DNC “Unity Commission” to look at reforms to nomination process for 2020

[Former Kentuckian]

Why is Jeff Berman, a former lobbyist for the Keystone Pipeline and private prison GEO group on this commission? And why is Charlie Baker, a co-founder of the same Dewey Square Group that worked to undermine the Affordable Care Act, involved in this? What a joke. Let me guess, they were appointed by Clinton?

Bingo. They're both listed as part of the commission under "former Clinton" staff (Berman listed as "former Clinton campaign consultant" and Baker listed as "former chief administrative officer of the Clinton campaign").  She knows how to pick some winners.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

[Former Kentuckian]

Unlike most other left-wing democrats I'm totally aganst eliminating superdelegates due to the fact the Democratic Party needs a insurance policy against some wealthy Trump-like celebrity or businessman (I.e. Kanye west, Oprah Winfrey, Marc Cuban, mark zuckerberg) from hijaking the party nomination. Remember if the republicans had superdelegates trump would not be in the White House today.

I don't know, I can see the 2016 superdelegates voting for someone like Oprah or Zuckerberg. I'm glad they'll be trimmed down for 2020.

[Former Kentuckian]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

[Former Kentuckian]

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

Whether superdelegates were proportional, whether superdelegates were required to vote with their states, or whether they were eliminated altogether, Hillary Clinton would have won. The notion that she won solely because of them has been debunked numerous times.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it depressed turnout. Sanders upset her in Michigan, and had her running scared in May running to WV, KY, and IN because he was keeping it close and providing terrible optics for the campaign of the presumptive nominee still losing primaries weeks before the convention.

I also find it interesting how there is no acknowledgment of how undemocratic caucuses are and how they favored the Sanders campaign. In several states that held both caucuses and primaries, Bernie performed well in the low turnout caucuses while Hillary beat him soundly in primaries where there was higher participation, and voters could vote Hillary in the privacy of a voting booth without being shouted down by Sanders supporters. Telling that Clinton won the Washington Primary which had three times as many voters as the caucus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/

 

And considering Hillary won Iowa because of a coin toss, I think Bernie and his fans know the caucuses suck and that's why they are also (thankfully) being reformed to require written votes, absentee votes, and will now be required to release vote tallies and come up with more democratic ways to break ties

[Former Kentuckian]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

[Former Kentuckian]

Hillary needed 2,382 delegates to win. She had 2,205 pledged. Superdelegates played a role somehow.

There were 4,051 pledged delegates. 2,205 is a majority of these delegates. If superdelegates were not used in the Democratic primary she would only need 2,026 bound delegates to win. She surpassed that and would have won the primary regardless.

But the problem is they were used in the primary and that's how she won. She didn't win from pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. That's the issue and that's why there's a Unity Commission. And that's why her own VP nominee is against superdelegates.

Either way, I agree that their role should be reduced but not eliminated totally. The last thing I want is a Trump-like figure hijacking our party by winning a plurality of the vote, because fifty other candidates who can't take a hint cannibalize the opposition vote.

I hope I didn't seem rude or like I was arguing. This kind of debate is important, and otherwise I mostly agree with everything you write here on the forums.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate because there seem to be more Hillary fans than Bernie fans on here and some don't seem to understand why people were, and still are, angry and why these reforms are so important. I don't know that they would have made a difference in 2016, but hopefully we avoid the mess of 2016.

[Former Kentuckian]

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that Trump would've won the popular vote if not for the MILLIONS of illegals voting for Hitler-y c**nt-on.

You know, it's truly amazing how similar Trumpbots and Bernie bros sound. And it's even more amazing their inability to see that.

I'm not a Bernie Bro and it's gross and insensitive to joke about Hitler. Unlike Trump's baseless xenophobic nonsense with no semblance of reality, the Democratic primaries are/were flawed and everyone realizes that and, thankfully, are working to make 2020 more fair.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate because there seem to be more Hillary fans than Bernie fans on here and some don't seem to understand why people were, and still are, angry and why these reforms are so important. I don't know that they would have made a difference in 2016, but hopefully we avoid the mess of 2016.

Your points are valid, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, Hillary still won the pledged delegate count and popular vote and was therefore the legitimate winner. That's a totally separate question from whether or not superdelegates are fair or necessary.

I think we agree. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of her being the nominee. I don't think there was fraud or anything improper. I'm just arguing that superdelegates pushed her over the majority and that is why people are angry, and why people from all sides of the 2016 primary are pushing for reform. It needs to be changed so that there isn't even an impression of unfairness (and, honestly, I think not having Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the helm will play a huge part in correcting some of this. Not only were her decisions bad, her interviews were even worse and terrible PR).