2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders Supporters Revolt Against Superdelegates
Outraged by the delegate deficit Sanders faces even after his New Hampshire win, the senator's backers are taking action.
By Daniel Strauss
02/14/16 06:34 PM EST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Bernie Sanders lost by a hair in Iowa and won by a landslide in New Hampshire. Yet Hillary Clinton has amassed an enormous 350-delegate advantage over the Vermont senator after just two states.
Outraged by that disconnect which is fueled by Clintons huge advantage with Democratic superdelegates, who are not bound by voting results Sanders supporters are fighting back.
Pro-Sanders threads on Reddit have been burning up with calls for action, with some supporters even reaching out to superdelegates (who are typically Democratic governors, members of Congress, and top state and national party leaders) to lobby them on the Vermont senators behalf. Progressive groups are also taking a stand: There are currently two petition campaigns designed to urge superdelegates to reflect the popular vote, rather than the sentiment of party elites.
In one of them, MoveOn.org activists are targeting undecided and committed Hillary Clinton superdelegates with a clear message: wait until all the votes are counted before throwing support behind a candidate.
The effort, which will begin this week after MoveOn.org polls its supporters to pick which superdelegates to petition first, comes amid growing criticism from Sanders supporters who complain that the game is rigged in the former secretary of state's favor.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286#ixzz40DA6yzxo
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)They should have no problem now.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)President Obama acquired more elected delegates and they really had no choice.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
jillan
(39,451 posts)People are using social media & talking to each other - there is a movement.
People are paying attention. And those that want to play a game are on notice - we will not be silenced.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Right on time.
uponit7771
(90,363 posts)... have known what he was up against ...
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's some of his supporters that seem confused.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)You can bet the Democrats would lose in November. He is doing the party a big favor by agreeing to endorse Hillary if she beats him in the primary.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)never win the primaries even if he did.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Bernie's camp learned this lesson well after blaming the data breach on the DNC.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)SD's are bullshit. Period. Nobody's vote should be worth more anybody else's. It's completely undemocratic.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)1. Everyone already knows about SDs from last election. People are pretending like this is something new being drummed up to screw Bernie.
2. It's disingenuous to suggest that SDs are going to be used to take the nomination from Bernie. As much as the SDs are in the tank for Clinton, they care about the future of the party, and by extension their own political futures, much more. There is no way in hell the SDs give the election to Hillary if Bernie wins more delegates. I doubt even Hillary would ask them to do this. It would guarantee that Hillary loses, and tear the party apart in the process. All of the progress that the party is making with younger folks would be wiped out. There is absolutely no upside to such a scenario, so just stop pretending like Democratic politicians would commit political mass suicide for no reason at all.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)which excludes first time voters.
The future of the party is doomed if Hillary is the nominee because she is NOT growing the party at all. Bernie is.
Think about it.
The Dem party has been bleeding voters. Only Bernie has brought a counter action with bringing in people who are not Dems to vote for him. People like me who are Green leaning indy voters who switched to caucus for and vote for Bernie. We don't vote for the party, we vote for Bernie. You want us to stay under the umbrella to counter act the bleeding? Then start by being what your ideals were meant to be under FDR.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)The DNC takes this into account when apportioning delegates. If you live in a red state that has not supported the D presdential candidate in the last three elections, your state receives fewer delegates than does a reliably blue state like CA.
Why would it be different? The Democratic Party is a political party that exists to elect Democrats. Why should they give states that vote against Ds equal standing with states that support Ds?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)That some votes are worth more than others?
Tell us more.
Meanwhile I am screencapping you saying that because I need to put that on my blog and tweeting that shit.
NO it is NOT ok that some votes are worth more others and it's completely outrageous. You just literally advocated for a non democratic system.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)They could pick their candidate without having primaries if they want.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)You don't change the rules of the game mid-contest. Caucuses and primaries have already been decided. Are the super delegates who are supporting Hillary in NH - and who are supporting her based on the rules - now to go back and change their support to Bernie based on the majority vote in one primary? And in a primary where the D vote was actually a tie (BS won NH based on the Independent vote)?
The time to make changes was before the election cycle started. The only reason people are calling for a rule change now is because the current rules give Hillary an advantage over BS. SO WHAT? Imagine that: a political party sets up rules that give an advantage to long-time party members over usurper candidates who only become Ds to take advantage of the party warchest and infrastructure. Now, why would a political party do such a thing?
BS knew the rules going in. Don't blame the DNC because his supporters are blissfully ignorant of the way party politics work (I admit that I'm surprised at the depth of ignorance of party politics that's on display at DU on a daily basis...and this from people who are supposedly Democrats).
I would remind everyone that the Democratic Party is a political party whose job it is to elect Democrats. Not conservtives or moderates or progressives or liberals. Democrats. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties are private enterprises that have tons of leeway in deciding how the run themselves. The idea that a bunch of non-Democratic Party organizations should have any say in how the DNC conducts its affairs is laughable.
If you don't like the rules, either join the party and make change from within, or form your own political party with its own rules. If the DNC rules drive people away from voting for D candidates, so be it.
If you really hate the DNC rules and want to revolt, then don't vote in their primaries. Don't feed the beast. You can always vote for BS in the general as a write-in candidate.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)not during the midst of the primary season.
In addition - again, read the article - once the changes were made, both Hillary and Bernie set up fund-raising entities within the DNC *last year* TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE CHANGES.
Your point?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You do realize this news just broke a few days ago, right? All of the links below? Starting Feb 12th.
My point? Crony capitalism.
https://www.rt.com/usa/332318-dnc-donations-lobbyist-clinton/
http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-opens-the-gates-to-unlimited-wall-street-funding/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/12/dnc-drops-ban-lobbyists-pac-money/80291908/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/democratic_national_committee_ditches_obamas_reforms_will_now_accept_donations_from_federal_lobbyists_and_pacs.html
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/super-pac-dnc-take-steps-boosting-clinton-campaign/
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Are you kidding me?
I'm a D, and I heard about these rule changes months ago. In fact, I was surprised at the time that BS went ahead and formed a $-raising joint venture with the DNC.
Just because many BS supporters are low information types who don't have a clue as to what has been happening in politics prior to last October doesn't mean things didn't happen. They did.
Besides, the only thing that matters is whether the candidates knew about the changes. And of course they did, and that included Bernie. Your point would only be valid if these rule changes were happening NOW while the primary season has already started, or if Bernie wasn't told about the rule changes when they were made.
These rule changes were made LAST SUMMER. How is that changing the rules in the middle of the primary season?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Why do you think it's being reported by so many news sources starting a few days ago.
/head desk
Yes so many BS supporters are low info types. Sure. Meanwhile you give your candidate a pass on everything imaginable under the sun, from selling fracking to Iraq to Honduras to Clinton donations from FIFA.
Wake up.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)That included Martin O'Malley, who like Hillary is a long-time D. It broke for anybody who entertained thoughts of entering the D primaries under party rules.
You portray this as some kind of midstream, anti-Bernie ploy by the DNC. If anything, it was a counter-the-wishes-of-Obama decision. It had nothing to do with aiding any specific candidate. It was and is about removing a restriction on funding sources that had been imposed on the party by Obama. The DNC realizes that they do not have the advantage of incumbancy to run on in 2016, so they lifted a restriction in 2015 in recognition of the challenges they will face in 2016.
Bernie chose to run as a D with full knowledge of the rule changes. He could either take advantage of the changes or refuse to do the same. He elected to take advantage of the rule changes, just like every other D candidate.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)this broke a few days ago. Perhaps you're getting it mixed up with something else.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)the 7-8 months the rule has been in effect doesn't mean it didn't happen last summer.
Are we seriously having a conversation about this? What's your point? That the media is as uninformed as BS supporters? If so, I'll stipulate to that. Again, your point?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)They continuously lie and engage in dirty tricks.
What little trust Bernie supporters may still have had in the establishment is now gone, after Capehart's failed adventure in swiftboating.
The whole world is watching.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)Tad Devine who is credited as the person who came up with and pushed the super delegate concept for the DNC?