Discussion:
About time - Dems considering eliminating superdelegates from nominating process
(too old to reply)
wolfbat359
2018-03-09 03:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process

Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.

The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.

ADVERTISEMENT

The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.

Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.

The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.

The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.

The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-09 04:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:04:03 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process
Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.
I certainly hope that succeeds. I don't know who ever thought the
idea of "superdelegates" not elected by "the people" would be well-
received by the people.
Post by wolfbat359
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.
The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.
ADVERTISEMENT
The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.
Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.
The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.
As a Sanders supporter, I don't think Sanders would have won
even if there were no superdelegates, but the superdelegates
all (presumably) voting for Hillary was an insult.
Post by wolfbat359
The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.
The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
mg
2018-03-09 12:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:04:03 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process
Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.
The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.
ADVERTISEMENT
The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.
Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.
The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.
The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.
The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.




------------------------------
The system is as rigged as we
think. In fact, it’s worse than
most Americans realize.
- Elizabeth Warren
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-09 13:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:04:03 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process
Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.
The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.
ADVERTISEMENT
The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.
Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.
The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.
The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.
The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.

I am optimistic the Democrats will kill the "superdelegates".
The situation has gotten too much justified bad publicity.
It's anti-democratic with a small "d" (and a big "D" too),
not that anti-democratic procedures don't keep popping up
in both parties whenever the public's eye is turned
elsewhere. "Citizens United", the worst Supreme Court
decision in history since Dred Scott IMO, has reinforced
the cancer that is eating away at the "United States of
America".
mg
2018-03-09 18:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:04:03 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process
Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.
The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.
ADVERTISEMENT
The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.
Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.
The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.
The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.
The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.

And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I am optimistic the Democrats will kill the "superdelegates".
The situation has gotten too much justified bad publicity.
It's anti-democratic with a small "d" (and a big "D" too),
not that anti-democratic procedures don't keep popping up
in both parties whenever the public's eye is turned
elsewhere. "Citizens United", the worst Supreme Court
decision in history since Dred Scott IMO, has reinforced
the cancer that is eating away at the "United States of
America".
me
2018-03-09 18:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:04:03 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377540-dems-considering-eliminating-superdelegates-from-nominating-process
Democratic National Committee (DNC) members are weighing a new proposal to eliminate all superdelegates from the party’s nominating process, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee have been discussing the proposal on superdelegates created by the Unity Reform Commission, which was created after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary battle.
The unity commission had called to reduce superdelegates by about 60 percent, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is now considering taking the proposal even further.
ADVERTISEMENT
The DNC members are debating language that would call for the committee to either "reduce," "substantially reduce," or "eliminate" superdelegates, according to BuzzFeed.
Superdelegates are not bound to states’ election results in primaries, and can support whichever candidate they choose to at their party’s nominating convention.
The delegates became a major point of contention during the 2016 Democratic primary, with some Sanders' supporters believing that establishment Democrats serving as superdelegates rigged the primary in Clinton's favor.
The committee is expected to agree on a proposal ahead of the next Democratic Party meeting, which will take place this summer or fall. The proposal will come up for a final vote at that meeting.
The measure will need two-thirds support from the 447 DNC members in order to pass, according to BuzzFeed.
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I am optimistic the Democrats will kill the "superdelegates".
The situation has gotten too much justified bad publicity.
It's anti-democratic with a small "d" (and a big "D" too),
not that anti-democratic procedures don't keep popping up
in both parties whenever the public's eye is turned
elsewhere. "Citizens United", the worst Supreme Court
decision in history since Dred Scott IMO, has reinforced
the cancer that is eating away at the "United States of
America".
The American people fucked themselves.

Government at all levels are fiscally strained and face the prospect of insolvency and debt default. That is when democracy has failed. To prevent debt default elected local governments are replaced with unelected 'fiscal control boards' representing the interests of creditors who naturally don't want to be fleeced by debtors. We, the People can still vote. But the money issues are decided by bankers. This may resemble a democracy - but it isn't.

Central bankers serve this function at the national level. In the US that is the Federal Reserve Bank. For Euro zone countries the European Central Bank decides what Greece will do irrespective of how the Greek people vote because Greek democracy bankrupted itself and is unable to pay the cost of benefits they voted for themselves.
http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-09 18:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
We need a people's congress too, but that won't happen
until more people wake up. Right now "the people" are
voting for the oligarchy for the same reason they're buying
gizmo cars and taking vacations to Cancun. Those are
advertised on TV as something everybody should want, so
they think that's what they themselves should want. If
they don't have them they're "missing out" on "the good life".
It's all brainwashing. Some of them even get suckered into
buying into "timeshares" because they've been sold that's a
luxury. Then they find they've bought a tar baby that's
eating up their wealth and that they can't get unstuck from.
Emily
2018-03-09 22:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
We need a people's congress too, but that won't happen
until more people wake up. Right now "the people" are
voting for the oligarchy for the same reason they're buying
gizmo cars and taking vacations to Cancun. Those are
advertised on TV as something everybody should want, so
they think that's what they themselves should want. If
they don't have them they're "missing out" on "the good life".
It's all brainwashing. Some of them even get suckered into
buying into "timeshares" because they've been sold that's a
luxury. Then they find they've bought a tar baby that's
eating up their wealth and that they can't get unstuck from.
Have you sold your timeshare yet? ;-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-10 02:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by rumpelstiltskin
We need a people's congress too, but that won't happen
until more people wake up. Right now "the people" are
voting for the oligarchy for the same reason they're buying
gizmo cars and taking vacations to Cancun. Those are
advertised on TV as something everybody should want, so
they think that's what they themselves should want. If
they don't have them they're "missing out" on "the good life".
It's all brainwashing. Some of them even get suckered into
buying into "timeshares" because they've been sold that's a
luxury. Then they find they've bought a tar baby that's
eating up their wealth and that they can't get unstuck from.
Have you sold your timeshare yet? ;-)
No, I haven't even bought it yet, but I still get junk mail
and even a couple of junk phone calls offering to help
me get rid of my timeshare! I guess I will have to buy
one, just so that I can be "with it".
mg
2018-03-12 11:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
We need a people's congress too, but that won't happen
until more people wake up. Right now "the people" are
voting for the oligarchy for the same reason they're buying
gizmo cars and taking vacations to Cancun. Those are
advertised on TV as something everybody should want, so
they think that's what they themselves should want. If
they don't have them they're "missing out" on "the good life".
It's all brainwashing. Some of them even get suckered into
buying into "timeshares" because they've been sold that's a
luxury. Then they find they've bought a tar baby that's
eating up their wealth and that they can't get unstuck from.
I think that the oligarchy establishment is not only firmly entrenched
in the Congress, it's also firmly entrenched in the news media, and
firmly entrenched in the bureaucracy and firmly entrenched in the
cabinet and firmly entrenched in the FBI and the intelligence agencies
and actually I think it probably controls the school text books, too.

So, barring some sort of revolution, like the French Revolution, for
instance, I don't see any path back to the sort of democracy we once
had and that's not going to happen. Or, perhaps it will happen in a
few hundred years, but I tend to doubt it because even revolutions can
be quite easily derailed into something else without the people ever
knowing that they've been hoodwinked.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-12 14:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
We need a people's congress too, but that won't happen
until more people wake up. Right now "the people" are
voting for the oligarchy for the same reason they're buying
gizmo cars and taking vacations to Cancun. Those are
advertised on TV as something everybody should want, so
they think that's what they themselves should want. If
they don't have them they're "missing out" on "the good life".
It's all brainwashing. Some of them even get suckered into
buying into "timeshares" because they've been sold that's a
luxury. Then they find they've bought a tar baby that's
eating up their wealth and that they can't get unstuck from.
I think that the oligarchy establishment is not only firmly entrenched
in the Congress, it's also firmly entrenched in the news media,
That's why you and I pay attention to RT.
Post by mg
and
firmly entrenched in the bureaucracy and firmly entrenched in the
cabinet and firmly entrenched in the FBI and the intelligence agencies
and actually I think it probably controls the school text books, too.
McCarthyism is rising from the grave. Was it ever really dead?
Post by mg
So, barring some sort of revolution, like the French Revolution, for
instance, I don't see any path back to the sort of democracy we once
had and that's not going to happen. Or, perhaps it will happen in a
few hundred years, but I tend to doubt it because even revolutions can
be quite easily derailed into something else without the people ever
knowing that they've been hoodwinked.
I'm not so pessimistic. The clownish way in which the public
is getting pushed around by the Federal Government and its
partners in crime these days is possibly catching the notice of
younger people and especially the current generation of
teenagers. If they don't fossilize early, there may be enough
of them finally for a peaceful revolution, and woe not only to
the Republican Party but to the Democratic Party too.

Gary
2018-03-09 20:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
I ran across an interesting little piece of historic trivia a few
years ago, while looking for something else. Like you, I long ago
decided that we American common folk have only what our Oligarchy
masters give us.

But I thought the masters had at least allowed us free, white, over
age 21, males to vote for president. I was wrong ! In South
Carolina before the Civil War -- nobody was allowed to vote for
president. The Legislature chose the electors who would vote for
president. Rich men were either in the legislature -- or controlled
those who were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina,_1860


"...The 1860 United States presidential election in South Carolina
took place on November 6, 1860, as part of the 1860 United States
presidential election. The state legislature chose eight
representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for
president and vice president, which would be the last time the state
would do so...."
mg
2018-03-12 11:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
With renegades like Trump and Sanders trying to kill the oligarchy, I
don't think there's much chance of the DNC suddenly deciding to become
honest and pass a measure like that.
I don't see Trump trying to kill the oligarchy. He is, after
all, a member.
I think he started out as a nonestablishment candidate, but I think he
learned one important lesson fast. If both political parties are after
you, you're not likely to survive very long and eventually, you have
to play ball with your own party, at least to some extent, or else.
And that raises the question of what would have happened if Bernie had
won? Or, what would happen if Elizabeth Warren runs for president and
wins? Is there any possibility at all -- even the slightest
possibility -- that we can throw the bums out, or kill the oligarchy,
by electing a nonestablishment president? Based on what I've seen so
far, I would say no, there's no possibility. The American people are
just permanently f**ked.
I ran across an interesting little piece of historic trivia a few
years ago, while looking for something else. Like you, I long ago
decided that we American common folk have only what our Oligarchy
masters give us.
But I thought the masters had at least allowed us free, white, over
age 21, males to vote for president. I was wrong ! In South
Carolina before the Civil War -- nobody was allowed to vote for
president. The Legislature chose the electors who would vote for
president. Rich men were either in the legislature -- or controlled
those who were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina,_1860
"...The 1860 United States presidential election in South Carolina
took place on November 6, 1860, as part of the 1860 United States
presidential election. The state legislature chose eight
representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for
president and vice president, which would be the last time the state
would do so...."
That would be one way of doing it and it would be perfectly legal, I
think, but now days there would probably be a lot of public outrage.
It's much easier for the political parties to simply commit fraud
since it evidently isn't illegal for them to do so:
http://www.oann.com/fla-judge-dismisses-fraud-case-against-dnc-by-sanders-supporters/
Loading...