crazier calamity than I ever imagined was enough to save her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *