Wasserman Schultz: Toast or not toast?

Not being snarky but seriously, where did you get this idea, other than from some fantasy view you have?

I’ve linked to and summarized the history of how party candidates get chosen, with specific focus on the Democratic process, already. There has never not been a role for the party to be concerned about how to have the process result in the selection of a candidate who represents the views and goals of the party, who can win, and who can govern. The process is heavily weighted to being open, democratic, and transparent mainly because that process, with rare exceptions, will best serve that goal.

In a marketplace analogy the primaries are a means for an organization to decide which product to bring to full market and to develop the product and interest in it.

Yeah, maybe you could call the primaries “focus group testing”. The market regulator is the FEC.

Gotta lot to do, DA, and can’t go into a point-by-point rebuttal, but I’d like to clear up some misconceptions:

  1. “Because in the context of a primary in a democracy, the political party seems most analogous to a market regulator. Their job isn’t to be involved in picking winners and loser, or even have a preference for one market participant over another. Their job is to ensure that the markets function correctly.”

Completely incorrect.

For starters, people are asked to run for office, they just don’t run for office. This is how the party seats are filled in the local, city, state level… and even nationally, at times (though, by the time one becomes a state or national-level player, you pretty much are set on a career path.)

Secondly, in the Venn Diagram that comprises Democratic Party candidates, there is a circle in the middle which almost all intersecting arcs must share - this is called “principles”, “policy”, or “positions”… and if you want to run as a Democrat on anything more than a purely local level, you must agree to hold these core positions.

These positions, obviously, did not spring up ex nihlio, they did not happen by accident, nor do they exist because the “voters”/“customers” demanded it. These positions are not determined democratically, they are determined in committee. There is no “market” for policy positions that Democratic politicians or voters get to select from, except in influencing the writing of these platforms.

This is done by the party and is deliberate and proves that there is, regardless of your claim, a selection process that has nothing to do with the voters. At the very least, the process self-selects out (in theory) for those people who disagree with these policies. (And is why you don’t have Marxists running alongside neo-nazis in the same party.)

  1. “We have emails that indicate that there was a desire to hurt the Bernie campaign. Emails between top staff at the DNC.”

Again, No. You have no aggrieved party. There are no damages claimed. You cannot charge a crime without a crime having been committed.

When Bernie Sanders lobs a lawsuit, then I will listen. But as long as he is actively supporting Hillary’s campaign, as long as he has his finger on the Democratic Party platform (remember: his platform, her candidacy. That was the deal they made.), and as long as he and his aides constantly, ceaselessly deny that this election was influenced towards HRC by the DNC while they are campaigning for her… then the election was not influenced towards HRC.

Accusing people of having preferences and expressing them is quite a weak position on which to hang a corruption charge, DA. No reasonable prosecutor would touch this one.

  1. “The day the Democrats override the popular vote to appoint their nominee is the day I vote for whoever is on the other ticket. But judging from all the responses on this thread, it seems like most people agree with you.”

Nobody has said they’ve done this. Well, except for ex-supporters who haven’t paid attention to anything Bernie Sanders has been doing since mid-June. They are still saying this. But reasonable people, Sanders campaign officials, anybody…? No.

D.A.

The argument has been made that parties are organizations with goals and values which to no small degree exist to further those goals and values, that those goals are served by selecting candidates that share those goals and values who can win the general election and govern successfully if elected. The parties’ each want a process that achieves selecting that candidate.

One can argue, well I think, that in the main a democratic as possible process run with minimal to no acted upon bias by the party leadership (other than endorsements made by them as individuals acting as individuals) accomplishes that goal as well as is possible in most cases. I think it is hard to argue the case that it necessarily does and there is no requirement that a party choose a process that is as democratic as possible, other than that which a party decides to impose upon itself. They can choose whatever process they want, or have no process whatsoever, just a well funded individual declaring a party around themselves and running with no vote at all, or someone who loses in one party’s selection process breaking off.

Are you up for offering an argument as to why there should be zero option under any circumstance for those most invested in the party and its long term success of achieving its goals to have any more say in that process than someone who has usually voted for the other party and in furtherance of its goals? Or of those who usually don’t vote? Preferably of more substance than “Because democracy.”

Maybe if the USA ruling class weren’t a two-party duopoly, all JohnT’s talk of the Democratic Party being something driven by an inner party wouldn’t be so revolting.

It’s a feature of organizations, FG, not the DNC.

What organizations have you been part of where you allowed complete outsiders to vote for your leaders with no guidance, no steering whatsoever?

I’m fascinated to find out how this has worked in your life.

It’s POSSIBLE to change a political culture. However, it’s NOT possible in one electoral cycle. If you want to change a political party, YOU NEED TO BE ON THE INSIDE, i.e., a MEMBER of that party. If you want to give a third party a chance of actually becoming one of the major parties, you need to work it from the ground up. These are not things that you can push the right button and just have happen. You have to vote for people who believe as you do, and you have to vote for them consistently, for downballot (even LOCAL) races. You have to build the party you want, and it takes time and work. And, frankly, I think ALL primaries should be primaries, not caucuses, and should be closed, because if you aren’t a member of the party, why should they allow you to come in and try to hijack it?

Despite Sanders doing well with them, I would think caucuses are generally better at rebuffing outsiders. The “problem” was that he was embraced by too many party regulars to ignore him.

I am generally on the other side though. I think the two-party system is so entrenched that if you don’t allow independents to vote in the primaries then you are taking away half their vote in the election.

Question:

Am I the only person who considers Hillary’s handling of Bernie and his top people during the week of the Democratic National Convention to be a masterful bit of political wrangling and deal making on Hillary’s part?

Bernie had all the incentive in the world to bolt, to give her Holy Hell From Up On High, and take the Green Party all the way to 19, maybe even 25%… and he didn’t. Hillary effectively gave him control of the platform, got rid of DWS from the DNC, made sure that Sanders had a voice in the replacement(s), and kept him in the fold. And his wife, and the rest of his team.

It was incredible to my eyes, and I don’t think a single person mentioned it. Not in the press I’ve seen. Hillary kept him as a Democrat, he is now actively working for her and the party, adopted his plank, and is now running on it.

It is too bad the voters abandoned both him and his principles in their misguided anger as to how Bernie lost. I hope America doesn’t pay the price for their foolishness.

Individuals can always become members of the parties and participate if they so desire. It is not an insurmountable barrier. There is no constitutional right to participate in the nomination process.

Yet I still think letting independents participate is a good idea. Not out of their individual interests but for the interest of the organizations. Given a selection of candidates who are of the party and share in the party’s goals and values, a pool of independents participating potentially tells you more about how a candidate will fare in the general, and getting independents involved potentially brings independents to considering themselves as part of the organization, or at as leaners towards it.

It’s outreach and part of marketing the final product.

Given that assumption of course.

Well of course, that barrier varies greatly between states. The New York hard closed primary doesn’t give people much time to decide where they want to put their vote.

That’s part of my reasoning. The idea that the parties being “private organizations” is a bit of a charade and they are functionally extensions of the government is another factor for me.

I don’t think they have.

There’s just a certain weariness on the part of Democrats who think Hillary is trying to con them.

By adopting their platform and running on it?

Isn’t this what the Bernie people want? A more progressive Democratic Party with Bernie in key driver seats? No, he did not get all he wanted, but he got far, far, far more than, say, a 4-month Jr VP taking a shot for the CEO’s job against a 30-year company veteran would have received at the end of the proxy fight.

The fact that many Bernie supporters are mad because they didnt get all the cake, instead of 2/3rds of it, truly shows the immaturity in their understanding of the American political process. And in the Age of Trump, we are talking a possible existential crisis if every single anti-HRC Progressive does not yank their heads out of their asses and vote Hillary.

Regardless, I think I have said all I need to about this topic, so going to unsubscribe and let y’all at it. Thanks for hearing me out.