Sanders-backed DNC plan sparks superdelegate revolt

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 8:18pm

Sanders-backed DNC plan sparks superdelegate revolt
The proposal to reduce the power of superdelegates reflects an effort to mend divisions still lingering from the 2016 presidential primary.
By DAVID SIDERS 07/11/2018 03:32 PM EDT Updated 07/11/2018 04:17 PM EDT

The proposal has the support of DNC Chairman Tom Perez, pictured, and two former DNC chairs — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton’s 2016 running mate. | Andrew Harnik, File/AP Photo
Facebook Twitter Google +

A band of Democratic National Committee superdelegates is staging a revolt against a Bernie Sanders-endorsed plan to reduce their influence in the presidential nominating process, mounting a longshot bid to block the measure when the DNC meets in Chicago next month.

The proposal, a priority of Sanders’ supporters since the Vermont senator‘s defeat in a bitterly contested 2016 primary, would prohibit superdelegates — who made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention — from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at a contested national convention.

+

“If we don’t have a vote, then what good are we?” said William Owen, a superdelegate and DNC member from Tennessee who has been contacting fellow DNC members ahead of the Chicago gathering, especially in the South. “In Chicago, this will not be rubber stamped.”

Bob Mulholland, a superdelegate and DNC member from California who has been in talks with superdelegates in the West, said, “The more DNC members realize that this so-called reform is to throw them off the floor … I think there will be a lot of complaints in Chicago.”

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/07/11/bernie-sanders-dnc-superde...

Someone really needs to answer this guy’s question!!!

“If we don’t have a vote, then what good are we?”

Other than to pull some fancy shenanigans and rig a primary, they’re absolutely useless.

Tags:

Quelle surprise!

Vote

Comments

Submitted by JekyllnHyde on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 8:33pm

The SuperDelegate System: Inherently Undemocratic

For the so-called "Party of the People," this system is a disgrace and needs to end.

—

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

Submitted by JekyllnHyde on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 8:39pm

Positively Orwellian

—

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 8:55pm

Man, thanks for these amazing political cartoons.

@JekyllnHyde
I used to look for your contributions all the time at TOP. Probably collected quite a few of them during the Obama years. How do you go about curating such a great collection? That's mostly rhetorical.

Thanks again, JnH. Hope you're well.

—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Submitted by dkmich on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:49am

I don't think he curates,

@Mark from Queens @Mark from Queens @Mark from Queens

I think he creates. Very talented guy. I followed him at TOP too. He keeps improving with time if that's even possible.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by JekyllnHyde on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 2:19pm

Thank You, dkmich and Mark

@dkmich

... for your generous comments. I appreciate it a lot.

—

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

Submitted by Pricknick on Fri, 07/13/2018 - 12:07am

So

@JekyllnHyde
Do you create or work under mysterious synonyms?
Inquiring minds are a pox on the normal.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by Big Al on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 10:30pm

Heh, considering who is supporting it, besides Saint Bernie,

it would seem much ado about nothing relative to the validity of the democratic party.

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 10:36pm

I like Christine Pelosi's idea

Christine Pelosi, a DNC member from California and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, said she has opposed the use of superdelegates since the process was created in the early 1980s, and she will vote for the proposal to reduce their influence in August. But she said she would prefer that the DNC simply bind superdelegates’ votes to the vote of their state or to the national pledged delegate winner.

I could go for that. That way voters aren't disenfranchised and the elite Grand Poobahs of the party still get the "special" title of "Superdelegate."

Submitted by dkmich on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 9:02am

Exist for what purpose?

@LoneStarMike

If they are bound to their state and/or the national candidate, they have no point as I see it. We all know they were created to do exactly what they did to Bernie in 2016. Steal the primary from "stupid" voters.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:31pm

They actually shouldn't have a purpose...

@dkmich

Other than being a pledged delegate, but let's go ahead and give them the title of Superdelegate so they feel "special."

And what makes the Democratic Party so special anyway? Why is it the only party that has unpledged delegates? Why is it the only party that has ever had pledged delegates?

Submitted by Centaurea on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 4:57am

William Owen, lobbyist

If we don’t have a vote, then what good are we?” said William Owen, a superdelegate and DNC member from Tennessee who has been contacting fellow DNC members ahead of the Chicago gathering, especially in the South.

William S. Owen is a consultant and lobbyist for the healthcare industry and has been since Bill Clinton was POTUS.

Here's an excerpt from the DNC superdelegate profile for William Owen published at HuffPost.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/89034

William S. Owen Tennessee

*Bill Owen - Clinton delegate - A former state senator, Owen is a consultant and lobbyist who according to FEC filings owns
Assets Equity Group in Knoxville. He has hosted a cable access show in Knoxville.

*The following is taken directly from his resume——————————
*William S. Owen is a former Tennessee State Senator and served 12 years in the Tennessee General Assembly.

*As a lobbyist, Mr. Owen successfully recommended amendments to the Medicare Reform Act of 2003, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1998.

*An amendment to the Health Care Reform Bill suggested by Mr. Owen was adopted by the Ways and Means Committee in 1996.

*He also successfully recommended amendments to the Medicare Act of 1996, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

*Mr. Owen first became involved in Washington lobbying in 1993, working to amend the Health Care Reform Bill of 1994.

*The amendment suggested by Mr. Owen was one of only 16 amendments adopted by the House Ways and Means Committee.

(Emphasis mine).

I'd be interested to know the details of Mr. Owen's amendments to the various Medicare bills and the 1994 Health Care Reform bill, which he proposed in his capacity as lobbyist for the healthcare industry.

No wonder he is freaking out about losing power over the choice of Dem nominee. His livelihood is on the line. His role as DNC superdelegate is a vital part of his ability to serve the interests of his corporate clients.

To me, the most amazing part of this is the fact that neither he nor the DNC seem to have any sense of shame. They openly admit what they're doing, and fight to maintain it.

How can anyone look at this and not see the corruption?

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by MrWebster on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:26am

DNC wanst to hide superdelegates are unelected lobbyists

@Centaurea Everytime I hear, read, or see some defense of super-delegates, it is always about that certain elected officials being superdelegates. These lobbyists are not elected by anybody.

If we don’t have a vote, then what good are we?” said William Owen, a superdelegate and DNC member from Tennessee who has been contacting fellow DNC members ahead of the Chicago gathering, especially in the South.

William S. Owen is a consultant and lobbyist for the healthcare industry and has been since Bill Clinton was POTUS.

Here's an excerpt from the DNC superdelegate profile for William Owen published at HuffPost.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/89034

William S. Owen Tennessee

*Bill Owen - Clinton delegate - A former state senator, Owen is a consultant and lobbyist who according to FEC filings owns
Assets Equity Group in Knoxville. He has hosted a cable access show in Knoxville.

*The following is taken directly from his resume——————————
*William S. Owen is a former Tennessee State Senator and served 12 years in the Tennessee General Assembly.

*As a lobbyist, Mr. Owen successfully recommended amendments to the Medicare Reform Act of 2003, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1998.

*An amendment to the Health Care Reform Bill suggested by Mr. Owen was adopted by the Ways and Means Committee in 1996.

*He also successfully recommended amendments to the Medicare Act of 1996, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

*Mr. Owen first became involved in Washington lobbying in 1993, working to amend the Health Care Reform Bill of 1994.

*The amendment suggested by Mr. Owen was one of only 16 amendments adopted by the House Ways and Means Committee.

(Emphasis mine).

I'd be interested to know the details of Mr. Owen's amendments to the various Medicare bills and the 1994 Health Care Reform bill, which he proposed in his capacity as lobbyist for the healthcare industry.

No wonder he is freaking out about losing power over the choice of Dem nominee. His livelihood is on the line. His role as DNC superdelegate is a vital part of his ability to serve the interests of his corporate clients.

To me, the most amazing part of this is the fact that neither he nor the DNC seem to have any sense of shame. They openly admit what they're doing, and fight to maintain it.

How can anyone look at this and not see the corruption?

Submitted by ovals49 on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 5:45am

If we were ever a Democracy, we’d be a Socialist country by now.

The creation of our Representative Democracy by our Founders insured that those with accumulated wealth and power would always have a disproportionate influence in the running of the government. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Our country's governance structure was designed to look like a Democracy, while providing a classist system that vested control to those few of wealth and privilege. We’ve been successfully duped for centuries. Unfortunately I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Democrats and Republicans alike want things to continue as they are. Any talk of reform or change by them is just a head fake designed to tamp down the seeds of discontent. The last thing they want is another, people powered, revolt.

—

“The story around the world gives a silent testimony:
— The Beresovka mammoth, frozen in mud, with buttercups in his mouth…..”

The Adam and Eve Story, Chan Thomas 1963

Submitted by FutureNow on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 8:06am

Furthermore

@ovals49
Clintonites always harp on Her’s raw vote totals over Trump’s yet no one on Teams Red or Blue has suggested boo about abolishing the Electoral College. They’ll continue to take their chances in running the casino, thank you very much.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 8:39am

Raw vote totals...

@FutureNow

Clinton only got a plurality (48.25%). I’m not sure that is in the same league as candidates who got a majority and lost the EC. One day I’ll figure out if that had ever happened before.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by FutureNow on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:01am

Did I confuse the issue

@Hawkfish
with the term “raw?” I thought my meaning was clear enough that Her’s 48.2% was larger than Trump’s 46.1%, by a bit less than three million votes, regardless of how they were distributed within the Electoral College map.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:53am

You didn’t confuse it

@FutureNow

But many hillbots do. Sorry for not being clear.

I finally got off my lazy ass and did a bit of digging on this. It turns out there is an entire Wikipedia article on the subject. The money quote:

only in 1876 did the unsuccessful candidate receive more than 50 percent

So since 1876, losing the EC means no majority.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 3:04pm

More involved than electoral college

@Hawkfish

The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever, although it is not disputed that Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote. After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes's 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved. In the case of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for being an "elected or appointed official". The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy. An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence to Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who proceeded to disenfranchise black voters in subsequent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 3:09pm

feature

@ovals49

The creation of our Representative Democracy by our Founders insured that those with accumulated wealth and power would always have a disproportionate influence in the running of the government. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Our country's governance structure was designed to look like a Democracy, while providing a classist system that vested control to those few of wealth and privilege. We’ve been successfully duped for centuries. Unfortunately I don’t see that changing any time soon.

This feature was inherited from the Westminster Parliamentary System of governance. Like all other Parliaments, it was devised by English Kings to give an appearance of Democracy while leaving all real power in the hands of the Kings.

We've been successfully duped for more centuries than the USA has been a sovereign nation. (Since before Magna Charta.)

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by WaterLily on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 8:12am

Poor babies, their fee-fees are hurt!

But the proposal has infuriated many superdelegates, who stand to lose significant influence over the party’s selection of a nominee and complain elected officials and longtime party operatives are being disenfranchised.

Neverfuckingmind that their "significant influence" disenfranchises us regular people.

During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, “For what? Why? … Why vote if you can’t affect the outcome?”

Hey! Now you know how we feel, fuckwad.

Submitted by WaterLily on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 8:15am

Classy.

“This is serious,” Owen said. “We have a saying in the South that’s ‘as worthless as nipples on a boar hog’ … which means you can suck on them all you want, but you don’t get anything out of it.”

Takes a pig to know one.

(Sorry, if you can't already tell, this shit infuriates me).

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 6:16pm

to know one

@WaterLily

Classy.

“This is serious,” Owen said. “We have a saying in the South that’s ‘as worthless as nipples on a boar hog’ … which means you can suck on them all you want, but you don’t get anything out of it.”

Takes a pig to know one.

1. The term is "tits", not "nipples".

2. One wonders just what sort of "knowledge" of swine Owen is really into. Gives the term "animal husbandry" a whole new meaning!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Hawkfish on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 6:41pm

Just sic Joni Ernst on him

@thanatokephaloides

She’ll make him squeal!

(The ad is no longer on YouTube or I would include it.)

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 8:49am

Ok, a few Notes.

Seeing as I'm finding this show boring and tedious, I've decided to throw a few notes at this production.

- When you write out a bad character, don't bring them back just to get an audience reaction. It works if the character in question has been gone for decades, but bringing them back the very next episode just smacks of stupidity.

- At a certain point in a narrative, it's unrealistic to expect a character to not expect betrayal, especially if they've been betrayed again and again.

- Get a better name up there than Dean. He was a heart throb for a while, but nobody likes him anymore. It's like trying to cast Tom Cruise as Jesus. Just does NOT work.

- This idea that a small group affects everyone is a bit played out in the media. Perhaps you should try something else, especially because most people change the channel when your show comes on at this point. Maybe a little interactivity with the audience.

And some music to piss off the DNC.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75A3Z2k6YY0]

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Snode on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 6:32pm

Super delegates essentially serve this function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey_presidential_campaign,_1968

"Humphrey entered the race too late to participate in any primaries, and relied on "favorite son" candidates to help him win delegates. He also lobbied for endorsements from powerful bosses within the Democratic Party, which provided him with necessary delegates. This traditional approach was criticized by the other candidates, who hoped to win the nomination from popular support. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968, leaving McCarthy as his only opponent, until the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Senator George McGovern of South Dakota ran as the successor of Kennedy. Humphrey won the party's nomination at the Convention on the first ballot, amid riots in Chicago. He selected little-known Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine as his running mate."

See, they want to go back to a more "traditional approach".

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Thu, 07/12/2018 - 6:45pm

And lost to Richard Nixon

@Snode Just like the Anointed One lost to Donald Trump.

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by The Liberal Moonbat on Fri, 07/13/2018 - 12:42am

The superdelegates are revolting, you say?

—

In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.

Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!

Submitted by Nastarana on Fri, 07/13/2018 - 9:52am

I think a case can be made

for SOME elected officials having convention votes--senators, congresspersons and sitting governors perhaps, but surely NO lobbyists should get a vote. Maybe even mayors of large cities could be included, so they can extract goodies for their cities in return for their votes.

—

Mary Bennett