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

[Shadows]

The fact that Sanders has appointed two crazy people who spend most of their time attacking Democrats (comic book man and TYT fake journalist lady) as his representatives is a clear signal that he is not entering into these negotiations in good faith.

You have reached a new low.  Did your boyfriend/girlfriend dump you for a Bernie supporter?  That's the only explanation I can think of for your stupidity.

He is a troll who is there to humor people - I don't why people take him seriously? Just consider him a conservative Dem comic or something !

[Shadows]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

Fair enough, and it's unlikely that the Clinton faction will vote to get rid of Superdels entirely (I suspect that they would support a measure to 'gag' them before their state votes or something like that.)

Point being, neither side is going to get everything that they want. Hopefully, though, the Clinton appointees will recognize that a lot of change is necessary.

Gag is meaningless & impossible to enforce. CNN & NBC will just do secret interviews & will refuse to reveal names - Also they may campaign for 1 of the candidates & say anything short of I am will vote but will endorse or will use similar language.

I think the Supers have to go but atleast it is expected to be cut down massively. The Debate thing should also come under the rules for 2020 right? I think they should finalize 12 debates before even the candidates are announced. April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March - 1 Each every month - 10 Debates pre-Iowa with Townhalls & forums added as candidates want.

[Shadows]

   12   Nomiki Konst, New York
   18   Nina Turner, Ohio
   19   Jeff Weaver, Virginia

...

Those three were all picked by Sanders, in case that wasn't obvious.  

He could've picked three people off the street in Burlington and they would've been better choices. I really can't stand how much Perez is capitulating to the minority of the party.

This is just political hackery (tall talk coming from someone who helped elect Trump) when Clinton campaign officials can all be there in the Unity Commission& there's not a damn issue but when Bernie's campaign manager or a Dem State Senator from Ohio, all hell breaks lose.

I guess anyone who is not a political hack & took for the establishment is better than random people in the streets !

[Shadows]

Why is the breakup not available? Who did Perez pick? All non-Sanders' pick look like lifelong Clinton people ! Anyways Clinton gets 9 to Sanders 7, so no use expecting a loss.

They should probably abolish primaries & elect candidates via a convention of DNC members if they thing it is okay for Super-Delegates to over-turn the will of the people. Don't know can anyone be this dumb to even argue for it?

[Shadows]

Why is the breakup not available? Who did Perez pick? All non-Sanders' pick look like lifelong Clinton people ! Anyways Clinton gets 9 to Sanders 7, so no use expecting a loss.

They should probably abolish primaries & elect candidates via a convention of DNC members if they thing it is okay for Super-Delegates to over-turn the will of the people. Don't know can anyone be this dumb to even argue for it?

Bernie chose 8 people.
I assume the 10 people who are obviously Hillary people according to the description, mostly from the campaign were chosen by Hillary.
That leaves 3 people. A google shows that Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and Elaine Kamarck were both members of the Hillary campaign while James Roosevelt, Jr is some DNC establishment hack who served in the Clinton administration. So yes, everyone that Bernie didn't choose was a Clinton hack, and most were members of her campaign. F**k Perez and his unity commission.

The breakup was 7/9/3 so I don't know Bernie chose 8. Maybe Perez gave 1 of his slots to each of Bernie, Hillary & chose the other himself. Let's see what the Unity Commission does before passing a judgement ! Perez & this stuff deserves a fair shot, time & then should be called into question with results showing he has failed/hasn't done anything !

[Shadows]

Why is the breakup not available? Who did Perez pick? All non-Sanders' pick look like lifelong Clinton people ! Anyways Clinton gets 9 to Sanders 7, so no use expecting a loss.

They should probably abolish primaries & elect candidates via a convention of DNC members if they thing it is okay for Super-Delegates to over-turn the will of the people. Don't know can anyone be this dumb to even argue for it?

Bernie chose 8 people.
I assume the 10 people who are obviously Hillary people according to the description, mostly from the campaign were chosen by Hillary.
That leaves 3 people. A google shows that Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and Elaine Kamarck were both members of the Hillary campaign while James Roosevelt, Jr is some DNC establishment hack who served in the Clinton administration. So yes, everyone that Bernie didn't choose was a Clinton hack, and most were members of her campaign. F**k Perez and his unity commission.

I'm sorry explain to me why the guy who lost by 3 million votes in the primary is suppose to have more people then Hillary?

Sanders should not have more people, but if this is the "Unity" commission, then there has to be some serious concessions to the Bernie wing, otherwise they should not pretend to do this.

Also I fail to see what you are bringing this incredibly ridiculous 3 Million votes argument because it is a fake stat as it doesn't count caucus votes. So next time maybe do Purple state vote win of HRC or blue state win if we want to pick & chose states & then talk about the margin of victory.

[Shadows]

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s presidential campaign manager, argued that party incentives that reward states that all hold nominating contests on the same day hurt insurgent candidates who don’t have the same amount of resources to compete in multiple states at the same time. That effect, he added, will be compounded in 2020, when the wide-open presidential field will likely lead to the first Democratic primary since 2004 with more than two major candidates.

“I expect in 2020 we will have a much more open field, and it’s my view that we want to pick the best candidate, but the best candidate in many cases is not the candidate who starts with the most resources,” he said. “If that process is perceived to be fair, we will have a much stronger candidate.”

The delegates all brought up a slew of concerns—keeping the budget transparent, limiting the power of superdelegates, amending caucus and primary rules in the spirit of openness, and funding state parties and more paid staffers. The commission has the power to offer a broad series of recommendation to the party, leaving few topics off limits.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332167-dems-kick-off-unity-commission

[Shadows]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

Get rid of the superdelegates, the closed primaries, the super Tuesdays, and then I'd say you've made some reforms.

Don't forget getting rid of caucuses.

Except Iowa.

Iowa has coin tosses & in Nevada you apparently draw from a pack of cards, to settle ties. Talk about having archaic rules in need of reform !

[Shadows]

DNC Unity Commission Vide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu7FuyOqA2w

Larry Cohen (Vice Chair & CWA, Union Rep. & Sanders nominee) started & is an absolutely phenomenal speaker & has that presence & charisma. Should absolutely run for Congress ! The Sanders' campaign has some amazing people in there !

Jeff Weaver - Can the DNC Incentivize open primaries like they incentivize for late primaries (more delegate allocation!)

Some Lawyer - Yes

(Loads of meaningless talk about schedule !)

Larry Cohen - Schedule is not part of our mandate, but as clarified the Unity Commission could recommend additional delegate allocation for open primaries !

[Shadows]

Holy ShI*. This one Clinton delegate kept sh**t*ing on Carter. "Failed Presidency", "Had no idea what he is doing" , "Made Dems lose states & Senate", "Bad candidate" "Chaos" etc etc!

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything. Guess there is real heat between Clinton people & Carter - More so people because Clinton is a hawk who voted to kill millions in Iraq & Carter is a human rights advocate who had the most peaceful of any Presidencies !

[Shadows]

Holy ShI*. This one Clinton delegate kept sh**t*ing on Carter. "Failed Presidency", "Had no idea what he is doing" , "Made Dems lose states & Senate", "Bad candidate" "Chaos" etc etc!

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything. Guess there is real heat between Clinton people & Carter - More so people because Clinton is a hawk who voted to kill millions in Iraq & Carter is a human rights advocate who had the most peaceful of any Presidencies !

Listen I love Jimmy, but he's universally considered to have been a weak president. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time with the oil crisis though and that basically screwed him. It's interesting that he voted for Sanders because Jimmy himself was a fairly outsider candidate back in his day.

I never liked Carter's domestic policies & handling although I respect him massively for his views on foreign policy (Middle East conflict, no wars etc). He wasn't a good President but then so was Obama who is another weak President !

But I have never seen a DNC Unit commission say time & again with such vitriol "Failed", "had no idea" - Generally people have some restraint while talking about a former President & say it didn't work out well, could have done better, some aspects were disappointing etc - This was like they were talking about a failed Republican President !

[Shadows]

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything.

Oh give me a break.

You know it's the truth - Obama's economy has the most unequal wealth distribution probably in decades, very low youth home ownership, poor labour force participation, average GDP growth, poor numbers for inflation adjusted wages ! He did add close to 10T $ of debt but got very little done in terms of that. Clinton although he had some issues like Glass Steagall, had a much more successful economy - You can criticize some bad policies of Clinton but no1 can say the economy failed - If Clinton was a Republican, they would be hailing him as the best GOP President, far ahead of Reagan (he did govern as more to center) !

The main criticism about Carter in the DNC Commission was about a failed party leader under whom the Democrats lost a lot. Obama is the worst president in recent history about party losses - 900 State Legislature seats, countless House & Senate seats , Governor races - This isn't about opinion but plain facts - It is difficult to argue with facts - You can't call Carter a "failed President" due to party seat losses & say & Obama is successful on that account.

Let's have some fair reporting Virginia & not be overly partisan !

[Shadows]

How is Obama a better party leader when it comes to election losses compared to Jimmy Carter? The stats are clear !

[Shadows]

You know it's the truth - Obama's economy has the most unequal wealth distribution probably in decades, very low youth home ownership, poor labour force participation, average GDP growth, poor numbers for inflation adjusted wages ! He did add close to 10T $ of debt but got very little done in terms of that. Clinton although he had some issues like Glass Steagall, had a much more successful economy - You can criticize some bad policies of Clinton but no1 can say the economy failed - If Clinton was a Republican, they would be hailing him as the best GOP President, far ahead of Reagan (he did govern as more to center) !

No, it's just I wonder exactly how much of all of that is entirely his fault. It's easy to just look at numbers, look at who was in the WH at the time, and say, "must be their fault." Of course, people are always like, "they had super duper big majorities for 2 years, they could have fixed EVERYTHING obviously," which is interesting because I've heard different people talk about how Democrats could have fixed [different issue] with those same brief majorities, and if you put all those people together, you have a collective opinion that Democrats clearly should have fixed all America's problems in 2 years.

Obama is the worst president in recent history about party losses - 900 State Legislature seats, countless House & Senate seats , Governor races - This isn't about opinion but plain facts

Actually this is mostly what my reply was focused on. I'm sorry, but putting all that on Obama is a lazy man's argument. It's real easy to say "it happened under Obama, ergo, it is Obama's fault," but it is not that simple and you know it (or maybe you don't). Democrats were fresh off of 2 waves in a row which inflated their power beyond its real baseline. On top of that, the recession and Obama managed to accelerate the movement of Southern state political power from Democrats to Republicans. My frustration with the "blame Obama" argument here is born from more than just partisanship, it's from my dislike of people pointing to the top and blaming that person no matter what. The same logic that insists that when a company or a govt institution screws up big, heads must roll, even if it largely wasn't their fault and/or there was nothing they could do anyway.

I also find it amusing because on one hand, I see lots of people blame all those losses on Obama, yet some of those same people will turn around and argue that in midterms, all a party needs is a "strong platform and message for the voters," ignoring the almost universal truth about midterms: they are referendums on the president in that particular moment, and what policies you are promising voters doesn't really hold a candle to their frustration with the person in the White House, and by extension, their party.

Let's have some fair reporting Virginia & not be overly partisan !

Come on lol. You can be just as partisan on here.

I don't disagree with you on any of these things, but you have to have uniform standards. Carter's economy had problems but he had high economic growth. He was overall a disappointing president but if he is blamed for Party losses (the one delegate said party suffered losses & that makes him failed etc), then by that logic Obama is the most failed.

True Democrats had high numbers from where losses were inevitable but if you look at a 100 year history - This is the worst position & highest losses ever - Obama didn't just cause some losses but huge one's, of unprecedented nature. Now all that is not on Obama but as the CEO/Captain of the ship, it has to fall primarily fall under his lap. Mid-terms tend to be often losses but nowhere near his gigantic amount! You have to judge Obama & Carter with the same scale !

Obama, IMO could have been the best FDR but turned out to be well, Obama ! Anyways agree to disagree !

[Shadows]

If you are arguing for Superdelegates to overturn the will of the primary voters then what you are essentially arguing is for the end of Democracy. Can you really say you oppose authoritarians like Trump & then pretend to support such policies?

Why not have a Super-Delegate system for the GE? Let Congressional Members be GE Super-delegates who will over-turn the will of voters if a Trump type figure wins. This is also highly discretionary, the whole process is clandestine, stinks & is corrupt.

Also, if the day comes where the Super-Delegates over-turn the will of the voters, that will essentially destroy the Democratic party forever. Probably will create a new party. Do you really have the best interests of your party when you want it to end? In the end, democracy means trusting the voters to make good, rational & seemingly bad decisions. You can't have Selective Democracy for when the outcome matches your preferences. In the end, it boils down to if you believe in a Democracy. Also, I would think the Democratic electorate is smart enough not to elect Trump & that people must do a better job to win the battle of ideas & prevent that kind of a candidate from winning anywhere.