Yes, heaven forbid that people should prefer the candidate who’s spent the vast majority of her adult life in service to their organization, as compared to a Johnny-come-lately who’s only using it to gain credibility. Nothing understandable about that. And still not an ounce of proof that it translated into any kind of action.
Feature, bug, whatever. The rules were, and the rules are. Sorry if Bernie or his supporters don’t like that. You can bet that they wouldn’t mind at all if the rules were in their favor.
Actually the rules were in their favor. The outdated and undemocratic caucuses did very well for Bernie. If it wasn’t for them, he never would have been a top contender.
Bernie supporters loved to complain about the debate schedule, but they had no problem with the caucus schedule. Several were scheduled on the Saturday of Easter weekend, Hawaii even held theirs on that Saturday night. Even the ones scheduled on a Tuesday night worked to the benefit of Sanders’ demographics as they could often arrive early, taking the nearby parking, and they have the time on their hands to spend an hour or so caucusing without having other obligations.
If I had to choose which a popular vote of 55 to 43%, a 12 point margin, is, “embarrassingly thin” or a “vast majority”, or as 538 put it, “A Close Call or a Landslide?”, I’d have to say much closer to vast majority and landslide. But no, it was neither: it was a solid comfortable win. I’d also give Sanders his due: he found a message that hit a sizable group’s Zeitgeist and stuck to it hard. He was not a poor candidate. He also kept fighting long long after he had no chance of winning - be it out of dedication to a cause or ego I know not. In my mind he had lost by Super Tuesday and more typical candidates would have quit then. It was mate in 6 with the loser forcing all the moves to be played, just because.
It was certainly not in any actuality a close race. It was not close at all. As that 538 article concluded
The reply was to a claim that the DNC is “supposed to” be:
[ul]
[li]a neutral arbiter[/li][li]a [neutral[/li][/ul]] facilitator of Democratic candidates, campaigns, and elections
First: the section you cite says nothing about arbitration and nothing about facilitation:
Second, the section you cite says nothing about ‘preference’ or ‘opinions’ or anything meaning preference or opinions. The Chairperson is not obliged to be free of preferences, opinions, or even bias. The Chairperson is obliged only to “exercise” impartiality–not to feel it.
And no one criticizing DWS has yet come up with evidence that any partiality was exercised.
“In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns.”
You got me. They didn’t use the word “arbiter”.
:rolleyes:
Why shouldn’t I ignore it? It’s not what I was responding to. But frankly, sending catty emails is an example of not exercising impartiality even if they tried to not let that alter their official conduct.
This is the whole point. The DNC was required to be impartial in their official conduct not in the hearts and minds of their members. Unless it can be shown that they weren’t impartial in their official conduct, they did their jobs.
Oh, I agree. Nothing has turned up that shows or even hints that they did not perform their functions in a fair manner. Someone just asked for a cite that showed that was even required, so I gave it.
First a return to the toast or not question, to Wasserman Schultz’s future. Canova has apparently been thrown under the bus by Sanders at this point. Whether it is that he no longer feels the need to punish Wasserman Schultz or does not want to lose any more of his shine appearing for someone who is clearly going to be defeated very soundly or other I know not. Certainly it is not that he is being a dutiful lapdog as he is simultaneously bucking establishment Democratic desires in Colorado. (Although sadly apparently not spending any of his energy or skills campaigning for various parts of the Democratic ticket, including many downticket races, including quite progressive candidates, that he could have some impact upon.)
**But let’s try to have that broader discussion. **
Once upon a time party presidential nominees were exclusively the choice of party leadership. Primaries were few and leadership was completely allowed to ignore their results. As they did in '68 to much discontent. Hence the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 which required “that delegates be chosen in forums open to all party members.” Coincident with that change Democrats had a series of losses and decreasing party ID, and the Commission’s changes were blamed for that by some.
The disaster of McGovern’s campaign and the ineffectuality of Carter as the “outsider” were part of the issue as was
Yes, most of the discussion in this regard ends up discussing the role of superdelegates as the means by which party leadership can attempt to get the party to choose a candidate who can win the general (even if in practicality they always rubberstamp the popular vote) … but the rationale is the same to the discussion here: is leadership having a bias and, as did not happen here, acting on that bias (even in ways that hypothetically are within the rules, are not corruption) a feature or a bug? Does it, from an ethical or from a utilitarian perspective, matter if the bias is of extremely small and ineffectual impact?
Trump’s dominance with a mere plurality in a very divided field when early on a majority clearly would have preferred any one of a variety of alternatives is a cautionary tale. The GOP side’s primary process is cautionary even before that: their nominee is often handicapped in the general by having to pass the filter of a very active and motivated relatively more extremist minority of GOP leaning voters that are far over-represented as voters in the selection process.
Is the selection process, like our Congress, a representational democracy in which our more democratically elected leaders make the decisions on our behalf, or more closely tied to being as completely democratic as possible? Should it be more hewn to one way or the other than it is?
Is any variation from being completely democratic an endorsement of oligarchy?
And can it be truly democratic when certain states get much greater say than do others?
I agree it wasn’t close, it was never going to be close, just like Trump was never going to get the Republican nomination.
Hillary does just fine making herself look corrupt without any help from DWS. Like I said, if you (and I don’t mean you specifically) don’t see anything wrong with this sort of bias, then you are probably not really capable of changing your mind on Hillary.
Now that you mention it, I’m surprised it took more than 20 posts for someone to notice. Good catch.
At this point the election has become a foregone conclusion and I couldn’t be happier about that. I don’t want Bernie in the white house and I think Hillary will make a great President but she is going to be dogged by charges of corruption for her tenure and things like this are going to help keep it going.
