I don’t have a huge problem with Bernie Sanders complaining about the superdelegates, but I have to point out a few ironies.
Just two weeks ago, I was explaining to angry Sanders’ supporters in the comments that it wasn’t Hillary who would be relying on them to win the nomination, but Sanders. Supporters of Sanders were very slow on the uptake on this, and now they’re trying to do a 180 and justify the very thing they claimed was an outrage against democracy.
As for Clinton supporters, they’re acting all butthurt now that Sanders is trying to work the superdelegates, but she did the same thing eight years ago, and the Obama supporters told them that they were high on their own supply if they thought they could win the nomination that way. Needless to say, back then the Clinton folks didn’t take kindly to our estimation of their chances.
You can support whomever you want to support and make any arguments you want to make, but you come off as sanctimonious and hypocritical when you move from one position to the other while claiming to hold some high moral ground.
Are Clinton supporters really acting “butthurt” about Bernie making a play for superdelegates? Maybe I’m not paying attention, but I haven’t seen much of that.
Agreed. Haven’t seen a ton of “butthurt” Clinton supporters. I did fall on my ass the other day though.
I assume they likely exist in some comment threads. Pdoing the devil’s work, supporting Hillary the impure.
I think this is all about the D.O.J. investigation. Bernie is signaling to the press and the party that should Clinton or a close Clinton aide be indicted, or any outcome of the investigation renders Clinton unelectable, Sanders will still be in the race. And should those Super Delegates pledged to Clinton see that this is clearly the case, Bernie has now established that he will welcome them with open arms and without hypocrisy.
If you read between the lines, he says things like “circumstances may be different entering the convention.” I believe he is referencing the outside chance of an indictment. I do not think he is under any illusions. He knows the only way Clinton delegates will jump to him is if it obvious to everybody, even the Clinton campaign, that this is the best thing for the party at the time.
Clinton supporters should remember one thing: just because Whitewater, Monicagate, and Bengazi were all BS scandals, does not mean that the e-mail situation will be deemed just as innocent, by history or by Obama’s D.O.J.
In other words, Clinton’s entire campaign strategy has been “I want to build on the accomplishments of the administration that has me under investigation.” Not as strong a position as nervous Clinton supporters always try to project.
Pardon me, but the only people changing their position on this are ’08 Obama supporters that are now with HER.
’08 Obama supporters that are now supporting Bernie have been consistent — SDs should have been irrelevant both times.
HRC has also been consistent because she entered the ’08 race with a boatload of SDs and entered ’16 with a bigger boat.
HRC supporters, OTOH, have been both crowing about all the SDs HRC has and criticizing Sanders for now taking any of those away from her — b/c that’s what Obama did. Except those that moved from uncommitted or from HRC to Obama did so in response to HRC playing the race card or AA SDs (like John Lewis) that did so after their AA constituents voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
The whole SD system makes a mockery of democracy — “we’ll let the people decide, but only if they go along with what their ‘betters’ have decided.” Interesting that the GOP didn’t find such a formal system necessary to control their rubes.
>>Interesting that the GOP didn’t find such a formal system necessary to control their rubes.
i’ll bet they’re rethinking that now.
A bit late to close that barn door. They can’t accomplish this anytime soon because their base is onto them. They’ll have to wait until their base is more demoralized and inattentive as Democrats were ’82-84 and also sell it as a small/modest change. SDs were only 14% in ’84, but have steadily increased over the years to 20% today. Are there more DEM officeholders (federal and state) today than there were in 1984?
To more precise, today 14.9%
Not according to Snopes which is a pretty good reference for technical questions like this, but the numbers do mush around to some extent. They do number 30% of what a candidate needs to win the nomination.
Love the Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination Toward Hillary Clinton — The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry: …
Historical note:
Not that this matters to anyone that follows the DEM leaders regardless of whatever they support or do.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179
You could try dividing 713 by 4764, see what you come up with – if that math isn’t too challenging for you.
LOL Right…. They had to add super delegates to fill seats at the convention, cause they cannot even field candidates for a great many offices at the state level.
Political malpractice is what it is.
Something like the Academy Awards, only the gowns aren’t as lavish.
And the goodie bags only contain campaign tat. Ah for the old days when wads of cash could be slipped into pockets.
I’m an ’08 Obama supporter who now supports “HER” and I feel no hurt whatsoever regarding Bernie’s play for superdelegates. I do kinda think it would’ve been better if he had just said he thinks the superdelegates will “see” that he’s more electable after he wins more primaries and caucuses rather than discuss actively making the case to them (and then let his surrogates do the active case-making), but that’s just my opinion. Probably doesn’t matter one way or the other.
Booman wrote a lengthy piece on this topic a few weeks ago in which he argued, plausibly, that a drawn out primary process with its peculiarly inconsistent rules is better than, say, a nationwide primary at picking a candidate who is really up to the challenge of the general election. You can agree with his reasoning or disagree with it, but I think dismissing it would be a mistake.
Dismissing what does not agree with them is their specialty.
So is cooking the math.
.
On the other hand, supers are the people whose election is influenced by who the nominee is. Who have to work and be led by this person for 4 years if they win. If you look at it that way, you can see their case for why they should have a more powerful say than a random delegate.
I do think they have much say.
Interesting commentary from Priebus this morning on CNN. When asked about the Rep Convention delegate rules his response was that the 2012 delegates & rules committee made rules for ’12 but no one expected those ’12 rules to apply for 2016 because the ’16 committee would make them.
He went on to advise that there was a misconception about Trump’s delegates being secure.
I’ll take the Sanders/Clinton fight over Trump/RNC any old day.
Yep, mainsailset, I saw that comment by Priebus this morning. Yep, pretty much saw that as a promise that rules intended to undermine Trump’s ability to gain a Delegate majority would be passed.
And to your last sentence, amen. The RNC Convention is almost certain to be a crazed shitshow. Can we imagine their Delegate count concluding with a scene like this?
I think not.
That’s interesting.
Every moment a Sanders supporter spends talking about superdelegates in public is a moment they are campaigning ineffectively. Hillary supporters must be persuaded to become Bernie voters by the time their States hold their primaries and caucuses. Voters don’t care about the damn superdelegates, and Bernie will not win the nomination by gaining a superdelegate majority if he doesn’t start winning more States.
In the linked reporting, Bernie says that superdelegates are moving slightly in his direction. If Sanders was winning more States, more superdelegates would move his way. This happened in 2008, and it was very predictable that it would happen this year if/when the Party primary and caucus results called for it.
Instead, it has been a deeply held belief by some Sanders supporters for a while that Bernie would win more pledged delegates but denied the nomination through the “undemocratic” actions of superdelegates. This has been an almost superstitious belief some have stroked to re-convince themselves and try to convince others that the DNC and Hillary are equally evil.
Have the superdelegates ever successfully controlled the Democratic POTUS nomination in this way? No?
If you want to talk about the superdelegates’ impacts on the convention rules, Party platform and other issues, those would be more legitimate things to be concerned about. But it’s sometimes inferred that the superdelegates have not won election of one sort or another, that they gained power entirely by being pure Party insiders. That is false.
I agree mostly. I think the Super Delegate system is good for the Democratic party. It was not designed to prevent somebody like Sanders from getting the nomination if he wins more than half the pledged delegates and the popular vote. And it seems unlikely that they would deny Sanders under those circumstances.
(Although it does make me wonder why Bernie has so little support in Congress. One of the big problems with a Sanders nomination for me is that Sanders and the rest of the ticket would not be on the same page. That never seems to turn out well.)
Where the super delegates would step in is when no candidate wins a majority of the pledged delegates. That’s how a guy with about a third of the Democratic party ended up being the nominee in 1972. It was a very Democratic process but as McGovern himself said “I threw open the doors of the Democratic party and 20 million votes walked out.”
Super delegates would step in and stop Donald Trump.
The Clintons have fundraised for and campaigned with a ton of Congressional Democrats; they comprise a substantial number of superdelegates.
Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party until recently, and has not been an effective partner in helping very many Congressional Democrats win elections.
I don’t Clinton supporters are upset about Bernie’s supposed pursuit of super delegates. They are amused.
All it does is tell us all that the Sander’s campaign knows that the race is lost. This sort of pretend it is plausible route to the nomination is necessary to justify continuing the campaign.
Bernie has every right to continue if he wants to continue. He’s got the money and a lot of people in upcoming states who want to vote for him. Bernie will do what Bernie wants to do. His call. But he can’t win and he knows it.
I think he is making a mistake continuing even if we set aside the interests of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. In my opinion, his best course is to declare a message victory, give the rest of his money to the most progressive congressional candidates he can find, and call it a day.
I don’t think it helps him and his message to limp along to the end as in… “Bernie had a really good night last night, but as we can see from the delegate map, it really hasn’t changed anything. Clinton edges yet closer to clinching the nomination. And in other news, Trump…”
Good point on that last one. If he harnessed his energy for Congressional elections, that would be great. To just campaign for the hell of it, well, he can do it if he wants. But he could have a big and positive influence in Congress if candidates see him as someone who got them elected.
Uh, isn’t it glaringly obvious that if a Congressional candidate has received aid from HRC but not from BS, s/he is going to feel inclined to support HRC? Just as if your neighbor helps you out, you’re going to feel inclined to help him out. There’s nothing sinister about this. Good Lord, let’s drop the cynical pretense that every interaction between human beings involves a quid pro quo.
I’m no expert, but it strikes me that if Sanders want to build goodwill for his policy positions, he ought to focus, and focus soon, on helping out Congressional candidates to the extent possible from his considerable war chest.
I think you both are making the same point, actually.
Hey, having grown up around a corrupt big-city Democratic political machine I am amused that you think that a politician doing favors is just being “neighborly”. Unfortunately, people being people and what not means that it usually goes past the “I’m just being nice” stage to the passing bags of cash under the table stage without too much effort. Although I guess they probably have much safer ways of collecting their cash these days that aren’t so amenable to FBI surveillance.
Bernie Sanders was a founding member of the congressional progressive caucus, and clearly more progressive than Hillary Clinton (in any of her various incarnations…) and yet they won’t endorse him. Is this traditional machine party politics? Is it because many members of the caucus aren’t really very progressive but just like how it sounds come primary time? or because they all fear Hillary Clinton’s wall street friends? For whatever reason, it sort of smells to me. I’d rather be voting on policy choices, not on a Soprano’s episode of who owes who for a “favor”.
It’s my take that Bernie Sanders doesn’t owe the Democratic party really much of anything. I actually think that the Democratic party needs his fig leaf more than he needs them, but still I would love to seem him campaign more for progressive reform candidates- although they are really few and far between and unfortunately Democratic leadership is going out of their way to try to squash them this cycle.
The Clintons campaigned and fundraised for many of the members of the Progressive Congressional Caucus. If the Clintons didn’t want the far left of the Congressional Caucus to exist, they wouldn’t have helped get them elected.
“…still I would love to see (Sanders) campaign more for progressive reform candidates…”.
Agreed.
“…unfortunately Democratic leadership is going out of their way to try to squash them this cycle…”.
Facts behind this claim are not in evidence here. If you’re going to use the Rep. Grayson shibboleth as primary evidence, then your claim is in immediate trouble.
There are about 450 Congressional races this year. If the DNC/DNCC/DSCC were overriding the endorsement votes of hundreds of County Party Central Committees and supporting alternative candidates, most to all of whom were substantially more conservative, that would be placing the sort of facts you need in evidence.
Rep. Grayson shibboleth
Sorry, no idea what you are referring to. However, when your primary opponent has the words “former Republican” associated with him, odds are good that you are the progressive in the race.
there are about 450 Congressional races this year. If the DNC/DNCC/DSCC were overriding the endorsement votes of hundreds of County Party Central Committees and supporting alternative candidates, most to all of whom were substantially more conservative, that would be placing the sort of facts you need in evidence
Umm.. no… DNC/DNCC/DSCC works actively to make sure that their candidates get nominated by those committees. See: definition of how corrupt machine politics work.
I served a good amount of time on my County Democratic Party Central Committee, one of the very best County Parties in the nation. Not a hint of dominance by national Party personnel in selection of Committee members or in influencing our decisions. We saw much more influence by local and State elected officials than we did from the many Congressmembers in our densely populated County. We didn’t see our pair of very senior Senators at all, and in my many conversations with our County Chairs it did not appear they had barely seen or heard from the Senators or their staffs.
If your experiences cause you to conclude that the Party works everywhere as it does in your region, please accept the invitation to consider that it may not be the same everywhere.
SOmetimes there is corruption and a quid pro quo. My problem is the ultra-cynical view that that’s universal.
If he gave the race up at this point half his voters would abstain from voting, feeling betrayed, -even trolled (sheepdogged)- by not just Bernie, but by politics in general.
Way to increase political cynicism all around!
Ironically the best antidote to this would be the Donburger getting nominated by the pugs…
Could Hill’s stubborn addiction to power and DNC inside machinations force the country to that level of showdown, leading possibly even to… can’t seem to say it.
Lovely to think that Hillary would want Bernie to stick around long enough to be beaten by fair means rather than foul, but seeing Bill regularly breaking the law by showing up and stumping for her at elections, coin-tossing and voter shenanigans, I wouldn’t want to bet the farm on that one.
Bernie will hang to the bitter end to finish a project started decades ago against near-limitless odds. If he loses, he will lose graciously, and he won’t go down without giving his all first.
The further he gets, the less work for his successors. It always was the longest of shots, but he has coaxed millions into believing again in democracy. To see him yield like Kerry did would turn another generation off politics, and if she does win I will turn off the news until she stops smirking with Machiavellian entitlement. A.Long.Time. If she’s really smart and wins, she should offer him VP. He probably wouldn’t take it, but it would show good faith to all those who bust their asses for the Bern.
She’s all about inclusiveness, right?
What’s in it for anyone to accept a VP nod from HRC? She’s a twofer. Her VP will be a gofer and not even glorified.
“She’s a twofer” means what exactly?
I think what she’s getting at is that Bill will be her de facto VP (remember when Bill joked he and Hillary were a twofer?) and so whoever runs as her VP won’t even be that.
Yet Vice President Gore was given leadership opportunities and latitude within the Clinton Administration to lead on policy issues he cared about, and was essentially elected President only to have the Supreme Court take extraordinary measures to deny him the office.
Yeah, I’m not saying I agree with Marie, just that I think that’s what she was getting at.
Understood.
I agree with this. But I think Bernie should continue his campaign to the very end, but less intensively. I’m concerned about his health, actually. I think he can compete, make the same points, and help organize voters.
As for super-delegates, we can’t forget that Bernie is not really a Democrat. He’s an Independent running as a Democrat. And, as such, the super-delegates will have a hard time switching over even if he wins the popular vote (and especially caucus votes) in their states.
Has Angus King come out in support of Sanders?
If I was him, I’d be looking for an exit strategy with the biggest splash. The speech announcing he is out will get great coverage. He’s also earned a prime slot at the convention for a rousing speech.
If he waits too long he really starts to annoy Democrats who are ready to move on, and risks getting defined as the candidate who can’t win while his revolution peters out with whimper. He wants to be defined as the guy who against all odds gave the Democratic party a good shake.
Good point. As somebody who is sympathetic to Sanders (but will happily support Hillary in the general and doesn’t believe she’s the devil incarnate), I find my sympathies slowly fading. He’s a politician, as he’s always been, and it’s beginning to show more and more. I was disappointed in 08 when Hillary pushed this SD argument, and that feeling is emerging with respect to him.
I think this is a terrible idea. A big percentage of Bernie’s supporters are not also Hillary supporters, and they’re not going to be there for her in the general if Bernie isn’t out there campaigning throughout the primary and then supporting Hillary once the primary ends. Leaving a big dead period where Hillary is left to her own devices, tacking to the center, and leaving the young engaged progressives disillusioned with no energizing liberal voice like Sanders is likely to bleed potential democratic votes.
Bernie can keep up his campaign and keep promoting his message, encouraging his supporters to make their voices heard and make the party respond to their desires while acknowledging their support will likely not be enough to put him over the top.
Personally I think that’s the best course for Bernie, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. I dread the coverage a months long uncontested democratic nomination leading to a lackluster coronation would receive in comparison to the 24/7 reality TV clown show the Republicans are putting on.
Maybe you are right. Like I said, it is Bernie’s call.
I’d be worried about flagging enthusiasm as it becomes more and more obvious to his voters that he can’t win. Many supporters are still in the denial stage, but as the primaries proceed, do people want to spend a couple of hours at a caucus for a losing cause? It gets harder to turn out the vote or raise money. Soldiering on can begin to look a little pathetic.
Once it is clear that the wave is not going to be large enough to win, I think it is best to get out before the wave crests and starts to lose power. That’s probably the route that gives him the most lasting influence within the Democratic party too.
Bernie has the right to continue because if he doesn’t, all remaining primaries are rendered meaningless, and any voters not for Hillary are disenfranchised. He doesn’t have to win, but since delegates are awarded proportionally, he does want to rack up the most delegates he can, and so do his supporters.
When party process mechanics dominate discusssion, the political conversation returns to inside baseball. And when the conversation returns to inside baseball, it is impossible to frame a policy mandate nor organize an effective GOTV organization that includes a growing base of people distinctly tired of inside baseball.
What all these discussions about the convention voting power of superdelegates elides is the power they exercise before the primary cycle begins and how it continues through the primary elections.
The NH primary was an eye-opener for many ordinary Democrats. The 30/21 delegate split for almost a tie in Iowa didn’t seem right. But a landslide in NH for Bernie with both of them getting the same number of delegates, 15, can’t be rationalized as anything other than TPTB having a giant thumb on the scale. That big thumb then carries on through the next primary because people prefer to vote for a perceived winner — HRC won in IA and tied in NH — instead of the reality that it was a tie in IA and Bernie won big in NH.
The simple solution is that superdelegates shouldn’t be counted in the primary totals. Let them just declare who they’re for when the time comes. And that too should be based on the actual results of the primaries, barring some peculiar circumstance, which is supposed to be why there even are superdelegates.
If a political party needs superdelegates or elites in smokeless back rooms engaged in horse trading then it doesn’t have a democratic constituency. The whole point of the twentieth century movement to voter engagement in the selection of the nominee was to get away from that crap and democratize the process.
Elected reps should follow Elizabeth Warren’s lead and keep their traps shut during the primary process. That’s when they should have the same power as anyone else that chooses to affiliate with a political party — a vote in the primary in their home state. Will the people make a mistake in choosing a candidate that loses in the general election? Sure. But compared to what? How many Democrats chosen by the party elites lost from 1860 to 1912? Or Republicans from 1932 through 1948?
Super-delegates are an indispensable safety device, to be employed when there’s a real risk of the Democratic voters out there in the country being wrong.
What differs is what ‘wrong’ is at the moment.
Now ‘wrong’ appears to be nominating HRC. Which would apparently be wrong enough to justify such a 180º.
It’s for our own good though.
Salus populi suprema lex. isn’t just for right-wingers.
There’s nothing ironic or hypocritical in Sanders’ position on this. He says the superdelegate system is undemocratic, which it clearly is. The purpose of the system is to enable the party elite to override the will of the party voters. Josh Marshall looked into the history when it came up and 2008, and confirmed that the official purpose was to defeat a candidate seen as out of the mainstream, e.g., another McGovern. Sanders can’t just tell the superdelegates to go away this cycle. You can’t change the rules in the middle of a campaign (though Clinton tried in 08). So he’s telling them to follow the voters of their states, which would make them democratic, defeating their purpose, but said purpose is illegitimate according to Sanders’ stated view. This is perfectly consistent. It is not even telling the superdelegates to vote for him necessarily: he has lost the most states. It’s just telling them to have some respect for the will of the voters. If you don’t accept the legitimacy of their purpose, but you can’t deny their reality, you argue that they should not follow their intended purpose. That is perfectly consistent.
Except this is not the position of the Sanders campaign. His path to victory involves getting momentum in the second half of the race, and cutting significantly into the Clinton lead before the race ends. Then, even though the voters chose Clinton, super delegates will override the will of the voters and defect to Bernie because he has momentum and because Bernie.
It is not a plausible possibility. The important part of the story is that Tad Devine admitted the obvious – that the race for pledged delegates is lost, and therefore the race for the nomination is lost.
Yes. The race for pledged delegates is lost.
I only said it would be outrageous if Sanders had a significant lead going into the convention. So I dont see any hypocricy from where Im standing.
Would it be outrageous if Clinton has a significant lead going into the convention and the super delegates chose Bernie?
That’s the plan for the Sanders campaign.
Dont know how the delegates shake out yet.
Hahaha, Utah would vote for a Dem over Trump !!
So they say now. I remember July 1988 when nationally Dukakis was beating GHWB 54% to 37%. A real slam dunk for the DEM nominee.
And this relates to a poll now in the red state of Utah how?
This has to do with the oversized role of the Mormon Church in Utah. Although Mormons are commonly quite conservative–not all, of course; I have Mormon friends who are liberal Democrats, and Harry Reid is a useful counterpoint, too–they also have long memories as a people. The migration to Utah occurred because of terrible persecution in Missouri and Illinois and the lynching of Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS church. Thus the governor of Utah responded to the anti-Syrian refugee hysteria by saying, in so many words, “those people are welcome here”. The Deseret News, affiliated with the LDS Church, has taken a strong editorial stand against Trump’s racism and fear-mongering. If Trump is the GOP nominee, Mormons who take hints from LDS hierarchy–and that’s most Mormons–are unlikely to support him.
Bernie is considered an insurgent candidate. Somewhat surprising for a person who was essentially a statewide candidate for 26 years but understandable.
Just one problem: Insurgents have the deck stacked against them … by design. Insurgents usually lose in general elections. We’ve seen TeaBaggerz galore lose what should have been easy elections … BECAUSE they were insurgents and not what the general population wanted.
Ok, Governors, Senators and congresscritters are usually “establishement types”. Because establishment types GET ELECTED.
You want to piss and moan about establishment Super Delegates? Elect insurgents to Governorships, as senators and congresspeople. Pay attention who is being elected to the DNC.
Revolutions start at the bottom. Top down revolutions just get a different establishment in command.
Another point? Everyone is sooooooo worried about the Bernie backers not voting for Hillary. What the hell makes you think the all the HRC people are going to be willing to vote for someone who calls himself a Socialist? I’m not particularly afraid of Bernie running, but for crying out loud the sword cuts both ways.
We’ve seen TeaBaggerz galore lose what should have been easy elections … BECAUSE they were insurgents and not what the general population wanted.
It wasn’t that they were insurgents. It was that they were freakin’ idiots and fools. Hell, Todd Akin was a member of the House. So it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.
Any time you blast the “establishment” as DINO or RINO … you are the insurgent.
Yeah, it IS that simple.
You can be both an insurgent and foole (h/t George Carlin) at the same time.
Even win while both, see DJT
Has anyone seriously been under the impression that the superdelegates were going to swing an undemocratic result in this day and age? Wasn’t going to happen in 2008 and won’t happen this year, either.
Don’t know, but I’ve been against the superdelegate thing since it first was introduced (back in the 80s, I think). It is undemocratic, but then we are talking about a party that has Debbie Wasserman Schultz running it.
The Dems may not need the superdelegate thing this year to ensure the coronation, Sanders has a tough row to hoe. It’s like guns. You don’t need it until you do, and then someone’s lying in a pool of blood.
I don’t like number of super delegates. The concept is ok, but they shouldn’t have an outsized effect unless the race is really close. Personally, if I ran the universe governors, senators and congresspeople would be delegates with these provisos:
With only 50-70 unpledged candidates the SD will have an effect only if the party is almost exactly evenly split.
The only irony is that Booman is “pointing out” ironies.
Salon — Bernie’s bold move: Sanders only candidate to skip AIPAC pro-Israel conference
RT — Jewish leaders rally against Trump’s `hate’ speech at AIPAC conference
Ben Norton:
Sounds to me like Trump will be in good company for his speech.
I’m sure this was not your intention, but since the AIPAC story has been widely covered, there are certainly better accounts of it than RT (Russia Today), which is uninformative, has misleading pictures, and where nearly all the commenters appear to be either rabid antisemites or extreme RW Jews.
Furthermore, RT is 100% owned and operated by the Russian government (RIA Novosti News Agency).
What you see in those pictures is a mix of groups with anti-AIPAC agendas rather than anti-Trump. It is very misleading, because the rabbis in the top photo are from Neturei Kartei, who have been demonstrating against AIPAC and other Zionist organizations for decades.
The actual story here is that 40 rabbis who will be attending the conference, are planning to walk out on Trump. RT’s intent appears to be to portray a specifically anti-Trump demonstration as an anti-Israel or anti-zionist demonstration. Could that be because Trump and Putin are best buddies?
The RT post does give the names of the organizers, Rabbis David Paskin and Jesse Olitzky, but does not show their pictures or explain who they are, leaving the impression that they are among the rabbis in the picture. In reality they are young Conservative rabbis (“conservative” in this case being a branch of Judaism, not a political ideology), who are demonstrating against Trump, not AIPAC.
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/336172/jewish-group-plans-to-protest-donald-trumps-aipac-speec
h/
Didn’t read the RT comments — never do. Grabbed a headline that is correct even with all your corrections — some Jewish leaders protest Trump at AIPAC.
Politico – Why Israel Loves Donald Trump… and why that’s awkward for Israel.
Of course this isn’t straightforward for Trump whose daughter and two grandchildren (with a third on the way) are Jewish.
Yes, of course the headline was correct, but little else.
When you post something, nobody knows what part you read or didn’t read, they only know what they read.
As to why Israel — or rather, 25% of Israel, if the poll is accurate — love Donald Trump, it’s hardly surprising. I don’t think it’s much different from the percentage of Americans that would vote for Trump. They want a leader that tells them what they want to hear. In other words, a bullshit artist.
On the other hand, Obama is vastly more popular in this country than he is in Israel. Tell you what, let’s keep Obama and they can have their Netanyahu.
When you post something, nobody knows what part you read or didn’t read, they only know what they read..
Don’t disagree. However, headline grab posts to make a point are different from posts making an argument. Someone like Billmon does both and it always seems clear enough to me as to which are which, and there’s no need to click the link on the former. I rarely do a headline grab post and as the frequency with which others even bother to click on the links, much less read, I provide and have read is close to zero, didn’t occur to me put any time into this one. And when the topic is AIPAC, finding credible news sources isn’t an easy task. NYTimes and WaPo aren’t at all reliable. They both along with The Guardian and RT have their strengths and weaknesses. So, consumers do have to pick and choose the most credible or least distorted source on many issues/events.
So is the idea that “an AIPAC attendee” represents the collective?
Only if a Trump rally attendee that does/says something unseemly represents Trump and that collective.
There’s a well known expression to describe this sort of reasoning. It’s called “guilt by association”. It fails the same logical tests whether applied to someone you like or someone you dislike.
Having written that, we all need to be aware of the potentially wacky psychology of crowds.
I think the idea was that that particular AIPAC attendee represents the likely Trump voters among the AIPAC attendees.
I have no idea what percentage of AIPAC would vote for Trump, but as for American Jewish voters as a whole …
Considering that a Republican presidential candidate is lucky to get more than 20% of the Jewish vote, it is widely believed Trump would get a lot less than that.
This article gives a pretty good glimpse of the situation:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4706135,00.html
What gets me is that Sanders is making a play for her super delegates, which raises this question. Why would those super delegates that are pledged to Hillary change their mind and support Bernie who is far behind Hillary in the first place?? She is a lot closer than he is to reaching 2383 delegates than he is, so it would make no sense to switch from Hillary to Bernie.
Because his sheer rightness, on so many issues, will haunt them the rest of their lives — but only if they fail to come to their senses and do the right thing now.
The dustbin of history yawns before them….
Well, hypothetically, how about if it’s Hillary that winds up looking like the “McGovern” in this race? Of course that’s totally impossible, isn’t it.
Conceptually and absent a black swan, neither Democrats nor Republicans (except Trumpsters) can figure out how it isn’t impossible.
This is a wicked silly discussion about superdelegates. They are just fine. Just like 2 senators per state is just fine, even though it’s hardly “democratic” (now is it?). It’s the system, the rules, that were set up by this club called a “political party.” If you think Bernie Sanders didn’t know about it, that it just came as a shocking surprise, then you’re nuts! But maybe he didn’t know since he isn’t a Democrat at all, however much you, I, or anyone else might like his ideas. Has he been to a Democratic convention before?
A party is a group of loyal people. Sometimes we support folks we’re not exactly in tune with because we are members of that party (as I am). If you’re not a Democrat, if you’re an Independent or a Green or you prefer not to state your preference, then you have no reason to be loyal to Democrats. But don’t count on the loyal people to turn toward you just because you yell “democracy.” There is a reason these folks are called “the party faithful.”
I know some superdelegates and they aren’t about to change. They have worked with Clinton, have appreciated her loyalty to them, and see her as the better choice. You may disagree with that choice, but it is the system.
As you also may recall, it was early in the 2008 election season when some of those same influential superdelegate types surprised everyone by supporting Obama. John Kerry (January 10, 2008. Ted Kennedy (Jan 28, 2008). Bill Richardson (March 21, 2008). They aren’t just elected officials. They are the leaders of our party and they do indeed influence outcomes or try to. It is their job to lead and they are doing that.
So where are the big difference-making endorsers for Sanders? I suppose the most likely one would be Elizabeth Warren who, for her own reasons (of which you all might be suspect), has played her cards close to the vest. I like Elizabeth Warren and her opinion later is going to matter. For Sanders it would matter more now, but it isn’t coming, not so far. In the end, I think she’ll be a good Democratic party person and will endorse the nominee.
That’s an important point. As flawed as the “superdelegate” system is, it serves as a check on the influence of those who may not identify with the party.
I don’t know what it’s called when people vote to elect representation for a body that they themselves don’t belong to or identify with: I would hesitate to call it democracy.
As a Clinton (and Obama) supporter, my butt doesn’t hurt at all that the Sanders campaign wants to woo the supers. They don’t owe either campaign their support, and both campaigns ought to be making their respective cases.
Thanks for the additional comment. But I would add that the caucuses and primaries are filled with voters who do not belong to the party, as state rules vary. In many cases, like a friend in MA, people vote strategically. He voted for Trump because he thought Trump would be easiest to beat. So it’s suggested that the super delegates should go by the small percentage who vote in primaries and caucuses, sometimes strategically? Or for candidates who are no longer in the race but might have won their state? (Think John Edwards). No. The super delegates are a check on those occurrences set up by the party (that club). No pretense of democracy, nor should there be.
I don’t like open primaries for exactly that reason. People can game the system. It usually doesn’t work and even when it does, you can make the argument that alternatives would have been better.
Take the people in MA who crossed and voted for Trump because they think he’s easiest to beat. My $$$ says they were balanced out by those who crossed and voted for Kasich to help defeat Trump (I know some of those).
And if both of those sets had voted for Bernie, he might have won the state. Which could have provided the “electability” required in more suspicious primaries. Alternatively, if both sets had voted for HRC, Bernie might have had less impact in the subsequent primaries because of losing a big “local” state would have had on the rest of the country.
Ok, ok … both of those senarios are far-fetched. But its not like its hard to change party affiliations anywhere in the country. If you can’t stand to be a Democrat for 3 or 4 weeks … why should your vote count as much as the vote of a Democrat whose voted straight since 1970?
The Intercept — Women Hate Donald Trump Even More Than Men Hate Hillary Clinton.
Men and Women do agree on Ted Cruz — net favorable:unfavorable with women -14.2% and with men -14.3%. Rubio (not that he matters anymore) -4.2% and -4.6%.
Apparently women are prepared to nominate the candidate that men most dislike and men are prepared to nominate the candidate that women most dislike. (Doesn’t sound like a good idea to increase harmony in homes and workplaces.)
Meanwhile, men and women do agree on another candidate. But why nominate someone that women and men both like? That’s boring.
As someone who has supported both candidates, with only a mild preference for Hillary, my problem with this situation is that Bernie is hurting his own reputation. Suggesting that the delegates should go against the will of the people is wrong no matter who does it, and it makes it obvious that Bernie is just a politicians willing to do whatever it takes to win, just like all the others. Now normally, I’m not bothered by politicians playing the game, but if Bernie is going to claim that he is above the game, he damn well can’t pull stunts like this.
“Politicians and their supporters favor the option that carries the best outcome for them. Film at 11.”
I don’t really care about superdelegates, honestly. Unless the voters chose a nightmarish figure, the threat of the superdelegates overthrowing the will of the voters is nonexistent. Neither Clinton nor Sanders rise to that level, so it’s a non-issue.
I’m a Clinton supporter and I’m more bemused by the idea of Sanders trying to work the supers than anything. Really, if he wants to make the case, as he just did that the supers shouldn’t be bound by the overall will of the primary voters in terms of going with the person with the majority of pledged delegates, and, in particular, that they should take electability into account in terms of who they vote for if they want to overturn the pledged delegate lead, which he also just did, that’s up to him.