It’s simple really. She owns the Democratic Party apparatus, lock, stock and both barrels.
I could explain Hillary Clinton’s “money laundering” scheme, which allows her billionaire and millionaire donors to increase their donations to her campaign far in excess of the legal limit on individual contributions (all perfectly legal thanks to the Supreme Court), in elaborate detail, but since Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks has already done all that work for me, I’ll let him do the heavy lifting:
Clinton’s Big Money supporters, in addition to what they contributed to her various Super Pacs and her campaign, were/are able to funnel up to an additional $1,320,000 per married couple in 2015 and 2016 to the DNC and Hillary’s campaign (the individual limit per person is only $660,000) by making additional contributions to those 33 state Democratic Party organizations.
If you watched the video, I hope you caught the part where Cenk explains that under last August’s agreement, which was put in place long before you and I had any say in who would the Democratic nominee, Hillary basically bought the support of the super delegates in those 33 states. The way this deal works, the super delegates are all getting kickbacks in the form of contributions laundered through the DNC. Again, this is all perfectly legal, despite the transparent similarity to a payola scheme.
Yes, this story is almost ancient history now in our 24/7 news cycle, now, but it’s one we shouldn’t forget. This deal goes a long way toward explaining how Clinton scared away any other major establishment candidate from entering the race (cough – Joe Biden –cough) or anyone but Sanders from mounting an insurgent campaign (cough – Elizabeth Warren – cough).
By January 2014, Obama’s largest Super Pac in 2012, Priorities USA Action, had already been transformed into Hillary’s Super Pac. By August, 2015 nearly all the big donors and state parties (along with their super delegates) were effectively in her pocket. Last August, Bernie Sanders badly trailed Clinton in the national polls and most Democrats just assumed she was the only viable and electable candidate the party could field.
In short, that deal secured the support of a significant number, if not a majority, of the super delegates for Hillary. In essence, she purchased them with the help of the DNC and the 33 state parties cast their vote for Clinton long before we cast our votes. It explains everything you need to know as to why super delegates are vowing to support Hillary regardless of the outcome of their state’s primary or caucus elections.
This arrangement whereby the fealty of powerful individuals to their sovereign could be bought through the payment of money, land or other “favors” used to be called Feudalism. But we don’t have kings and queens in America, anymore, at least not in the legal sense. However, what we have is a sham “democracy,” i.e., a Potemkin facade of a democracy, where the majority don’t get to decide who runs for office, the rich, powerful and well-connected do. The elections in the Soviet Union are the closest facsimile to our modern day political system.
It’s one of the reasons that Bernie’s campaign is a historic event in American history. Despite all the money and skullduggery and flat out corruption by the movers and shakers of the ironically named “Democratic Party” directed against a virtually unknown, self-described Democratic Socialist is unique in this era of Oligarchic control of the political process. Powered only by the enthusiasm of his supporters and their small, but far more numerous donations, Bernie has pushed, arguably, one of the most corrupt candidates in my lifetime to spend far more money, time and effort to secure the Democratic nomination than she ever anticipated, one which she no doubt once believed would be a stone cold lock the day after the results of the Iowa Caucuses were counted.
Well, as Cenk says, it’s “her party,” though even the candidate who now appears more electable versus any Republican in the national polls is her opponent. Of course, we are witnessing the same drama play out on the Republican side, with a full court press by the Republican establishment to do anything to stop Donald Trump, even if that means getting into bed with the loathsome Ted Cruz.
And people wonder why so may Americans feel shunted aside by our two party system with its pay to play immorality that does everything to benefit the top of the economic food chain, and tosses a few scraps every once in a while to the rest of us. And then they wonder why the rate of individual American citizens who register to vote increasingly do so as independents. Indeed, voters registered for either party has sharply declined.
Well, the high rollers who bet big on Jeb Bush and other establishment figures on the GOP side of this duopoly lost their money. Hillary Clinton is counting on the bet her big money donors made on her to pay off, even should she she fail to win a majority of ordinary delegates after the primaries are over. So far, it has, even if she is limping to the finish line exposed as a seriously flawed candidate and perpetual gaffe machine.
Actually she’s not sweating it because Sanders didn’t win big enough to really close his gap in delegates and she is comfortably ahead in the polls in the next few states, each of which are more delegate-rich than WI is, such as NY and PA.
Absolutely, upyernoz, and the fact that Steven can’t recognize that very obvious fact says quite a bit. Steven also doesn’t seem to understand that Hillary had no need to offer “kickbacks” to the superdelegates, since the ENTIRE POINT of the superdelegates is to stop candidates like Bernie. By definition they’re members of the party establishment. It’s a lousy, anti-democratic system — but “kickbacks” are entirely superfluous.
And anyone who thinks a Democratic socialist is more electable than Hillary either knows nothing about politics or lives in a self-imposed delusion.
You’re trying to speak logically to the purity brigade. Might as well scream at the moon.
PS: I voted for Sanders in the Washington state caucus. If I were emperor of the universe, I’d appoint Bernie president way before Hillary. But reality being what it is, sometimes ya just gotta roll with stuff that isn’t warm and fuzzy.
Agree with everything you said, Parallax, except what bothers me isn’t the emphasis on purity. It’s the fundamental ignorance about politics.
Steven, like a lot of Bernie’s more vocal supporters, thinks it’s the People’s Front of Judaea, not the Romans, who are the real enemy.
They are the problem too. I see partisan loyalty gets in the way. Tell me, DiTourno, does the Great Recession happen if we have President Gore?
I have no idea what that means.
If President Gore was elected in 2000. Do we have a 2007-2008 financial crisis, or not? I say we do. It happens regardless. Bush just happened to be at the helm to take the blame.
And the war of revenge for daddy bush and the fact that the idiot son wanted to be a “war president”? Does that happen too? Does Gore blow off the intelligence official trying to brief him on an imminent terrorist strike? Does Gore cut taxes for the rich while launching two wars? Does he hand over plum government jobs to cronies and then say “Great job Brownie” while a city drowns?
If you can’t see the difference between Republicans and Democrats (even those less than perfect), you’re blind.
hey, calm down, Parallax. seabe’s not saying Gore would have been the same, only that the financial crisis would have happened under Gore as well. seabe’s keeping to the topic narrowly on the topic of financial
Clinton made regime change in Iraq US policy. Bush II followed that logic to a blood-thirsty end. Gore likely would have continued this consensus and potentially invaded, too. Or at the very least continued the Bush-Clinton (hey there it is again!) consensus of regime change, no-fly-zones, and sanctions. Now there’s still a chance he wouldn’t have done any of those things, navigated the waters and found an out (similar to Obama backing off striking Syria and negotiating chemical weapons out of the country, a great foreign policy achievement, one McCain would not have done), as opposed to Bush II being a certainty of doing them.
But that wasn’t the argument I was making. I also wasn’t equating the two pols as one in the same, but saying that we have a lot of slime in the Democratic party that requires dredging. But hey, you’re two for two with straw-mans on this thread (first being “purity” as a reason to support Sanders), so why not go for three?
I will say, though, at least we can get SOME agreement on the heart of the disagreement between the two camps here. Clinton’s people essentially think if those damn Republicans weren’t in the way, everything would be peachy.
Of course you don’t understand that, DiTourno.
Strawman. Sanders supported the F-35 program, including trying to get those jobs to his state — despite being a failure. I want the Pentagon dismantled. Sanders hasn’t called for that. Damn my purity!
he also voted for aumf twice.
Larry Summers, who pocketed 5.2 million at a hedge fund, and who served both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: “One of the reasons that inequality has probably gone up in our society is that people are being treated closer to the way that they’re supposed to be treated.”
That was from Thomas Frank’s LISTEN, LIBERAL. I’ve noticed a lot of new faces here at Booman Trib, who seem to be here to deride Sanders supporters.
If they’re not just being paid for by one of Hillary’s Super PACs they might want to read the book.
When the corporate Democratic Party abandons the working class the working class have no obligation to stick around. I’d like to see Sanders win, because at this late stage Bernie or someone like him will be the only thing that will save the Democratic Party from itself.
It’s not that I don’t want reform. It’s that I see change as something that happens incrementally over time. If you abandon Hillary, things are going to get much worse. Think about another Scalia (or worse) on the court for 30 or more years. Think about the countless ways Republicans make mischief. If you abandon our candidate, you have no right to complain about any of it.
The Democratic party has been adrift for a couple of decades, because too many of the politicians chose to forget FDR. FDR’s administration did big things–so did the Kennedys and LBJ when it came to Civil Rights, Medicare and the War on Poverty. People loved these guys, except LBJ got involved in escalating the Vietnam War and we know how that turned out. Big things are needed at times and today this is what people want to see–not the “two steps forward, and two steps back” that they have been getting for years. Due to income inequality, there are people that are experiencing “many steps backward” and this is a big problem. There are some really great progressive Democrats in the House and Senate, but they’re not in positions of power and there are too few of them. There used to be. Ask yourself, what the heck happened? I do and it disturbs me.
As I mention elsewhere, this admittedly less than comprehensive attempt to summarize the records of great Democratic Presidents whitewashes the multiple examples of explicitly racist laws and policy implementations that are part of the record of FDR and his Democratic Party-dominated Congresses.
I could add that the U.S. military began its immoral tradition of large-scale incinerations of civilians during World War II. Wars by their nature are immoral at one level or another, but it damages us to whitewash what we and our allies did to ordinary civilians in The Good War.
if only. the point a few of us are making is that Hillary is such a flawed candidate at this point, due to the financial situation which in turn leads to , in ability to inspire the youth and some other portions of needed base, and her shortcomings as a candidate on the stump (short tempered with young people asking for spontaneous response) seem to override her strengths, end result, many of us fear, if she runs against anyone but Trump she may lose – this is what the national polls are showing right now
all dems have to do is get off their asses and vote. how hard is that?
How have the Clintons and Obama improved the lot of the bottom 80% since ’92? Okay, we got ACA, but people are still going bankrupt from healthcare costs and dying from not being able to afford medicines. So I’ll give a half-star.
Hey, he bailed out the banks (but not the millions of people who lost their houses).
Bill Clinton shipped workers’ jobs overseas, but did increase the prison population substantially. He also ended welfare.
H. Clinton voted for every free trade deal she could, every war and regime change that she could, under Bush.
The typical answer I get from a Hillary supporter is, “Well, they’re better than the Republicans.” Well, they’re not enough better to get my vote.
As we all can read, Sanders is the better candidate, the person who could actually smash the Repubs in the general.
how about millions and millions of jobs created? how about civil rights for lgbt? how about reducing the deficit under clinton? how about keeping us out of ww3 with the middle east and israel? and probably russia and n korea.
you too are delusional.
Wow, it’s fun to look back and see what my small comment about delegate counts has spawned!
I actually like both Bernie and Hillary. I’d be happy to vote for either even though neither are perfect (if I only voted for perfect I would stop voting). It’s fun to see how a contested primary makes people on the internet lose their fucking minds.
That’s your idea of ‘fun’?
Sure, because I still believe that a contested primary is ultimately good for the party because it gets the press to focus on their issues. And because I don’t think this will hurt the democrats in the general election. People’s attention span are too short and we all remember how the PUMAs brought us President McCain in 2008.
I guess it comes down to the definition of ‘is’. A true Clinton evergreen.
Wouldn’t it be be wonderful if the Dems had to cheat Sanders out of the nomination just as the Rats are trying to do to Trump. And then both of them…Trump and Sanders…decided to run anyway? Not just a “third” party but a third and fourth party!!!
As the debutante crowd likes to say, “How fun!!!”
But…I have a feeling HRC is about to get blown out of the water first. Just a hunch.
Panama Papers?
Email scandal?
New Benghazi info?
Crooked donations from foreign powers?
Something else entirely?
Or just the sheer weight of the sordid Clinton history that is so blatantly available in this brave new Info World in which we now live.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Did you ever see the list of dead people who had direct connections to the Clintons? Easy to find on the web. Yeah…I know. It’s bullshit. Or so it is said. They say the same thing about the many people connected to the JFK murder who conveniently died. But…bullshit or not…that’s a lot of coincidences!!! True, false or…most likely…somewhere in the middle between those two absolute extremes, that’s even more weight hanging on her candidacy. When does the rope begin to unravel?
I just googled the list. One had 80 people on it and the other 44. I wish these conspiracy guys could get in sync but more than that I have faith it is all baloney. I hope anyway.
Arthur the dead people list is bullshit.
You know who should be on it? All the kids in Iraq who died from malnutrition under Bill Clinton’s sanctions regime.
http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
But Steven…
Aren’t we always being given that “bullshit” line? About almost everything?
“JFK’s murder was a conspiracy.”
“So were MLK’s, RFK’s and Malcolm X’s.”
“The Watergate thing was a conspiracy to get rid of an incresingly unbalanced and/or uncontrollable Nixon.”
“The whole War On Drugs and ensuing Iran Contra scam that decimated the inner cities of the U.S. was a conscious effort on the part of the government to kill two birds with one stone. Oliver Stone, to be exact.”
Even when things like this are corroborated by insiders, like the following:
What do we hear?
“The Iraq War excuses were was a neocon plot.”
Bush II was a total puppet of Cheney.
“Really?”
“Y’all are sure about that?”
I could go on, but you get the picture, right?
I am more inclined to believe people who at the very least have not been proven sufficiently to me to be liars than I am to believe the entire proven-guilty-a-thousand-times-over Permanent Government and its totally controlled media complex.So you know what I say the the people who tell me everything that casts a negative light of their affairs is:
I say:
Right back to them.
Because why again?:
<U<That’s</u> why.
Later…
AG
P.S. I once again refer to my sig for further elucidation on the subject. And y’know what? The U.S. electorate is wising up to the scam. That’s why trump and Sanders are doing so well. neither one of them is running the mainstream “BULLSHIT!!!” routine. Trump has his own vast stockpile of manure and Sanders is pretty damned straight.
Is that a light at the end of the tunnel or are just happy to be able to see each other again?
Something is up!!!
Watch.
500,000 dead children is good enough for me Arthur. We use to call stuff like that war crimes or genocide. But hey, that’s just the way the USA rolls.
Totally agree with you, Steven. I tried to give you a 4, but unfortunately I seem to be blocked from rating comments for the past two days.
Good enough for me, too. But apparently not the general public.
Bin Laden’s quote below still holds true today.
However..25–>80 (More or less…who’s counting when it’s all collateral damage in the service of the PermaGov) good ol’ ‘Murican boyz ‘n girlz dead in service to the Big Fixeroo?
That’d git some attention!!!
Bet on it.
AG
Arthur, the basic principle is not that complicated. Some things that are called bullshit really are. And some are not.
The trick is figuring out which is which.
You write:
Yes, indeed. That certainly is the trick.
Do you have a corner on that trick, priscianus?
I don’t. That’s why I try to consider almost everything as at least potentially possible.
Schroedinger’s cat. The Indetrminancy theory. Squared. Cubed, even.
It is entirely possible that some number of these people were killed in an attempt to hide certain guilty parties from discovery. This is basic basic criminal business. Crook 101. Happens all the time. And it is equally possible that none of them were. But in Schroedinger’s thought experiment, only when the cage is opened and the cat is conclusively found to be dead or alive do we know the truth of the matter.
What we have here is a number of well known lying entities…also called the establishment media…telling us “Fuggedaboudit!!! Didn’t happen. Whaddayou, nuts or sump’n?” These are the same entities who told us that yellowcake was a valid reason to invade Iraq and produce untold numbers of casualties in the process, the same ones that told us “Torture!!!??? Us!!!??? Of course not!!!” until the pics showed up, the same ones that said we were safe from uncontrolled surveillance until Snowden blew the top off of that particular set of lies. Etc., etc., fucking etc.
‘Scuse me if I don’t reflexively believe them.
‘Scuse me!!!
AG
I loved how the Sri Lankan lobbyist was so concerned about the Montana Democratic Party that they sent over a quarter million to them, who then turned around and sent most of it back to a Hillary PAC.
That shows democracy at work. The American way.
Just curious how come Sri Lanka is so concerned about the Montana Democrats.
I can understand why Hillary supporters don’t want to talk about the post. I mean, would you like to explain why Sri Lanka gives a hoot about Montana?
The good thing is we may finally understand why John Lewis didn’t see Bernie at demonstrations. Georgia Democrats were in on the money-laundering too. And when you think about it, it was a fairly cheap investment.
Bob, I’m trying to follow the quarter million from Sri Lanka comment you made. Was that mentioned in the Counterpunch article? It’s weird–I see “Sri Lankan lobbyist” in my Google search results, but then I can’t find it in the article once I click through.
Any help?
From the Counterpunch article:
“It’s worse than wicked, my dear, it’s vulgar” -Punch Almanac, 1876
Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.
The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.
In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.
The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
In other words, a single donor, by giving 10,000 dollars a year to each signatory state could legally give an extra $330,000 a year for two years to the Hillary Victory Fund. For each donor, this raised their individual legal cap on the Presidential campaign to $660,000 if given in both 2015 and 2016. And to one million, three hundred and 20 thousand dollars if an equal amount were also donated in their spouse’s name.
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.
The money was either transferred to the Hillary for America or Forward Hillary PACs and spent directly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign, often paying the salaries and expenses within those groups, or it was moved into the DNC or another Clinton PAC. Some of it was spent towards managing the Hillary merchandise store, where you can buy Hillary T shirts and hats and buttons.
The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.
One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.
If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.
The leadership of a very broke Montana Democratic Party decided in August of 2015 that this was a seductive deal they were willing to make. And by the end of that year scores of 10,000 donations came in from out of state.
Montana’s list of out of state donors to the state campaign reads like a Who’s Who of the Democratic financial elites. The names vary little from the list of high donors to the other 32 states that signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund.
What do billionaires like Esprit Founder Susie Buell of California, and businessman Imaad Zuberi of California, and media mogul Fred Eychaner of Chicago, and Donald Sussman hedgefund manager from New York and Chicago real estate mogul J.B Pritzker, and gay activist Jon Stryker of NY, and NRA and Viacom lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes and entertainment mogul Haim Saban all have in common?
They all appear to be brilliant business people who have all given millions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and to her various PACS. And they all gave the Montana State Democratic Party $10,000 each in 2015. It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.
None of these are awful people; they are simply awfully rich. And they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president. And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clinton’s pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform.
And the Hillary Victory Fund’s marriage of convenience with the Montana party negates Governor Steve Bullock’s eloquent insistence that he will do anything necessary to overturn Citizen’s United. And the coldness of the deal’s intention of doing anything it can to further Hillary Clinton’s chances for becoming President brings Senator Jon Tester’s stated neutrality in the Democratic primary into a sharp and unflatteringly hypocritical focus.
One doubts that most of these one percenters adore fly fishing. Or care much about mountain climbing, or skiing, or collecting morel mushrooms along the edges of the Yellowstone river in the fall. We can safely assume that they will not be raising buffalo for meat in the near future, or buying an organic farm next to Senator Jon Tester’s. In fact we can probably assume that most of them have never been to Montana.
And one doubts if many of them care or not if Governor Steve Bullock will get re-elected or will be replaced with a creationist businessman named Greg Gianforte whose family gave $1.5 million to a creationist museum in Glendive, Montana that proudly displays a man riding a dinosaur as if it were a rodeo horse.
That outsiders could make their votes count for more than our own in our Presidential primary by supporting a system that is rigged in favour of the wishes of lobbyists and billionaires running their money through our state democratic party coffers is a concept that most Montanans would be repulsed by.
Yet it is inconceivable that not only did the state’s chairperson, Nancy Keenan, approve the deal, but that both Governor Steve Bullock and Democratic senator Jon Tester approved it as well. It directly affects the funding of both of their campaigns, now and in 2018.
I have yet to hear back from any Montana democratic office holders that they have even heard of the Hillary Victory Fund. Monica Lindeen, the State Auditor, has never heard of it. A couple of county Chair persons have never heard of it. Jean Dahlman, a feisty independent thinker and a ranch woman who is on the executive committee of the state party has never heard of it. And when I wrote Jonathan Motl, the man in charge of the Office of Political Practices and a demon for making sure our state laws about contributions are enforced, he did not get back to me. So I am assuming he has never heard of it either. Who was in on this? No one seems willing to tell.
thanks for details
Are you saying that for you obeying the law is a crime and getting the most votes proves it?
I wouldn’t say that. But the DNC process sucks, maybe, heaven forbid, corrupt.
Steven D, I respect you.
I’m a Sanders supporter.
The biggest problem the Sanders campaign has is not the DNC, or the superdelegates, or DWS, or Diana Rogalle, or the other folderol you and others have been presenting here, as if any of these people mean anything at all to the vast majority of voters in Democratic Party primaries. The campaign’s biggest problem is that they have failed to win a majority of voters in the primaries and caucuses.
The State Parties do not exhibit vast control of the voters in and caucus attendees in Presidential primaries. This is made particularly clear by noting what has actually happened in the State elections so far.
Sanders has won the primaries and caucuses in a number of States who you claim have been corruptly “bought” by Clinton. In upcoming primaries and caucuses Bernie will win the majority of pledged delegates in more of the 33 States you present here.
If Sanders were winning in the pledged delegate count, then the number of superdelegates remaining in Clinton’s camp would be shrinking. If that were happening, and Sanders were fundraising for the Democratic Party and the superdelegates, or promised to fundraise for the Democratic Party and its candidates if he gains the nomination of the Democratic Party, his ability to gain support from superdelegates would increase further.
If superdelegates were each voting for the candidate who won their States, as of this morning Hillary would still be winning them by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.
In 2008, some activists screamed that the DNC was putting its fingers on the scale for Hillary. The Obama campaign did not join in this screaming, and kept its attention on the primary voters and caucus attendees. When Barack won with the voters, the huge superdelegate lead Hillary held in January quickly evaporated.
All the opposition you claim Sanders is getting from the Party does not exhibit control of the outcome of this campaign for the nomination. He has to win with the voters, and is doing so thankfully often. Unfortunately, Sanders has to win much, much more often with the voters to win the nomination. That is the important thing for Bernie’s campaign to concentrate on, not all this other stuff.
Just two questions. First, why is there a paucity of democratic candidates running for the nomination ? No one interested? I wonder if it has anything to do with money and the inability of candidates to get the funding. Could it be Sanders was the only one willing to forego large donations from the fat cats? Or maybe a put up candidate to make it seem legit?
And secondly, do you really think the super delegates are a democratic way to run the nominations? ( see also the first question.) Control over the money needed to run a campaign puts all the contributors in an ideal position and that includes, in this case, primarily Hillary. So to avoid another McGovern disaster we need to swallow this poison pill?
Sanders is unimportant to this, except that the field is far to narrow. But he has noted that campaign finance is corrupt. Is this what he means? It would appear that Clinton and the DNC have a monopoly on the money and ergo the candidates. And the super delegates make it all but impossible to compete.
Just asking.
I think the Republican nomination clown car of 17 candidates has demonstrated that having a wide array of POTUS primary candidates does not, in and of itself, reflect a healthy Party or a desirable nomination process.
From the start of the 2008 Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, it was established that there were only three viable nominees. That campaign resulted in a defeat of Hillary which very few predicted.
To me, both the O’Malley and Sanders candidacies have provided viable options for good, liberal Democrats. In fact, the consolidation of nomination options made it much more likely that Clinton would be defeated, as she was in 2008. If the non-Clinton votes were split between a dozen candidates this year, Sanders would have been unable to make such an early sweep of those who did not prefer Hillary at the time of their primaries and caucuses, for whatever reason.
“…do you really think the super delegates are a democratic way to run the nominations?”
Well, they DON’T “run” the nominations. Superdelegates are only 12% of the delegates who vote on the convention floor for the nominee. 88% of the delegates are pledged on the first ballot to the candidate who won the vote in their primary or caucus.
An additional thing to consider is that almost every single superdelegate has won in a public election for office. The vast majority have won general elections and almost all of these officeholders won their own Democratic Party primaries before that. So, there is a heavy amount of democracy in play in the superdelegate selection as well.
This isn’t nefarious. Listen to this description of the events which led to the establishment of superdelegates. We will note the lack of evidence of the desire of the people on the DNC at the time to deny the will of primary voters, or a desire to serve the moneychangers:
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/23/471563611/the-mind-boggling-story-of-our-arcane-and-convoluted-primary
-politics
“GROSS: So the delegates originated during the period when basically party leaders chose delegates and the delegates went to the convention. Why are there delegates now? Why are we voting for delegates and not voting directly for the candidate? When we go to the poll to vote, we seem to be voting for the candidate but we’re not really.
KAMARCK: No, you’re not really. You’re voting for that candidate to get awarded some delegates, but the delegates do turn out to be real-life people and real-life people get to the convention, circumstances change and they may change. We vote for delegates because, again, this is a vestige of the system that we used for over a hundred years where parties constitute themselves with their duly elected representatives to pick the nominee, and the public portion of this is really relatively new. We had primaries in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century but nobody paid any attention to them. They were not binding on delegates. It is only after 1968 that there was a legal relationship – and this was done in party rules mostly – between the results of the primaries and the selection of delegates to the convention.
GROSS: Why was 1968 a turning point in the Democratic approach to primary politics?
KAMARCK: In 1968, the Democratic Party was the site of a significant anti-war movement. That movement coincided with the women’s movement, with civil rights movements, with a feeling that American politics needed to be more inclusive. And the anti-war protesters found that they could not win delegates to the ’68 convention. Even when their candidates – in that case, Gene McCarthy – were doing fairly well, they were cut out of the convention and cut out of delegate slots because the process for electing delegates did not depend on primaries. It wasn’t a very open process. And so the significant anti-war movement was really cut out of the ’68 convention and, as we saw, they were in the streets rioting during the ’68 convention. After that, the party said, all right, we have to do something about this, we have to open up a little bit more than we’ve been. And they created something called the McGovern-Fraser Commission, and the rules from that commission fundamentally reshaped the nominating system not just for the Democrats but for the Republicans as well.
GROSS: What are a delegate’s responsibilities and what is their loyalty to the voter who elected them? And what is their loyalty to, like, their own conscience and what they think they should do once they get to the convention?
KAMARCK: Ninety-nine percent of the time, the delegates simply go to the convention and they vote for whoever they were supposed to vote for according to the results of the state. There are, however, exceptions. You could have a candidate incapacitated between the end of the primaries and the convention. You could have a candidate that you find out something unusual about, something that maybe doesn’t make them as strong a candidate as you the voter thought they were back in the winter when you voted for them. There’s all sorts of things that could happen, but it is not a decision that the delegates would take lightly, you know? They’d have to really – to leave the presidential candidate they voted for, they’d have to have a good reason and be able to go home and say to the voters in their state, I had a good reason for changing my vote.
GROSS: Now, we will talk about a brokered convention and what that would mean, but first I want to talk with you about superdelegates. It turns out you were on the commission that created superdelegates. You’ve served as a superdelegate. You’re still serving as a superdelegate for Hillary Clinton so you know how this process works. Like, what is – why were superdelegates created?
KAMARCK: When the process of nominating candidates moved to – on the Democratic side – moved to a completely open process where anybody who wanted to run for delegate could go to a county convention, bring a lot of friends and run for delegate. When that happened, it was – it had its positive aspects. We really opened up the Democratic Party. But at the highly contested 1980 convention between President Carter and Ted Kennedy, there was a lot of uncertainty and chaos, and one of the things people realized was that the leaders of the party – the governors, the senators and the Congressmen who also run on the same ticket as the presidential nominee were not there. They were not on the floor of the convention helping to lead and shape and discuss the future of the party. So in 1982, the Hunt Commission was formed, and what the Hunt Commission decided was that they needed to get these people back into the convention but under the new rules…
GROSS: In other words, to give party leadership a say in what was going on?
KAMARCK: Yeah, they needed to give the party leaders a say because under the new rules, a member of Congress was not going to go into a district convention and run against his constituents, right? It was just not something politically they were going to do. So in order to get them there, you basically made them automatic delegates to the convention, and in the years since 1984, they have never – and this I think is important – they have never changed the outcome of the public portion of the process. They have always gone along – whoever had the most delegates elected in primaries going into the convention, that’s also where the superdelegates went.
…
GROSS: Because of the superdelegates, you can virtually lose a primary in a state but walk away with more delegates.
KAMARCK: Yeah, but that’s kind of unusual. I mean, you’d have to – it has to be a kind of small – first, a small state. It has to be a small but very, very Democratic state, OK? I mean, that’s – that’s kind of a difficult scenario. I’m sure it could happen, but that’s sort of a difficult scenario.
The superdelegates in the Democratic Party are about 12 percent of the convention. In the Republican Party, all the Republican National Committee people are superdelegates. And they’re, I think, 5 or 6 percent of the convention. So the Republicans have superdelegates, too. They’re just smaller – a smaller number.
One of the things to kind of remember is that prior to 1968, every single nominating convention we had was composed of superdelegates. In other words, people got to go to the convention by virtue of their role in some leadership capacity, even if it was, you know, a county chairman.
People got to go to the convention because of their role in the party. And this business of superdelegates is, again, a kind of reflection of the fact that this is a funny system because it’s still a system that in the end is run by the political parties, not by the public.
GROSS: But the candidate convinces a superdelegate to side with them, right? I mean, the…
KAMARCK: Yeah, but remember…
GROSS: They’re not neutral in this.
KAMARCK: No, they’re not. Sometimes they stay neutral to the end. Sometimes they shift. In 2008, Hillary Clinton started out with most of the superdelegates. And as Obama won primaries and picked up public delegates, the superdelegates started to shift to Obama. And in the end, all the superdelegates voted for Obama. So, you know, the superdelegates simply are not bound by their state results. That doesn’t mean that they don’t pay attention to their state results.
I mean, if you’re a member of Congress and one candidate wins your congressional district overwhelmingly, you better have a good reason to go to the convention and vote for the candidate who lost your district ’cause some of your voters are going to say, huh, what are you doing?”
I appreciate your response. Candidates emerge as they believe the opportunity is real. We don’t need a bakers dozen to run, I agree, but you also cannot cut it off with a rigged financial and delegate system.
The best I can say about super delegates and the finances is it has wrought unintended consequences. At least a few of the electorate may feel they have been cheated. And that could also have consequences, if not now, then continuing in the future. The path for what one needs to do to win the democratic nomination is now clear.
It puts an exclamation point behind Sanders criticsm. But as always, YMMV.
Some of the electorate does feel that they have been cheated. That’s why it’s important for us to seek more information and better historical reportings so we can help ourselves and our fellow citizens discern which parts of the process have cheated us (such as Citizens United and McCutcheon) and which have been shown to be relatively meaningless in controlling outcomes (such as superdelegates and number of POTUS nominees).
Without seeking better understandings of the processes and the candidates, we are at great risk of misdiagnosing the symptoms and subsequently “fixing” the “problems” which are not causal of our difficulties and leaving intact problems which are grievously wounding our people and the world.
I’m not a huge fan of superdelegates, but the Trump situation has caused me to reconsider whether they are necessarily a bad thing – if their role is minimized, and they can help mediate things in a time of crisis (the Democratic equivalent of a Trump candidacy, whatever that would look like), then maybe there is a place for them. I’m not sure where I come down on that. I think the Republicans would kill for some superdelegates about now.
That’s very likely, but the only way it could be relevant to the current situation is if you re implying that Sanders is the Democratic Party’s Trump.
From a purely structural standpoint, I suppose you could say that if Hillary! were the Democratic Party’s Jeb! — then Bernie would be its Trump AND Cruz and all the rest of them rolled into one.
In 2008 Obama was buying super delegates. Yes, it’s true. http://www.poynter.org/2008/how-candidates-pay-superdelegates-in-campaign-contributions/87029/
“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama,who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund,or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles,totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven’t held elected office recently and,therefore, didn’t receive campaign contributions from him.
Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August–Republicans don’t have superdelegates–Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven’t yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them.”
Steven, if Obama had failed to win the primaries and caucuses and the majority of pledged delegates which went to the Convention, would he have gained the nomination?
I want you to grapple with this, because it’s important. Even if the superdelegates were to act wholly corruptly and supportive of candidates who in whole rejected the Party platform and values, the candidate they corruptly supported would still not win the nomination, because the pledged delegates are 88% of the voting delegates on the floor of the Convention.
Let’s repeat a couple of portions of the interview I’ve posted here:
“Yeah, they needed to give the party leaders a say because under the new rules, a member of Congress was not going to go into a district convention and run against his constituents, right? It was just not something politically they were going to do. So in order to get them there, you basically made them automatic delegates to the convention, and in the years since 1984, they have never – and this I think is important – they have never changed the outcome of the public portion of the process. They have always gone along – whoever had the most delegates elected in primaries going into the convention, that’s also where the superdelegates went.
…
I mean, if you’re a member of Congress and one candidate wins your congressional district overwhelmingly, you better have a good reason to go to the convention and vote for the candidate who lost your district ’cause some of your voters are going to say, huh, what are you doing?”
The second paragraph is important. If a superdelegate were to vote for a Presidential nominee who did not win the vote of the pledged delegate to their District or State, interested voters and activists would work in their District to recruit a viable candidate and defeat them in their next primary, even if the money men came in to support the “corrupt” superdelegate. If you don’t view this sort of thing as a plausible possibility, I would ask you to consider the existence of Congressmember Brat from Virginia, among other recent examples.
Similarly, you present this evidence of Clinton having contributed to specific officeholders. If rank-and-file Party members viewed as definitionally corrupt these contributions to the campaigns of Congressional Caucusmembers and those Caucusmembers’ subsequent support for the POTUS primary candidate who gave the contributions, then they would be held accountable at the ballot box, and there could be local fights for County Party Central Committees and State Party executives which could rise or fall on the issue.
These things said, the first paragraph is even more important. You have a viewpoint on superdelegates, Steven, but your viewpoint has not been supported by any outcome to a POTUS primary since the current superdelegate selection system was established.
As far as “buying” super delegates, I will say that this is a maximally offensive way to view the campaign contributions from fellow Party members who share your values.
And, when campaign contributions come from people and institutions which do not support the platform and values of the Party, such as Silicon Valley libertarians, destructive financial institutions and investors, the Michelle Rhee-led effort to destroy unions and privatize the public school system, and others who have sometimes contributed to the Democratic Party and its prospective candidates, it is completely possible for Party members to organize at the County and State level to deny power and electoral wins to these parasites.
I want to be clear: money can corrupt the political process, and I am exquisitely unhappy that money is flowing into the Democratic Party and some candidates from people and institutions who wish to pollute the policies of elected leaders from the Party.
But we are hardly defenseless from the ability to discern between those who support the party financially, and the overall policy platforms and records of Obama and Clinton are in line with the Party platform and the wishes of Party members. Given that they are members of the Party in extremely good standing, it’s offensive and extremely counterproductive to call their campaign contributions to other Party candidates “bribes”.
Finally, who was it that the Citizens United campaign movie viciously attacked, and which Party was the home of the Presidents who nominated the five SCOTUS judges who have torn down the paltry Federal and State campaign financing laws which existed before the Citizens and McCutcheon decisions?
I believe there are 718 super delegates and 2383 delegates needed to win. So they represent 30% of that total. Presently Sanders has around 30 and Clinton 469. It is unlikely all the delegates will go for one candidate for the reason you said. But they do put a thumb on the scale and, when combined with campaign finance, is tough to overcome, as Sanders is finding out. You can see why Sanders wants to attract some of them. (Pledged delegates favor Clinton 1280 to 1030 or approx)
Steven, let’s talk about this once Bernie shows up at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. Yeah, in other words, let’s never talk about it.
I think it would be a legitimate issue if (and only if) the supers were to override the will of the majority.
I can agree with that, with one caveat. Let’s do away with the super delegates.
The best explanation for the Hunt Commission’s accepted recommendation to re-establish elected officials and State Party leaders into the body of Delegates who vote on the POTUS nominee and rules for the Convention was provided to me here:
“KAMARCK: When the process of nominating candidates moved to – on the Democratic side – moved to a completely open process where anybody who wanted to run for delegate could go to a county convention, bring a lot of friends and run for delegate. When that happened, it was – it had its positive aspects. We really opened up the Democratic Party. But at the highly contested 1980 convention between President Carter and Ted Kennedy, there was a lot of uncertainty and chaos, and one of the things people realized was that the leaders of the party – the governors, the senators and the Congressmen who also run on the same ticket as the presidential nominee were not there. They were not on the floor of the convention helping to lead and shape and discuss the future of the party. So in 1982, the Hunt Commission was formed, and what the Hunt Commission decided was that they needed to get these people back into the convention but under the new rules…
GROSS: In other words, to give party leadership a say in what was going on?
KAMARCK: Yeah, they needed to give the party leaders a say because under the new rules, a member of Congress was not going to go into a district convention and run against his constituents, right? It was just not something politically they were going to do.”
People often express major unhappiness with the elected officials of their Parties, but elected leaders have shown a higher level of sophistication about how to help people reach a necessary level of consensus, and what comprises a winning candidate and set of campaigh issues. Imagine, for illustrative example, the frequent commenters on this blog as the body of nominating Delegates at the 2016 convention. It appears to me that there would be an unwelcome amount of argumentation which would lead to polarization, making it less likely that the Party would walk out of the Convention with the greatest amount of unity possible under the circumstances.
Any one of us on this blog, save perhaps BooMan (although even that recently seems in doubt) lacks the broad credibility that elected leaders possess among like-minded progressives to cobble together the largest amount of agreement possible between us. In addition, candidates for Congress and other offices want to have a leadership role in deciding who will be the standard bearer for the Party in the election they will personally be exposed to along with their Party’s POTUS candidate.
IOW, Daddy knows best. Why not just dispense with the expense of caucuses and primarys and ONLY have superdelegates deciding the candidates in smoke filled rooms. Tobacco smoke for the (R)’s and reefer for the (D)’s? Why not dispense with elections and just let the current junta select their replacements? Maybe by primogeniture?
Coin-tossing telethons!
Wouldn’t give us worse candidates!
For fucks sake, Steven, we get this garbage all day long at Daily Kos. Do you have to pollute this site with it as well? Booman writes intelligently about politics, and provides a great perspective on how elections work. You, not so much.
I stopped reading this wall of text after you said something about Hillary and money laundering.
This primary can’t end fast enough and I no longer care how much it hurts the Sandbaggers. You people are nuts.
Well sorry to offend you with my “garbage.” Stop reading me. Better for your blood pressure.
Steven and Cenk are not alone.
http://www.mahablog.com/2016/02/23/elaborating-on-the-dnc-clinton-money-laundering-scheme/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/young_turks_reveals_how_dnc_and_33_states_used_loopholes_hillar
y_20160406
I know you find it troubling that your icon launders money. Read this: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
I specifically like how every Middle Eastern country whom Hillary approved for arms deals donated to the Clinton Foundation. What a coincidence!!
And, of course, since Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others have been linked to arming ISIS and al Qaeda, it’s like they paid Hillary so that all those women and children in Iraq and Syria could be slaughtered. It takes a machine gun to slaughter a village.
The other day, Booman linked to yet another WaPo hit piece, this time a disinformation piece in the guise of an “exposé” about what Jonathan Capehart called Sanders’s “ongoing hustle” of the Democratic Party.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-
for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite
To which Booman rather innocently commented, “The strangest thing about this is that Sanders knows that the only way he’ll ever win the nomination is to win over the superdelegates. So, why doesn’t he even pretend to make an argument that he’ll be a better or even adequate provider?”
Today, Hillary let slip the cute remark. surely not unconnected with the above, that she’s “not even sure” Sanders is a Democrat.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrat/index.html
Now, is it Sanders that is “hustling” the Democratic Party? Or is it Clinton? As Steven is pointing out in this post, as did Maha a few days ago,
http://www.mahablog.com/2016/04/04/is-the-hillary-victory-fund-a-fraud/
this method of raising money (legal or not), and of taking control of the party, is a scam. It’s not hard to understand why Bernie wants no part of it.
Perhaps this is what Booman has been hinting at, but more or less keeping to himself, in his insistence that Bernie cannot win the nomination, no matter what.
Well, it may be legal, but it’s too clever by half. and I don’t think it’s going to end very well for Clinton. I’m sure the super delegates understand perfectly well what’s going on, and many of them would be happy to be out from under the Clintons, while others are in a potentially compromising position. For both reasons, Sanders, if he continues to do well in the primaries, should have no great obstacle to winning over the super delegates. As we know, he is already talking with them about it.
And this “money laundering” scheme is not exactly going to win Hillary any new friends, because legal or not, it’s precisely the kind of thing that turns everybody off her, who isn’t already for her. And maybe even some of the latter.
BTW, speaking of the NY primary, the split between Clinton and Sanders has narrowed from 21 points at the one month ago, to 10 points as of 5 hrs ago. This is based on an aggregation of the 5 most recent polls,
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-york-presidential-democratic-primary
Well said. Better than I put it actually.
Well, thank you. Booman put in his two cents, and you put in your two cents, and I just put two and two together.
Cute remark?
Sanders isn’t a Democrat. Throughout his political career, he has run as Independent. In Congress, he caucused with the Democrats, but never become one.
What’s “cute” about the truth?
Context, my friend.
I think the context is clear–Clinton is questioning Sanders’ willingness to work to benefit other Democratic candidates downticket. So far, he hasn’t been willing.
So I repeat: What’s “cute” about the truth?
Sanders is representing the traditional priorities of the Democratic Party far better than Clinton is.
Clinton is questioning Sanders’ willingness to work with the DNC money machine that she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz cooked up and control, which is what she means by the Democratic Party.
Perhaps you will recall that Bernie’s number one priority is to keep big money out of politics?
Did you ever stop to ask WHY Bernie was not an official member of the Democratic Party even though he was perfectly willing to caucus with them (and they with him)?
This video clip form Ring of Fire explains it very clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JZ3v9xtdCo
OK, then we seem to agree. Sanders is not showing a willingness to raise money for other party members.
I see you’re naive enough to think you won that argument. Other people can decide for themselves.
Feel free to correct me. You seem to be arguing that Sanders should be able to stand apart from the party, but that no one should question his party bona fides when he does.
Sanders is not “standing apart from the party.” He’s standing apart from the funding stranglehold that is controlled by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, and their big-money donors.
If you are equating party loyalty as obedience to bigwigs beholden to big money, you might as well be writing campaign ads for Bernie Sanders. That’s not how most Democrats, Hillary supporters included, understand Democratic values.
Aggregated polls from 31 polling organizations show Sanders as the preferred choice of nearly half of Democratic voters (42.5 %). They also show that the gap has been steadily narrowing for over a year. Many of these polls show him with slightly more than half. I would hardly call that “standing apart from the party.”
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
You really do want to have your cake and eat it, don’t you? I’m quoting you here: “Did you ever stop to ask WHY Bernie was not an official member of the Democratic Party even though he was perfectly willing to caucus with them (and they with him)?”
So Sanders is NOT a member of the party until Hillary Clinton mentions it. Then he’s the TRUE party member and she’s the outsider?
Whatever!
Is this some sort of secret that Hillary just revealed, that Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party until he decided to run on the Democratic ticket? Is there anybody in America that did not know that?
Hillary is raising this issue for one reason only, and that is to badmouth him to Democrats, especially the “nomenklatura” of the party. She feels she needs to do that becaus, half of Democratic voters already support him rather than her, and she’s lost seven of the last eight primaries.
That’s all there is to it. There’s no “there” there.
“Is this some sort of secret that Hillary just revealed, that Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party?
Of course not. But then, who was it who declared it to be “cute” or some sort of trick for Clinton to mention it?
You just can’t have it both ways. Politics in America is a two-party game. You like a candidate who styles himself as an outsider? OK. Don’t complain when his opponents notice that he’s an outsider.
It’s not “that” she mentioned it. It’s the context in which she mentioned it. And that is exactly where I began this — context. In context, she’s badmouthing him. Well, I can understand that. After all, she’s running against him.
Now let’s get away from the sheer rhetoric of it for a second. The fact is that Bernie can contribute to the candidates in a different way, a very important way. Contributions is one thing, but it’s even more important that people show up at the polls.
I’m sure the following observations on the primaries doesn’t translate directly into the national election.
We can assume that turnout for the national will be significantly better than for primaries. But the relative proportions may indicate something.
“In all of the states that Clinton won, Democratic turnout [on Super Tuesday] was drastically lower this year than in 2008. Aside from Massachusetts, where Clinton won by 1 percent with voter turnout just 4.29 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, all of Clinton’s wins relied on anywhere between 20 percent and 50 percent fewer Democratic voters going to the polls in those respective states. Democratic turnout as a whole was 32 percent lower on Super Tuesday 2016 when compared to 8 years ago:”
…..
“In the four states Bernie Sanders carried on Super Tuesday — Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont — voter turnout was higher than in 2016 or comparatively high to the states Bernie lost. While turnout was lower in three of his four states, the margins are much smaller than in the states Clinton won.”
http://usuncut.com/politics/this-is-the-biggest-super-tuesday-story-no-one-is-talking-about/
Same thing in Michigan:
Consider the voter turnout shattered records when more than 2.5 million people cast ballots. Sanders won big just about everywhere, except in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. And while a big showing in Wayne County and its city of Detroit often spells victories for many candidates, the turnout was 25% in Detroit and 31% in Wayne County, while the statewide total was closer to 40%.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/09/high-turnout-late-deciding-voters-give-bernie-sa
nders-michigan-primary/81527800
If Hillary Clinton had not been the target of the then-illegal movie length campaign video produced by Citizens United, a campaign activity made legal by the corrupt Roberts Court decision…
…and if Hillary were opposed to passing new campaign finance reform laws AND was committed to nominating SCOTUS and Federal Circuit Court judges who would support stare decisis on Citizens United and McCutcheon…
…then these preposterous pictures that are painted here and elsewhere of Hillary as some cackling villain splashing around in a pile of gold doubloons would have a better relationship with reality.
Instead, the facts are that Hillary was and is the #1 target of big money political interests in the United States, and she is campaigning on reinstalling Federal laws which restrain campaign financing, and on placing on the Federal bench judges who will not take those laws down, as the Roberts Court did to McCain-Feingold and other previously existing campaign finance laws.
This idea that the Democratic Party should unilaterally disarm ourselves financially while we work to re-install some sanity to campaign financing is well past purity, it’s openly damaging to our ability to gain power long and fully enough to make the changes we want.
If we had not won the Presidency and (eventually) exactly 60 Senators and a progressive House majority in 2008, we might have had a second Great Depression, instead of the deepest recession of our lifetimes. We needed every damn dime of campaign contributions that the DNC/DSCC/DCCC and Obama’s campaign were able to pull out of rich, middle-class and poor people, and every single rally with Obama, Hillary and other prominent politicians to campaign for all 60 Senators.
Do you think we would have gotten Senators Franken and Begich seated in the 111th Congress if Obama, Clinton and the DSCC had decided to shove away opportunities to fundraise? Hell, I doubt we would have gotten Senators Merkley and Landrieux if we would have allowed them to be buried by bags of Koch Brothers money without a response. Without any one of those four Senators, your complaints about the 111th Congress would have been quadrupled, if you still had the ability to afford an online connection to share those complaints with the Frog Pond.
I don’t think you would have been talking about how happy you were that Obama didn’t take any Wall Street money if our unemployment rate were still in double digits in 2012, there was no stimulus package or Dodd-Frank or ACA, and Obama had lost his re-election campaign because Congress had made sure the economy would not recover and that he had no legislative accomplishments, for their political gain.
I don’t beleive her. Obama campaigned on a lot of stuff as well. And didn’t follow through, and worse almost cut a deal to weaken Soc. Security, and is now pushing TPP.
And I trust him even now a helluva lot more than the Hillary Clinton, who used her position as Senator and Secretary of State to make her family obscenely rich, and now take money from the same people who are here real constituents. Billionaires and lobbyists. Military contractors. Private prisons (until that became too much of an embarrassment even for her). And of course there;’s her whole position supporting fracking, which is releasing a far more deadly greenhouse gas – methane – into our environment, ramping up the climate changes that event he scientist were not expecting this soon only a decade ago.
We elect her ans she will sell us out. Her husband sure did.
This provides us clarity, at least. Hillary’s campaign is literally irrelevant in this interpretation.
This interpretation is extraordinarily disempowering to you and your interest in driving the political discussion, the Overton Window, and government policy leftward. I expect to hold Hillary to the campaign promises she is capable of keeping if she wins the nomination and the Presidency.
In your reading, Clinton gets no pressure from you at all, because you have surrendered your collective leverage. As voters, people who currently feel as you do would have leverage over Hillary if you showed interest in using it, and pouting over in the corner after the primaries if Democratic Party primary voters disappoint you won’t get it done. It’s worth considering.
I disagree with your interpretation of Obama’s full record, but I might point out that leftists’ leverage with the President has been collectively maintained sufficiently enough to see him stop giving his fucks in his last term and jamming executive and Cabinet orders through right and left. If people had given up on influencing Barack as you and others propose to do with Hillary, we might never have seen our many victories on Keystone and elsewhere.
Here’s an alternative way to talk about the primary:
Hillary stays accountable to people with integrity and a great record with statements like this.
A list, please.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/democrats-evenly-split-over-clinton-sanders-in
-bloomberg-poll-im63yb0w
when/ if he gets the nomination he will benefit them, not before- actually I don’t know that, ACTBlue has a page for congress candidates who support Sanders, so maybe it’s already happening
Hillary isn’t a Democrat. Democrats help the working class. Democrats aren’t indebted to the wealthy for BILLIONS.
To clever by half you say! Indeed.. I agree.
The next President will need majorities in Congress to get even the smallest thing done. Getting those majorities requires that downstream candidates be properly funded. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that the downstream candidates and party will gravitate to someone who can help provide said funding and be resistant to someone who seems unlikely to help in that regard. That’s just basic human nature.
I get that people may be uncomfortable with this, but many of those same people would likely be extremely demoralized if they elected someone to office and that person was able to accomplish essentially nothing because they were unable to help the Democrats take control of Congress. The rightwing will once again drop a bajillion dollars on this election, we will have to do the same. That’s how it’s been for quite some time, and I’m not sure why this concept is a revelation now. Nor do I understand the obsession with superdelegates and why they “should” vote according to the outcomes in their respective states. Wouldn’t it be equally defensible if they voted in favor of whomever won the popular vote nationwide (confirming the will of the majority of voters overall)? But of course those guiding principles may lead to different results. In any event, I don’t see them playing a meaningful role in the outcome this time around.
I’m looking forward to the beginning of the general election. The frankly outlandish demagoguery that is taking place these days is getting tiresome.
We had amajority in 2008-2010. What got passed.
TBTF Banks bailed out.
Smaller then needed stimulus package passed, a large part of it tax breaks for businesses.
Watered down financial reforms. No real effect that I can see so far.
Auto Bailout – Helped some workers, helped the companies more, but still, better and cheaper than bailing out the Banksters and then not prosecuting any of them.
ACA otherwise known as Obamacare – better than previous health care system, but no single payer and no public option because of the opposition of – Democratic Senators. So we essentially got Romney care for the whole country. This was the signature achievement of that brief window of opportunity. Imagine if we had been able to pass a bill with a public option? Oh well, no use rehashing that now, right?
And a consumer protection agency that has yet to be fully funded.
So, yeah, having a lot of Democrats in office in Congress did a little bit, but it was more putting fingers in dykes than real change.
Hillary is far more conservative than Obama. Far more of a neocon. And we all know what happened the last time a Clinton was in office and worked with Republicans – NAFTA, Welfare (cough) reform, mass incarceration, and bye-bye to the last significant piece of securities law regulation with teeth passed as part of FDR’s New Deal – Glass-Steagle, which primed the pump for more and more bubbles to burst wreaking havoc on the lives of ordinary people while the rich get richer.
The 111th Congress accomplished much more than Steven summarizes here. In addition, I quarrel with many of these incomplete and/or slanted summaries. Not only is the glass made half full here, the glass is tipped over to let some of the H20 pour out.
There’s also the restated assumption that Hillary is Bill and her views and advocacies are the same. Their histories show that assumption to be untrue in whole; Hillary is more liberal on multiple policy issues than Bill, and the primary campaign is and will continue to push her slightly leftward. The American electorate, and the demands it places on candidates and officeholders, is also different in 2016 than it was in the ’90’s, both to our benefit and to our difficulty.
For example, as BooMan has pointed out many times, the TEA Party may have begun as a rebranding of the Republican Party, but it has become a real constituency which votes and lobbies, a constituency which is even more radical and effective in opposing all that we care about than the marketers in the conservative movement who invented their label.
But I’ve written plenty here and have work to do, so I’ll leave space for others.
You’re not taking into account that Clinton came to Washington and tried to govern like a liberal and got blocked at every turn. It was a different time; a time of Republican ascendance when the country really was right-center. So he governed in a way that allowed him to be popular and get re-elected. Times are different now. Hillary has to watch her left flank. There isn’t any political reward for triangulating in 2016.
Bill Clinton stepped down from chairman of the DLC, before running for president in 1992. The DLC is not considered a liberal organization. Upon election, Clinton had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
In 1992, the Democratic Party had also been shut out of the enormous powers of the Presidency for 12 long years, during which time the building blocks for the terrible Federal Judiciary of recent years were established, a Judiciary which is successfully stymying many of our best efforts this century and attempting to repeal many of the most important legislative and executive accomplishments of the 20th Century.
It appears the Republicans and their increasingly radicalized conservative movement may run out of time before they succeed, but only if we keep the Presidency.
Yes, I agree. Those candidates need to be funded. But not by paying them to be a super delegate. Stinks of buying votes.
Congressional and many State elected and Party officials are superdelegates. POTUS candidates do not unilaterally establish that status for them.
There is nothing preventing multiple POTUS candidates from contributing to the campaigns of superdelegates from their Party who share their values and policy views.
If a monied candidate with repulsive views contributed to a superdelegate, that would not cause that superdelegate to initially give their support to the repulsive candidate. Nor would it hold their vote all the way to the Convention.
Super-delegate shopping channel.
Please answer why Sanders voters couldn’t be bothered to vote downticket in Wisconsin and helped put a bigot on the Supreme Court.
Fairly sure this would be a large number of Hillary voters that like our Republican-controlled state-level politics just the way it is that voted for Walker-appointed Bradley yesterday. Sanders voters have been voting for Kloppenberg repeatedly over the past ten years.
Please answer why you’re lying when he explicitly talked up that Supreme Court election.
Tell us how the Democratic down ticket does this fall if Hillary leads the ticket and Sanders voters stay home.
Could you please share with us your data that Sanders’ supporters and not Republicans were “responsible”? Thanks in advance.
Uh because more Republicans turned out for her primary than Democrats did for theirs to the tune of the exact margin of the Republican candidate’s victory margin, for starters. Check your facts before blaming Sanders’ supporters. Also that poll this allegation was based on was shitty for a number of reasons:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/6/1511506/-The-Kloppenburg-Defeat-Sanders-Markos-and-the-Resp
onsibilities-of-Movement-Building
The first problem here is that we really can’t take the DecisionDeskHQ exit poll at face value. By their own admission, the final exits excluded the final two hours of voting (where a Sanders surge was evident), excluded early voting, and in fact predicted a lopsided Kloppenburg victory (she’d lose by six points). Her loss was most explicable by the fact that GOP primary voters composed 52.3% of all voters in last night’s primary. How much did Rebecca Bradley take of the statewide vote?
Exactly 52.3%.
Her victory correlated to the decimal point with GOP voter participation rates in the state. […]
[TheDecisionDeskHQ] … a private exit poll with a huge margin of error, which reported on an unrelated race asked of a candidate segment of a partisan subsegment (literally <40 respondents in the cohort), excluded early and late voters, and yielded reportage that was hardly dispositive …
Yeah, it’s all Sanders’ and his supporters’ fault that a progressive judge lost. Right.
Oh, but wait, there’s more. On top of that, the Republican out spent the Dem by a large extent thanks to “dark money.”
https:/sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/03/24/dark-money-group-vastly-outspending-candidates-on-ads
-in-wisconsin-supreme-court-race
A dark money group is spending big on ads around a Wisconsin Supreme Court race — far more than the actual candidates.
Incumbent Justice Rebecca Bradley faces a challenge from Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg. Each has painted the other as partisan & ideological — Bradley was appointed by GOP Gov. Scott Walker, a fact that Kloppenberg has highlighted, while Bradley has pointed to Kloppenburg’s past support from liberal groups.
One outside group has vastly outspent the candidates in this race: the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform (WAR). Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the group has spent $859,085 on TV as of March 18; the Brennan Center estimates that it has spent $932,480 including cable and radio ads. That’s compared to just $192,200 by Kloppenburg. WAR’s ads have attacked Kloppenburg for protecting “criminals,” including in one ad about a child sexual assault victim that the group pulled after the girl’s family complained, describing it as “political slander.” The ad is still available on their YouTube channel.
Try harder next time, before spreading inaccurate talking points from the Clinton campaign.
The math isn’t difficult: there are about 1700 delegates left in the primaries. Hillary needs about 700 of them, Bernie needs 1300.
So no, winning Wisconsin by a few percentage points isn’t going to make much difference for Bernie or for Hillary. I think his overall gain was 11 delegates.
What is worrying me is the increasingly hysterical, angry, negative, bitter tone among Bernie supporters as they realize he is simply not going to be supported by enough Democratic voters to win the nomination.
Not only do these supporters hate Hillary with the fire of a thousand misogynistic suns, they are now also starting to display hatred toward the Democratic Party itself for actually liking Hillary more than Bernie, and for denying their hero the coronation they think he deserves. Its both sad and worrying.
Yes, if, as you’re doing, you mix delegates and super delegates together. You’re not really supposed to do that, you know.
Take the super delegates out of the total.
Why? Don’t they get to vote for the person they support?
They are free to change if they change their mind. That’s the whole point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
In 2008, Clinton had the edge over Obama in superdelegates, but many of them eventually switched to Obama.
Yes, particularly when Clinton suspended her campaign in June and threw all her support to Obama.
The point is, in comparing the two, it’s not cricket to count super delegates in the total at this point. Precisely because it’s not June yet.
You see, it makes a difference. Clinton’s lead in pledged delegates is 250.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/bernie-sanders-wins-seven-out-of-eight-contests-leaving-h
illary/
It’s 210 at the moment, but 210 is a massive number for Bernie to have to overcome at this point.
It’s a tall order, yes, but of course if you add in the super delegates it looks totally impossible. Which is the whole idea.
It’s not June yet, Cathie.
OK, let’s leave the supers out for now.
Deleting them from the delegate totals means a majority at the convention is about 2100 pledged delegates. Hillary already has 1300 and Sanders has 1000. So Hillary needs about 800 more and Bernie needs 1100.
I think she will have achieved this goal by the middle of May.
i think now hrc is 210 ahead of sanders
1300 to 1090 according to 538. Majority is 2026. 1661 left, of which more then 700 is in June.
I think the prediction that Clinton will gain 726 out of the next 1000 and gain majority of pledged candidates in middle of May will turn out to be incorrect.
I agree with your analysis and am not particularly worried. Just like last time around, the vast majority will pull for whomever prevails. There may be a few Bernie supporters who will vote for Trump (if he gets the R-nom) but too few to have any impact whatsoever. There will be those who won’t bother to vote and that’s a shame. But the best way to deal with them is through education and outreach. They probably weren’t going to vote any non-radical candidate even if Bernie hadn’t emerged.
The past does not always predict the future.
Steven, do you have any setting other than “Hair on Fire?”
From your own link about “Hillary’s money-laundering scheme:”
It’s all within the rules and any candidate can do it, but it’s Clinton, so Clinton Rules dictate that questions must swirl.
Why did you troll rate me when I told the fucking truth asshole?
You get a Troll rating for calling Rikyrah a liar. She is a long-time contributor here and doesn’t deserve that kind of disrespect.
It’s not my problem if what she said was objectively false from a sense of authority. Particularly when it is coming from both a respected contributor, and someone who also has blogged for years themselves and I know damn well they know they’re mistaken. If that’s not a lie, I don’t know what it is.
If rikyrah was simply mistaken, then I apologize.
According to exit polling, 21% of Sanders voters did not also vote for Kloppenburg. Nearly 12% didn’t vote in the race and 9% voted for Kloppenburg’s opponent. This is about 3 times the rate of non-support from Clinton voters.
Exit polling here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfYfYGkWwAAjS19.jpg
Come back when a reputable polling outfit has released an actual report on this. The HRC forces have been running with so much garbage that I wouldn’t rule out that this tweet is disinformation.
It should also be noted that WI SC elections are formally non-partisan. Also note that in the counties where Sanders was the strongest Kloppenburg won and where Sanders was the weakest, Bradley’s winning margins were the largest.
Wait. You’re suggesting that the Clinton team is rigging the exit polling data collected from self-reported Sanders voters?
Okey dokey!
Blaming Sanders for it is quite a stretch.
“The result wasn’t unexpected. A Marquette Law School poll a week ago showed Bradley with a 5-point edge – 41 to 36 percent – but 18 percent of likely voters were undecided.
“But Bradley also benefited from slightly stronger numbers from Republicans, who tend to back the conservative justice in the race, which is officially non-partisan. Among Republicans polled, 69 percent said they supported Bradley, with 11 percent supporting Kloppenburg and 17 percent undecided. Among Democrats Kloppenburg had 64 percent support, with 12 percent backing Bradley and 17 percent undecided.
“But one key factor in the poll was that Republicans intending to vote outpaced Democrats by a 54-percent to 46-percent margin.”
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/enthusiastic-republican-voters-push-bradl
ey-over-kloppenburg-in-wisconsin-supreme/article_e6bebc64-fbb5-11e5-8eb5-571fad822fd7.html
Blaming Sanders for it is quite a stretch.
Indeed.
The commenter who was earlier accused of lying didn’t blame Sanders. She blamed Sanders’ voters. Big difference. As I have already written elsewhere in this thread, dispute the polls if you want, but if the commenters–and the occasional host–of this blog are going to turn against those who disagree with them and accuse them, baselessly, of dishonesty, that’s just a damned shame.
Sanders drew in a lot more younger (first-time) voters than Hillary, and some of them either didn’t know who to vote for or voted for the wrong person because she was listed first. Some of his older voters were more conservative and probably preferred Bradley.
http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/2016/04/did-sanders-voters-doom-kloppenburg.html
I am sorry Kloppenberg did not win, and I was very disappointed when she lost in 2011. But the fact is, there was more at stake here than Kloppenberg.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/scott-walker-bernie-sanders-wisconsin/index.html
Bad exit poll FAIL:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/6/1511506/-The-Kloppenburg-Defeat-Sanders-Markos-and-the-Resp
onsibilities-of-Movement-Building
The first problem here is that we really can’t take the DecisionDeskHQ exit poll at face value. By their own admission, the final exits excluded the final two hours of voting (where a Sanders surge was evident), excluded early voting, and in fact predicted a lopsided Kloppenburg victory (she’d lose by six points). Her loss was most explicable by the fact that GOP primary voters composed 52.3% of all voters in last night’s primary. How much did Rebecca Bradley take of the statewide vote?
Exactly 52.3%.
Her victory correlated to the decimal point with GOP voter participation rates in the state.
While the data above shows that the DDHQ exit poll was self-evidently wrong on core details of the Kloppenburg defeat, Markos produces some pretty broad generalizations from it about the limitations of Sanders’ movement-building, and his presumed culpability in failing to build coattails for downballot candidates.
This is odd, given Markos’ own skepticism about past exit poll findings suggesting, for example, Sanders successfully splitting the Latino vote in the Southwest, among other things. This case was even worse – a private exit poll with a huge margin of error, which reported on an unrelated race asked of a candidate segment of a partisan subsegment (literally <40 respondents in the cohort), excluded early and late voters, and yielded reportage that was hardly dispositive – the answers were ambiguous at best. There’s precious little signal to extract from the noise here, and it’s clear Markos recognizes this, but draws fierce conclusions anyhow. Because: narrative, horserace, and it’s time to put this process to bed.
So, this allegation is based on a poll that looked at < 40 people, and excluded early and late voters?
Here’s the reason Kloppenberg lost:
https:/sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/03/24/dark-money-group-vastly-outspending-candidates-on-ads
-in-wisconsin-supreme-court-race
A dark money group is spending big on ads around a Wisconsin Supreme Court race — far more than the actual candidates.
Incumbent Justice Rebecca Bradley faces a challenge from Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg. Each has painted the other as partisan & ideological — Bradley was appointed by GOP Gov. Scott Walker, a fact that Kloppenberg has highlighted, while Bradley has pointed to Kloppenburg’s past support from liberal groups.
One outside group has vastly outspent the candidates in this race: the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform (WAR). Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the group has spent $859,085 on TV as of March 18; the Brennan Center estimates that it has spent $932,480 including cable and radio ads. That’s compared to just $192,200 by Kloppenburg. WAR’s ads have attacked Kloppenburg for protecting “criminals,” including in one ad about a child sexual assault victim that the group pulled after the girl’s family complained, describing it as “political slander.” The ad is still available on their YouTube channel.
But, hey go with your biased talking points. Falsely accuse the people you will need in the general election of not being good voters. Sounds like a great way to win the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Dispute the polling all you like. (But at least get your numbers right–the poll sampled 919 voters, not fewer than 40).
My beef is with seabe calling a thoughtful and unoffending commenter a liar without provocation. For that, I gave him a bad rating. When he asked, I told him why and with 20 seconds of Googling, found the basis of the original content.
So what’s it going to be, Steven? Civility or ideological purity?
Call it.
40 in the demo that was relied upon to claim Sanders voters were responsible for the Dem Judge losing.
Sanders slammed Walker for the voter ID law he rammed through his pet legislature. He plugged the candidacy of progressive Joanne Kloppenberg for the state supreme court; Kloppenberg is running against Rebecca Bradley, a Walker protégé who’s riding on a tidal wave of dark money. (HRC gave Bradley quite a hiding herself at a Milwaukee dinner.)
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43590/bernie-sanders-wisconsin/
You were lying.
And stop with the purity bs. It’s getting to be a bad joke. And it only encourages more Sanders people to donate to his campaign. So it is a bad tactic, as well.
Excuse me?
You’re accusing me of lying? Specifics. Right now.
And here’s your info about this polling “firm” – two conservatives.
Here’s a well known right wing source, the Beacon praising them:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/what-we-saw-at-decision-desk-hq-during-its-big-new-hampshire-test/
and even they had this to say about the wonderful operation in NH:
The operation was not without snags. Though many of the volunteers had managed to catch flights despite the weather, some were stranded in states ranging from Illinois to Nevada. The rest were forced to work longer shifts and travel to multiple polling places to make up for the lost manpower.
They also dealt with technology issues. A number of the tablets used to gather exit polling data froze up, forcing volunteers to record results by paper. One pair of volunteers working in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, collected data from 205 people, about 10 percent of the total voters in the precinct, by hand. They had to call in each individual result to headquarters to get the data recorded.
Ad Hominem.
Do better.
More articles of how Bernie spoke up for Kloppenburg at his rallies:
http://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-and-clinton-agree-on-a-court-pick-in-todays-wisconsin-prima
ry/
The next night, at a rally in Madison, Bernie Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters, “I hope that a large voter turnout on Tuesday will help elect JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court.”
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/bernie-sanders-pushes-large
-turnout-in-wisconsin-for-president-state/article_1eb83529-ec5f-59d1-83a4-d7be4ff02b6d.html
He spent much of his speech going after Republican Gov. Scott Walker — a popular play among Democratic voters in Wisconsin — and made his first public comments about the state’s Supreme Court race.
The Vermont senator said Walker is trying to maintain control of the court by electing Justice Rebecca Bradley, whom he appointed to fill a vacancy in October.
“I hope a large turnout on Tuesday will help elect (Appeals Court Judge) JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/04/sanders-campaign-rally-
green-bay-today/82538850/
Before Robbins, state Rep. Eric Genrich, D-Green Bay, encouraged the crowd to vote for progressive candidates “up and down the ticket,” including state Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg.
So you tell me what more Sanders could have done. Stop the bs.
Not at issue.
Seabe accused another commenter of lying when she referenced exit polls of voter behavior. What Sanders supposed his supporters might do was never mentioned.
Try to stay on topic, will you?
This thread addresses just that point:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/533677.page
Note this exchange:
POSTER No. 1
Jesus, you are totally missing the point. That fund mentioned up there is the “Hillary Victory Fund.” Sanders is correctly pointing out, once you start taking the Molly, you cannot quit. Eventually you will sell your own children to get your next hit. And there we have it. One of the MAJOR issues that Sanders is actually getting support for is his stand on money in politics and the fact that he is staking his own presidential run on an ethical campaign. In other words, he is walking the walk. Clinton is shooting up one last time, one last time…
POSTER NO. 2
I think you don’t understand what the Hillary Victory Fund is. That’s the vehicle for raising money for other Democrats and the Democratic Party. It is separate from the funds she raises for her campaign. Bernie has the same kind of agreement, he has just chosen (so far) not to raise funds for down-ballot candidates.
POSTER NO. 1
So what you’re saying is, not only is she taking the Molly, but she’s happy to get all her sisters and brothers in on the action, too. Nice. They’re all going to sell their kids. Way to go, DNC!
Saaaaaaaaay, do you think that’s why she’s got all those superdelegates lined up? Hm.
Yes, this is what people are PISSED about. You get it now?
POSTER NO. 2
Man, this is just nuts. In the past, Bernie has been happy to raise funds for Democratic Senate candidates. If he didn’t want to raise money for down-ballot candidates this year, he didn’t have to sign the agreement to do so.
It’s kind of funny that you’re so furious about this stuff but you don’t mind him hiring the most “establishment” campaign strategist in the Democratic Party.
POSTER NO. 1
You can raise money downballot, and rail against the limitless corporate donor system. But you have to do it right. Hillary is beyond disingenuous. She is squeezing the financial nuts of the dnc much too hard.
POSTER NO. 2
Ok, but hillary source of funds doesn’t in any way change the fact that BS is completely full of BS and it would be a NIGHTMARE if he was president.
Don’t you see? Your attention is being craftily diverted from the issues and stances to focusing on funding sources. Don’t you care more about what the candidates are going to do for americans??? You are in the spin zone OP.
POSTER NO. 1
Don’t you see that how candidates are funding is a part of understanding what the candidates are going to do for Americans? Or do you not think that big money has to much influence on the political process?
Any way you look at it, WI was a win of landslide proportions, once again, way beyond the expectations of any of the polls or pundits. Hillary piled up a pledged delegate lead in early voting even though Bernie was winning Election Day voting in some delegate rich conservative red states that will never vote Democratic in the general. Unless there was voter suppression and/or outright establishment voter fraud, Hillary has lost all the Blue States that matter.
Bernie has closed the gap to the point where Hillary will probably not have enough delegates for the nomination without using super delegates meaning the super delegates will decide the nomination.
Because Hillary keeps saying stupid things like doubting Bernie is really a Democrat, she is further alienating Bernie supporters who are already fed up with her unbelievable level of corruption and sellout to Big Money. It is now becoming clear that she will pivot even further to the right attempting to make up for the loss of Bernie Democrats with so called moderate Republicans. Good luck with that. If you combine the wishes of Blue State Democrats, the fact she does not poll well with Independents, she has lost the youth vote, Republicans hate her even more than they hate Obama, her much too high and still rising unfavorables and the likelihood she will face someone other than Trump or Cruz in the general, she is going lose an otherwise winnable election.
There will be no escaping the fact that the Democratic Establishment will be directly responsible for this loss. The only question after that is; can the Democratic Party survive something like this?
We may have started out with the position; let’s have a fair Democratic primary then we will all get in line to support the Democratic nominee. That was until we found out Hillary was well on her way to bribing and stealing the nomination using no less than the official machinery of the Democratic Party to do it. Now we have a new question; how many of us are still willing to even self indentify as Democrats?
Booman was obsessed with saving the Republican Party, meaning of course, all those wonderful Moderate Republicans being victimized by those crazy right wing nut jobs. Well, here is the answer; the name has been changed to read `Democratic Party’ and your new leader is HRC, complete with corrupt staff and more money than God. It may have been a fool’s errand all along to try to reform this stinking mess from the inside.
Has the time finally arrived to form a new political party that actually aligns with the values of a majority of the American people? If so, why vote Democratic when we’re just going to have to beat them starting in 2018? Are we now at the tipping point Gaius Publius calls `open rebellion’ where voters from both parties refuse to vote for their neo-liberal candidate? The political revolution is not going away regardless of what the DNC does.
Hillary is where I draw the line. I should have suspected when Bill pushed for NAFTA. And when Obama bailed out the banks but not the people, and then didn’t get behind that pro-union legislation at the beginning of his term, well, there you have it.
Now why is anyone making under 50k supposed to vote for Hillary again? Because it’s her turn?
I’m with you, Austin. But no need to adopt her narrative.
SHe thinks she owns the Democratic Party, but she doesn’t. She certainly doesn’t own the Bernie part of it — quite a big chunk. And some of that super delegate front of hers is pretty soft, I believe.
Bob Kerrey, for instance.
https:/www.americarisingpac.org/clinton-endorser-bob-kerrey-reproaches-clinton-again-for-private-se
rver-wall-street-speeches
The link didn’t work because the Booman comment machine corrupts links sometimes but you can find the target if you Google the middle part.
What is clear to me is that the leadership of the Democratic Establishment including Obama has bought into Bill Clinton/Al From’s DLC neo-liberal mindset. What I don’t understand is how deep it goes. This is similar to when the leadership of a non-establishment organization takes an establishment position such as endorsing Hillary when much of that organization disagrees. This is why I agree with you that Hillary’s super delegate support may well indeed be soft.
I write things like this as my futile attempt to defeat the Iron Law if Institutions by sounding the alarm about how many people are now thinking along these lines. This might be the first time the Democratic Party has faced such a lethal crossroads as result of actions taken by their own leadership. I don’t know about the 10% who are lobbyist but I think most of the rest of the super delegates are intelligent people dedicated to what the Democratic Party has stood for in past. Many these people have spent a lifetime dedicated to public service not corrupt power grabbing. I think they will throw Hillary under the bus if choosing her means the destruction of the Democratic Party.
I did not think I would see in my lifetime any Democratic candidate seriously challenge the very inequality the Democrats were responsible for creating because of their embrace of neo-liberalism. Once that choice was available slightly over half of the Democratic Party in a few months embraced that choice ranging from passive support to downright open rebellion. The Democratic Establishment never saw it coming.
Up to this point we’ve only had two neo-liberal political parties to choose from, something like having to choose between two packages of outdated spoiled meat, trying to decide which one is safe to eat. What if suddenly there was another choice, a fresh new party based on the widely popular issues Bernie has already articulated. Imagine if a large number of Independents also joined because there was finally something to vote for. Imagine the size of this new enthusiastic party larger than the diminished rump of the corrupt corporatist Democratic Party. This is what I mean by the destruction of the Democratic Party, something that can be avoided by a few responsible people doing the right thing before all the toothpaste is out of the tube.
I’ve been playing with http://www.demrace.com. If I give Bernie 52% in all closed primaries, 55% in semis, 58% in opens, and 66% in the remaining caucuses, so that he wins every single state that hasn’t yet voted, he still loses the nomination by 89 delegates.
That is why Hillary isn’t sweating.
I wouldn’t bet on it.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/04/02/clintons-frustration-grows-as-primary-race-drags-on/
And that was written before Wisconsin.
You wouldn’t bet on what? Statistically, Bernie would need an Act of God to win. Hillary knows that and she would really like to get on with the election. I’m frustrated by the more extreme of Bernie’s supporters. I can’t imagine her not feeling the same way.
Bernie needs all the delegates he can get, whether he wins or not. And his many supporters deserve the right to vote for him.
I’m sorry you’re frustrated, but it has nothing to do with extremism. If you’re really so sure Bernie can’t win, I think you could stand to be more gracious.
However it goes, the fact is that Sanders has turned this primary from a coronation into a meaningful contest that will have lasting, and beneficial, effects.
http://modernliberals.com/long-hes-raising-hillary-no-reason-bernie-quit/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/28/why-wont-sanders-quit-the-race-because-hes-winning/
More extreme? In what way? Trying to get money out of politics? Pointing out the wars H. Clinton has supported? Pointing out all the trade agreements she’s supported? Pointing out the billions of dollars of money that the wealthiest of the wealthy have showered on her and her hubby?
Or perhaps you are referring to the absolute ineffectiveness that DLC Dems like the Clintons have been for working class Americans for the past quarter century.
Sometimes pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is extreme.
I don’t reflexively believe them either. Not by a long shot.
But it’s just common sense that sometimes something will happen that supports, or at least can be used to support, your opponent’s side. Then they don’t have to lie, and it’s even better than if they did.
For example, this Hillary Victory-PAC story is lighting up the RW websites even as we speak. Some people think THAT must mean it’s not true, or at least grossly exaggerated. No, it doesn’t mean that, it just means they hate Hillary.
This whole phenomenon is actually GREAT for Hillary. There are so many false stories about her out there, her supporters can’t process the true ones.
Then there’s disinformation. Psyop specialists spreading attractive, but false, stories, to confuse the narrative and (when the time comes) make your side look like morons. Well-intentioned, but gullible people spreading them without even needing to be paid …
It happens all the time.
…or it could be that Sanders needs to win the remaining contests by an approximate 13 point margin in order to lead the pledged delegates outright.
He’s been doing better than that lately.
Well, yeah, in the Mid- and Northwest.
Primaries are regional, just like the electoral college. I mean, this isn’t exactly rocket surgery.
How do the Clintons alway manage to be surrounded by issues of questionable behavior and never suffer consequences? Murders, money laundering within the party, blowjobs, money laundering from Goldman Sachs and other entities who paid her to mesmerize them for an hour so, as if she has anything to say—If anyone here has ever heard Hillary Clinton say something with both conviction and substance please let me know (I accept no sociopathic bursts of pleasure at Gaddafi’s sodomization with a knife, calls to war on Iran and any other country Israel may like to destroy, like Iran which she would obliterate, the whole horrid fiasco of Libya and on and on). Who’s is this woman and what is she about? She has the US by the balls. Picture her sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office telling you that war is inevitable and that Chelsea has volunteered.
She’s starting to come unglued. To many crocodiles in the bathtub. Not pretty. Trump’s arrogance is transparent, hers is veiled but just as dangerous.
With that nightmare duo looming, I can’t understand why lefty blogs are doing her work for her trying to turn off Sanders voters. Feels like concern trolling at best. At worst it’s fiddling while Rome burns, trying to head off the fire brigade at the pass.
An apology to the Booman Community. I got off a transcontinental flight late Tuesday night. Was up for 21 hours, had a headache and was falling asleep and waking up at the wrong times. So you might just ignore whatever I wrote yesterday. I will try to be more coherent in the future.
I still am rooting for Sanders and I still want to know why a Sri Lankan lobbyist sent money to the Montana Democratic Party if it wasn’t to play the campaign finance rules, but I’m willing to say that I did not give a clear explication of the money-laundering scheme. These things are necessarily convoluted.
It’s a little late to unring all those bells, isn’t it?
What bells?
Because that’s not what happened. I’ll collect the info and provide it in a comment to my latest diary.
I wasn’t awake for 21 straight hours? Or the lobbyist for Sri Lanka didn’t donate to the Democratic Party of Montana?
I wouldn’t know about your sleep/wake cycle, but you’ve latched onto a distorted factoid and are missing the larger story. Will post the facts in a few minutes.
The fact is the Sri Lankan lobbyist is bundling for Hillary.
So what? Bundling is an accepted part of US sleazy campaign fundraising. As DWS has rescinded the ban on lobbyist contributions, even if the guy were a lobbyist, his money would be good with the DNC. Also note that he gave the RNC $32,400 (his money) last year. So, we could guess that there was some competition for this guy’s financial favors.
Am I restricted from commenting on “sleazy campaign fundraising”? It’s money-laundering and it’s a way to get around the laws so that H. Clinton’s billionaire supporters could move money around to get an extra 26 million in one of her PACs.
Are you saying that because bundling is “accepted” I have no right to discuss it?
I don’t understand what your problem is with me bringing up a pretty clearly corrupt political practice when you write a diary about it.
“even if the guy were a lobbyist…”
“The Sri Lankan government, long under fire for official corruption and at a low point in its relations with Washington, did just that. Over a five-month period in 2014, it paid Zuberi $4.5 million directly — plus another $2 million to a company he co-owns — for consulting services which included influencing the U.S. government, according to documents obtained by Foreign Policy. Zuberi’s windfall was not disclosed to the Justice Department, as required under federal law, and the lobbying and public relations firms hired through his company to influence the U.S. government on Sri Lanka’s behalf have all received DOJ subpoenas, according to a senior government official. Justice is seeking public assets allegedly stolen from Sri Lanka. None of the firms is a target of the investigation, which is focused on members of the family of the country’s former president and has not been previously reported.”
“Even if the guy were a lobbyist…” If Zuberi gets 6.5 million from Sri Lanka for “consulting services” for the purpose of “influencing the U.S. government” what would call him if not a lobbyist?
An `enormous drop-off’ hurt down-ballot Dems in Wisconsin
04/07/16 10:04 AM–UPDATED 04/07/16 10:13 AM
By Steve Benen
When Wisconsin voters went to the polls this week, the bulk of the attention was directed at the presidential primaries, with both parties hosting competitive contests. But as Rachel noted on the show on Monday and Tuesday, there was another contest on the ballot that was worth watching closely.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) appointed Rebecca Bradley, a far-right jurist, to the state Supreme Court, and it was up to voters to decide whether to give her a full term. Despite her record of extremist views and rhetoric, Bradley prevailed over her rival, JoAnne Kloppenburg, who was supported by Democrats and Wisconsin unions in a race that was technically non-partisan.
So what went wrong for the left? The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel published an interesting report today on an important analysis of the election results.
Bradley won the election, a surprise to Democrats. This morning, some progressives picked a culprit: voters who cast ballots for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and left the rest of their ballots blank. According to exit polling conducted by the independent group DecisionDesk and BenchMark Politics, perhaps 15 percent of Sanders voters skipped the Bradley-Kloppenburg race; just 4 percent of Hillary Clinton voters did the same.
“There was an enormous drop-off,” said Brandon Finnigin of DecisionDesk. “There was a substantial number of voters in that voted for Sanders, then for nothing else.”
It’s important to emphasize that while Sanders has been criticized for raising money for himself, and not for other candidates, Democratic campaign committees, or state parties, he did endorse Kloppenburg over Bradley. Hillary Clinton also focused attention on the state Supreme Court fight, telling a Milwaukee audience over the weekend, “There is no place on any Supreme Court or any court in this country, no place at all for Rebecca Bradley’s decades-long track record of dangerous rhetoric against women, survivors of sexual assault and the LGBT community.”
But in the larger context, the fact that so many Sanders supporters showed up to vote for him, but not other like-minded candidates, reinforces Democratic concerns about the senator’s electoral role. As Weigel’s report added, many Dems are now arguing that Clinton “is investing in the Democratic Party’s success,” while “Sanders, far from a revolution, has built a personal following but little else.”
there’s a diary on kos unpacking this misleading article. saw it this morning but now cannot find to link [by Maxwell]. will link later. when I can get online again
here’s the diary
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/6/1511506/-The-Kloppenburg-Defeat-Sanders-Markos-and-the-Resp
onsibilities-of-Movement-Building
this place has really lost its way. good articles by booman but stevend and most of the commenters are fucking nuts.