Yeah, the system is rigged–and it’s working

by | Mar 17, 2016 | Editor's Blog, National Politics, Presidential race | 46 comments

I can’t help but like Bernie Sanders. His message is on the money: Income inequality and a rigged system are holding the country, especially the middle class, back. He’s got that socially awkward, but gentle manner that I’ve found in so many of the activists I’ve admired in my life. And he will forever be used as an example of how message discipline can drive and save a campaign. Finally, he seems genuinely down-to-earth and unpretentious.

A lot of his supporters, on the other hand, are on my last nerve. I don’t like and don’t trust self-righteousness whether it’s coming from a fundamentalist preacher or a social justice crusader. The world is full of gray areas. It’s not black-and-white. It’s possible to have firmly-held convictions without attaching devious motives to those who disagree.

Right now, I’m fed up hearing complaints from the Sanders supporters that the Democratic Party’s nominating process is rigged. It is. It’s been rigged for about 30 years. Bernie Sanders and his team knew it when he got into the race and he ran anyway. Sanders could have run as the independent he claimed to be for the entirety of his political career. Instead, he became a Democrat, subject to the long-standing rules of the Democratic Party nominating process.

The party created Super Delegates to prevent a candidacy like Trump’s. Super Delegates are made up of elected officials and local party officials most of whom have been involved in politics for many years. They’ve been through general elections so, theoretically, they have a better sense of the overall electorate than just primary voters. Right now, Republicans wish they had Super Delegates, too.

The Super Delegates are not leaders, but followers. They’ll side with the presidential candidate that’s most advantageous to their own elections. In 2008, they started with Clinton but switched to Obama because of his broad appeal and ground swell of support.

This year, they’re sticking with Clinton. Sanders may have a groundswell of support, but it’s not broad. It’s confined to a younger audience that has been less active politically and an older, traditionally lefty audience that will almost certainly vote Democratic in November regardless of the nominee. And they are predominantly white in a coalition that depends on people of color to win.

Clinton leads in the popular vote by a margin of 58% to 40%, the same margin she has among delegates. The system is meant to nominate more centrist candidates with broader appeal. It’s doing what it was meant to do.

Sanders knew the rules when he got into the race. His supporters complaining about a rigged system really have no argument. If they want to change that system, they should stay involved instead of threatening to go home if Sanders isn’t nominated.

46 Comments

  1. The Ghost of Elections Past

    Thomas, as I read most of the above irate comments, I am reminded of the legal term, “res ipsa loquitur,” i.e., “the thing speaks for itself.” While it is frustrating, you can take solace in that phrase. Like you, I have found that the “logic” for a great victory cited by Trump and Sanders supporters won’t wash–it is more like a religious fervor. The same was true with the “McGovernites.”

    • Arnold Brown

      “Res ipsa loquitur,” you say. You must be hearing voices from another planet. Trump looks as though he is becoming unstoppable, and if the Republicans find a non-Trump path, the are likely to implode. Bernie does better in a head to head against Trump and Cruz, and Hillary has a number of vulnerabilities that Trump will aggressively exploit. I admit Bernie also has his vulnerabilities (from the perspective of needed independent votes), but they may be easier to overcome than Hillary’s (he is more constant, he doesn’t have the suspect Wall Street connections, etc.). If you succeed in convincing enough people that Bernie has no chance, we may all start hearing voices and having visions. On the other hand, If enough people can accept the possibility that Bernie can win, he may just do it. Please stay positive, and stop trying to convince us otherwise. Regarding the McGovern analogy, keep putting down the liberal voices in the party and you may get your wish.

  2. Richard Pigossi

    Bernie has accomplished many things during his campaign, including the alienation of lots of young and left-leaning voters towards Hillary to the point where they simply may not vote in November if she’s the candidate. It’s a dangerous possibility in a scenario where the the troops of doom on the other side will surely be out in force. The solution is a Hillary/Bernie ticket. Is the party clever enough to make it happen?

    • James

      So the young, left-leaning voters that Hillary never had (those who were even old enough to vote in past elections have been conspicuously absent for years) are now not going to vote for the candidate they wouldn’t have voted for anyway, and this is somehow Bernie’s fault? It’s an interesting theory, I”ll give you that.

      But your dream ticket of Clinton/Sanders is unlikely. It doesn’t happen all that often that two primary opponents team up together (and hasn’t happened at all in recent memory). Plus in a race where Clinton carries the flag for the D’s at the top level, I’d much rather keep Sanders’ seat in the Senate on our side of the ledger. Odds are good that we’re going to need all of those we can get.

  3. Avram Friedman

    Unbelievably elitist attitude you have there Thomas. The Democratic Party has undemocratic rules and that’s fine with you. It doesn’t bother you that the two major parties have a monopoly on the political process. As far as you’re concerned it’s “working.”

    For who?

    Sorry, it’s not okay that we live in an oligarchic system and you’re going to continue hearing Sanders supporters and many others complaining about it and organizing for a revolution against it.

    Your “let them eat cake” attitude is much more self-righteous than those who you accuse of this trait.

    • Mr David B Scott

      DITTO AND WELL SAID!

  4. TbeT

    Would normally counter a couple of the posts on this thread, but, they are so “out there,” I need a little time to recover.

    The Dem Party, offering the first African-American nominee in 2009 and the America electorate electing him in 2008 and again in 2012, was a “monumental miss” by the party?

    And today’s NCDP is a just plain broken and a failure, with it’s leaders nothing more than “party hacks”?

    It never pays to argue against opinion filled with such raw emotion, and offered as nothing more than that, i.e., no reasoned argument.

    So, I’ll just say “wow,” at least for now.

    • William A. Franklin

      Why instead not just look at the objective evidence over the past six years and compare the positions of the two parties directly. Are you suggesting that right wing Republican super majorities in the NCGA is not a monumental change, for which the NCDP owns a hell of a lot of responsibility? Are you suggesting that the fact that GOP ownership of county offices approaches 60-70% does not in some way have to do with NCDP efforts and lack of foresight? Are you suggesting that the Republican ownership of the appellate and supreme courts has nothing to do with NCDP? And since you are so willing to not address the real issues, not this made up crap, how are we go get people who are not ciphers into leadership quickly and take on these problems, collectively, as a real, not ersatz, political party with ambition other than schmoozing and playing? How bad does is have to get? The total dissolution of the NCDP – which is now confronted with three real political parties based on Senate, House and COS (check H373) — Have not heard your answers on “what does this mean” which are likely as simple minded as anything else you said. And yes, Democrats are (1) crossing over to GOP and (2) not turning out sufficiently in primaries. Who leads the fight on that which is setting Democrats in NC up for another severe drubbing. Oh, just a piffle, get back to justifying an increasingly defunct system whose absence is really bad for us all – only too many of us are asleep, as usual, at the switch. Yes, “party hacks” pretty well describes it completely. Like to justify your whining further? Or you ready to clean it out and go on the road. I thought not.

    • James

      Trotting out the “But Democrats elected a black president! Twice” pony in response to every criticism of the DNC and NCDP is wearing a bit thin after 8 years of successive defeats in virtually every other race. Yes, Obama and the downticket Democrats riding his coattails crushed the GOP in 2008, pretty much across the board. And it has been downhill ever since. Maybe you remember 2010? Do you know who was the vice-chair of the DNC in charge of “incumbent retention” that year? Debbie Wasserman Schulz. And in a spectacular display of “failing upwards”, she ascended the throne of the DNC in 2011, and nobody has been able to dislodge her since then. Fast forward to 2012, and Obama defeats Romney by a slightly smaller margin than he crushed McCain… but really, who couldn’t have done that? Obama had the advantage of no primary race to bloody him, and the inherent advantage of being an incumbent president. Meanwhile, the Republican majority in the US House expanded, the Democratic majority in the US Senate shrunk to a bare simple majority and here in our own back yard, the now-bankrupt NCDP lost the Governor’s mansion and the GOP majority in the NCGA expanded to veto-proof levels in both chambers (not that they’d have so many vetoes to override anyway). Since that time NCDP leadership has changed … is it twice now? and the state party is virtually penniless. It’s so bad that fully a third of the seats i the NCGA aren’t even contested. Our congressional delegation to the House has gone from a slight D majority to overwhelmingly R, and we now sport TWO corporatist Republicans as senators — the junior of which wrecked the state as NCGA House Speaker prior to taking his show on the road to DC.

      Can you honestly and objectively look at this string of defeats and see anything OTHER than abject failure? “wow” is right.

      • William A. Franklin

        James, you figured it out. We have rewarded catastrophic failures and the authors of those massive failures, a bunch of fat cat reactionaries have done all possible to continue their control of NCDP at all costs; gotta keep “Marse Jim” and his cronies happy and “in control”. And any old hacks will do. Happy as I am to see the emergence of the LGBTs from the misery of their legal and political rejection and persecution, we do need not to sell out our major mission – which once I thought was to take care of the people. Instead the Old Guard has brought us a bunch of hyper feral velociraptors known locally as YDs. And now, H373 has birthed six monsters, three of which Dems own – actual political parties composed of the House Democrats, the Senate Democrats and the Democrat COS — all of which will suck money into their craws at the expense of a real party, NCDP. And who is paying any attention – well Larry and Dan, and Elaine – and they are happy clams. And let us not forget that Elaine’s assassination of David Parker was to get the final tax check off money, but it was promised to the counties. What bad faith all around and what bad actors. And they contaminated another two generations of vipers yet to play out their games as hacks.

  5. William A. Franklin

    The essential point, around which all the kiddies skip merrily, is the fact that the Democrats are a completely failed group in NC, totally, absolutely and irredeemably. There is no healing, no change, no redirection, no recruitment of good people until, as with drunks in AA, the organization and its cheer leaders admit that the Democratic Party leadership in NC have failed abysmally over the past 30 years. You can all wiggle and waggle over which candidate, ad nausem, but until, like the drunk, the body politic admits to colossal and abject failure, no one goes anywhere – and people like Mills can bring himself to state it flatly and baldly, without reserve, there is no future. The blindness and obduracy of the “Raleigh – Charlotte” crowd is spectacular, impeding all progress and striking out at the little boys who insist the collective emperor is naked with viciousness and hatred. The only relevant point anywhere here is that the Party has failed totally and all the usual suspects whistle past the grave. Come on Mills, say it, the damned Party has failed and the people now in charge are party hacks. You can do it. Just take some mental reorientation. And Mills crowd keeps us distracted with various mumbling from the “insiders” while real issues infest the grounds, issues we have to solve. Like, what is REDMAP and how did it help us lose the entire legislature and most of the county level governments – do an item on that and what the alleged Party has to do to address this. Where is the group of interested members sitting in committee considering what is needed for a strategic plan worth the name. What shall NCDP do with Unaffiliateds, to who it seems Democrats flee in part due to lack of action and motion – losing over a million so far this decade. No, we have the SHF and other glowing occasions to praise and promote the insiders for doing NOTHING, except dedicated to tripping up those with new ideas and energy. It is broke. It has to be fixed. This set of columns are distractions in addition to being naive and plain old dumb. Take the scales from your eyes.

  6. Christopher Lizak

    But the fact is, Thomas, that many of those who disagree with our firmly-held convictions DO INDEED have devious motives. Certainly the ones that have real influence have motives that are utterly transparent. After all, they openly refer to Progressives as “retards”, and laugh at us from their balconies. They eye-roll the Sanders crowd, and reflect wistfully on their own “care-free youth”, when they too were “too idealistic to be effective” (i.e. not rich).

    Specifically, those of devious motives wish to protect their money and their power (or the potential to have it) from people who want to change things. They accomplish this by paralyzing government into inaction – rendering it non-functional. It is not enough that the ordinary rules established by the Constitution are extremely conservative, requiring three disparate branches of government to concur in planning and execution. They want ADDITIONAL hurdles, like “wealth primaries”, electoral college delegates that can betray the will of the voter, super-delegates to insure “right outcomes”, “proper” identification papers, concealing the sources of campaign cash to hide the ratlines, etc.

    It’s important to understand that democracy has being very actively and consciously undermined by the globalists who do not want democratic decision-making to interfere with their profits. And nowhere is that more evident than in the internal workings of the political party that actually claims to represent labor in the US. For crying out loud, does ANYBODY not directly on the take actually support these treasonous “trade agreements”?? So why do “our” leaders keep pushing them, knowing the damage their doing to us?

    Sure, things are not black-and-white, and principles are compromised as soon as we set them to paper – but that doesn’t mean we just abandon those principles without a passionate fight. The threat of a demagogue rising does not mean we have no choice but to “put the fix in” and render our democracy neutered and impotent. “The world ends not with a whimper, not a bang” Thomas.

    Is your irritation REALLY the irritation of the Guy Who Knows who is weary of trying to explain the world to fools? Or is it a sign that you regret that you don’t have the freedom to fight the good fight with us? Is it being pissed off that guys like Karl Rove live the good life rolling in the Benjamins, while guys like us struggle to keep the lights on?

    That’s all part of their design to break you down and force you to work for their criminal Machine. It was no secret 40 years ago, and it is no secret today:

    Did they get you to trade
    your heroes for ghosts
    Hot ashes for trees
    Hot air for a cool breeze
    Cold comfort for change
    Did you exchange
    A walk on part in the war
    for a lead role in the cage

  7. Vickie Shull

    I have tried very hard to not become a part of the bashing of any of our Democratic candidates, but I find the complete hypocrisy of Bernie now wanting to woo the super delegates that he and his supporters so loathed a bit too much.

    The fact remains that Hillary has far more votes and committed delegates than Bernie.

    I remember when Hillary Clinton went befor the Convention in 2008, released her delegates, and asked her supporters to support Barack Obama. She then went on to campaign for him, and help take the Democratic Party to ultimate victory. It does not appear that Bernie and his supporters are ready to show the same grace.

    I will vote for Bernie if he wins, but not with the zeal that I might have had befor his interview with Rachel Maddow last night.

    One thing we know for sure, a win by any of the Republican candidates will be a disaster for women, Social Security, the environment, and God help migrants and the poor!

    • Bruce Bush

      Well, Vickie, you certainly represent the Bizarro World viewpoint when you say you’ll vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination, but without zeal. I mean, who has expressed zeal for Hillary’s candidacy? Indeed, my more-realistic worry about lost zeal is that Hillary will win the nomination, Bernie will do as he has always said and support the Democratic Party nominee, BUT many (most?) of his newly-energized, truly-zealous supporters will not have the enthusiasm to get out and vote for a corporate candidate, even if it is a female.

      One other major point being missed by the Dem machine pols and the corporate media (as they black out Bernie while shilling for Hillary) is the inarguable fact that Dem turnout is heavily down EXCEPT for Bernie’s youthful voters, while the Rethuglican candidates have been breaking voting records. And the machine wants to use its power to block our party’s populist option to run an unpopular establishment candidate against an anti-establishment populist candidate?

      Yes, I’m very well aware that the likely nominee of the Gross Old Party is annoying, if not demented, but in this crazy world that does not seem to be much of a handicap. However, losing a whole lot of newly-minted progressive zealots would definitely be a handicap for the Democratic presidential nominee and the entire downstream ticket!

    • Arnold Brown

      With regard to the super-delegates, I think we are taking our eye off the ball. I am a proud Bernie supporter, but I don’t blame Hillary for taking advantage of the existing system – she is only doing what most politicians would do. In his more recent comments, I think Bernie was thinking of the scenario where he essentially tied the popular vote or won by a “small” margin (i.e. 20-50 thousand votes). If all super-delegates not already “committed” to Hillary supported Bernie, and if none of Hillary’s super-delegates could be convinced to switch to Bernie, Bernie would need to win about two million more “popular” votes than Hillary to overcome her super-delegate advantage. That’s a difficult obstacle to overcome, but Hillary did not create the obstacle. The system needs to be changed!!!

  8. William A. Franklin

    Mills seems to not understand, as all the apologists for the DNC and alleged centrist party poobahs, that the current structure has failed catastrophically– while the reactionaries continue to beat the drum and demand more money and obeisance from the serfs. Which is why he and his ilk are so prompt to attack anything or anyone who might be in his mold, or that of several other Democratic poobahs who demand that they must be worshipped. Anyone with a new idea or direction is to be lashed from the public space on the left, and by the way, make sure you genuflect to the DLC/Third Way neoliberals as they flounce in to make kissy kissy with Republicans, who have scalded this crowd, and us all, relentlessly. What is REDMAP and its future Mills? Why did your august self not see it coming, along with the remaining crowd in the legislature – and the COS which is going to be wrung out this time. Teabillies did not waste time or money last time or two. Or, can you not admit the Democrats are at the nadir with no choices and thanks to a certain previous governor and his friends, no real state party or bench of candidates. Well, Democrats can either schlep along like sheep with their alleged leadership or get with someone with ideas, something Democrats are bereft of. Wasserman Ding Dong is a flaming disaster and influence peddler for Clinton. So back to neoliberal capture of the Democrats, and purge and decimation of any protesters. Not only can we not get foresight and promise withing the party, but its pundits are totally out of touch with reality. Mills, Democrats are in the pit, and hammered until 2020 or 2022? But, no real thinking for these jolly folks, just raise funds (increasingly hard to do) and do whatever GOTV is for today, and trust this ship of fools to navigate tomorrow. I sure wish it was otherwise, but not likely. Democrats need to go back to taking care of the people and sacking the rich, oops, we got a lot of them.

  9. Fetzer Mills, Jr.

    If she does not release the transcripts of those Goldman Sachs speeches and gets the Democratic nomination there will be an October surprise. It will send her campaign down in flames.

    Maybe she gave those speeches, maybe she didn’t. Maybe Goldman Sachs just outright bribed her and she declared it as a payment for speeches for the IRS. Granted that wasn’t illegal even if that’s what happened. She was a private citizen. Maybe she did give those speeches but I’m betting if she did that they’re toxic to her candidacy or she’d release them. Everybody hears that skeleton rattling around in the closet and it’s going to come out, better now than Halloween.

  10. Frank McGuirt

    Sometimes I think I prefer the smoke filled rooms of old. They gave us electable candidates

    • HunterC

      They gave you Tony Rand “retiring” in 2010 and flipped NC Senate with a GOP supermajority to draw new districts.

  11. WNC observer

    I second what Fetzer & John Eyles & HunterC posted. I think there’s a hunger for bigger change than what Hillary Clinton is offering.
    Obama promised bigger change than he delivered; some of that is not (all) his fault, but some of it is.

  12. Betty McGuire

    Amen!! To That HunterC.

  13. John Eyles

    I agree Bernie supporters should can it with the self-righteousness and the bluster about not voting in the General if HRC is the nominee. But I believe Bernie is more electable and can say it in one sentence: it’s clearly the year of the outsider, so I fear the results of an election between an outsider (Trump) and an establishment candidate (Clinton),

    • HunterC

      Bingo!

      This is THE key point.

      You want to win in the year of the outsider? Then be very careful putting Clinton up against Trump.

  14. Fetzer Mills Jr

    I’ve held my nose and voted a straight Democratic ticket every November since I was old enough to vote. I have benefited from democratic socialism from the moment I was born in a public hospital through my education in public schools and at public universities paid for by the G.I. Bill and public scholarships. I get my healthcare through the Veterans Administration (single payer). My income comes from being a 100% service connected disabled veteran and social security disability. None of those programs were created by any Democrats alive today mainly because they’re not social democrats. They’re not even democrats. They’re economically and politically feudal. Clinton endorses Bowles-Simpson which would most definitely increase wealth inequality and send large numbers of people into and deeper into poverty. The constant wars in the Middle East are also essentially feudal in nature. They’re like the crusades costing the nation blood and treasure and always to the benefit of a few well-connected war profiteers. Regardless of why Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war, her utter incompetence and inability to comprehend the complexities of the Middle East during her tenure as Secretary of State makes her unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief. That as well as her eagerness to sacrifice American lives when she nor any members of her family were even willing to serve in uniform. That’s just embarrassing.

  15. WNC observer

    Thomas, I tend to agree with you on a lot of points, and I especially agree with you about self-righteousness.
    But there’s a tone to your posts about Sanders supporters that’s bothersome. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it sounds less like constructive criticism, and more like dismissive complaints, with at least whiffs of irritation, defensiveness and condescension. (I recognize that sounds harsh, but I’m trying to be candid.) That tone is arguably as unattractive as self-righteousness.
    In my view, there’s what may be a once-in-a-lifetime discussion going on about the soul of the Democratic Party (and perhaps of American politics), and Sanders — and his supporters — have raised important and even uncomfortable points that should be heard and responded to patiently and thoughtfully.
    A lot of us (and I’m 58) are hungry for bigger change than the current system seems able to accommodate. That is genuinely frustrating.

    • Randell Hersom

      It sounds exactly like dug-in commitment to yesterday’s Democrat Lite party and a refusal to hear what the electorate is saying. You’re just not going to be able to ride a 11% approval rating into office Thomas. If people detect a steely determination to resolve what is wrong with that approval rating, then you have a chance. I am committed to vote for you in November should Monroe be in your district, but I will be much happier if I am able to vote for Christian Cano instead.

    • NC newbie

      It’s a self-righteous defense of the Democratic Party status quo! Mills is little more than an apologist for Wall Street domination of the American political system.

  16. Matt Phillippi

    God forbid we elect a former Secretary of State to be our first female President because *gasp* some well known Republicans respect her. Didn’t it used to be a good thing when we chose a candidate that could be respected (if not necessarily liked) by both sides of the aisle, and the majority of the American people? Its not people like former Secretary Clinton, who are ruining our democracy, its people who apply their own narrow views and ideologial purity tests.

    • Fetzer Mills, Jr.

      Granted she has experience and it’s shown that she’s disastrously incompetent. I have no problem with Republicans respecting her. My problem is that she used another incompetent, Henry Kissinger, as her role model. I served in the Middle East. She doesn’t care about people like me or the civilians caught in the middle. She likes obviously likes killing people. She’s pro death penalty too. She lives in a moral vacuum.

      If she does not release the transcripts of those Goldman Sachs speeches and gets the nomination they will come out during the general election. If she gave a damn about what happens in November she’d release them now. She can’t because it would make her crash and burn in the primaries. She’d prefer to crash and burn after the convention because this is all about her.

  17. Bob Geary

    Global warming will solve all our problems. Or resolve them, anyway. Because at the rate we’re going, Big Money + Corrupt Politicians = Catastrophe. But by all means, until that day comes, let’s triangulate and keep making friends with Goldman, Sachs.

    My only problem with Bernie is that he’s too measured. He needs to paint a picture of where we’re headed if we stick with the cosseted establishment Dems we have now — a formula which also involves continuing to loss to mindless mob that’s captured the Republican Party.

    • James

      Bernie was already going to be facing an uphill battle as a self-identified socialist. Adding fiery rhetoric to the fuel of that label would surely have burned his campaign to the ground before it ever got started. And he certainly wouldn’t have built the momentum he has by shouting “Viva la Revolucion!” everywhere he went. There are enough people made uncomfortable by his use of the “R” word as it is. A gifted orator the man is not. But in his unpolished and rumpled way, what he has done is nothing short of incredible. He may have just single-handedly made Citizens United irrelevant. If your message is embraced by a majority of the people, you don’t need big-donor backing. Meaning you don’t have to sell your soul to the moneyed elite to mount a competitive campaign.

      Four of the six remaining candidates are backed by big money donors. Trump is backed by Trump. Bernie is backed by 5 million individual contributions from ordinary people $27 at a time. (Talk about “citizens united”!) The political reality is that all six of them will owe a debt to the people who supported them in their campaigns. Draw your own conclusion.

  18. Mike Merritt

    You just don’t get it. I’m 57, and Sanders is the best candidate I’ve seen. Sanders may be our last hope of getting money out of politics. Clinton sure won’t do it. Our very democracy is at stake. It’s all or nothing. Until we get the money out, our positions don’t mean a thing. There will come a time in the near future when all the loopholes are closed, when the oligarchy will be made complete, if we don’t fix it now. Not tomorrow, not next election, but now.

    • David Scott

      Mike, I totally agree. Our dysfunctional/archaic/ corrupt system will not allow Bernie or any other candidate who thinks “outside the box” to be elected. We seem to be in a death spiral fueled by misinformation, Big Money, ignorance, greed, and ego. The system seems to be cannibalizing itself.

  19. David Scott

    Personally, I am terribly conflicted now not knowing if I truly believe in the 1-man-1-vote democracy or the Super Delegate/Electoral College “elitist” approach. My belief in a true democracy has been shattered by the rise of TRump and the perpetual re-election of incumbent politicians who fail to govern. Our political system is now riddled with a plethora of systemic problems that will not be solved by the government itself due to special interests. I do not have any insight into what will reverse this downward spiral short of a full scale revolution which has the potential of damaging if not destroying our democracy. I wish someone would reassure me that there is a solution to this terrifying conundrum.

  20. Tom

    The Democratic Party has had super delegates since 1844. The GOP has had them since it’s first convention in 1856. The Methodist Church has had super delegates to its conferences forever. Etc, etc, etc. Clinton has 2,000,000+ more votes than Sanders. What is the problem? Do the Sanders folks – and I like him as well and think the Senate is just the forum for him – do they think only some of the people count????? I think on both sides of the partisan fence we have folks who, if they did not have despair, would have nothing at all!!!

  21. Cosmic Janitor

    Yes, the democratic party’s nominating system is absolutely rigged and Mr. Mills is okay with that, the entire US. political system is rigged for that matter and what does that say about what a farce democracy in America truly is; the establishment will have its way and you DNC’ers can congratulate yourselves for not only perpetuating this system, but for also putting a republican in the oval office – cause Hillary can’t win the general election.
    http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
    “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.” —Robert Kagan, republican neo-con.
    “I have a sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president.” —Dick Cheney, neo-con war criminal.
    “I’ve known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.” —Henry Kissinger, war criminal.
    Nobody Beats Hillary’s Record:
    She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013.
    She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
    She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
    She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
    She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
    She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq.
    She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing.
    She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
    She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
    She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
    She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
    She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
    She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers.
    She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
    She supported President Bill Clinton’s wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress.
    She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
    She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.

    • Russell Scott Day

      I ought find a way to strip this out of this thread and spread it far and wide, for it lists everything that adds up to the way I have felt about Hillary Clinton as I imagine what it will mean to my heart to see the Clintons in the White House again. I simply will not vote for the Clintons, no matter what. Period.
      Sanders recent reaction to President Obama’s choice for the replacement of Scalia is simply too much. I don’t want to hear that either. That is the sort of self-righteousness Thomas finds difficult to stomach. Sometimes wisdom really is keeping your mouth shut.
      And yes I tell you the level of discourse here is smart and intelligent. It is sad and a mistake that Sanders and Warren are not running together, if it is all as important as we all know it is in the face of the meanness and fractures within a nation that we know simply is not pulling together.
      Truth is still, Sanders, even alone, can take Trump votes but Clinton will not. She will not because of the fact she is a Corporatist, and we need a Nationalist.
      Even the ignorant know that it is time for a Nationalists that loves the USA more than it loves power and money.

  22. George Williams

    Super delegates were not instituted to prevent a candidate like Trump. They were formed to block a candidate like McGovern or Carter, who were not controlled by the party bosses. The party continues to react as if the conditions of the 70’s still prevailed. The suppression of true progressives has squelched a tea party type movement from the left, and clearing the field for Hillary for over a decade had left the party with no bench. If a true liberal could ever be elected this would have been the year in a reaction against Trumpitude. The Democrats have been in thrall to being Republican lite now for two generations- must there be a third? This could have been the opportunity to truly change American politics. Bernie Sanders moment will not come again for he’s 74 years old. And who is there to take up his mantle? Only Elizabeth Warren, who resembles Mario Cuomo in her hesitation. The Republicans continue to shatter. This could have been a revolutionary time. And the old staid Democratic Party turns to a “third way” worn out pol who is trusted only by her sycophants. The national outrage will lead to dynamic change. Have we missed the moment to move it in a progressive direction and yielded the wave of populism to the fascist direction?

    • HunterC

      Seconded.

      And yes, the Democratic Party has missed it’s chance to harness the national outrage. It missed it seven years ago.

      The NC GOP supermajority legislature and the likes of Trump and our locals like NC Rep. Pittman are symptoms of that monumental miss in 2009.

    • James

      Super delegates were born of the McGovern campaign, but did not exist when he ran for the nomination. It was after he got his head handed to him by Nixon that the national party bosses decided that perhaps the voters were too idealistic to choose an “electable” candidate. And “electability” has been the chief concern of the party ever since. Not “a” chief concern, THE chief concern.

      Yes, Sanders could have run as an Independent. But play that tape out to the end, and you end up with President Trump. The only way that that doesn’t happen is if the GOP uses its “unbound delegates” — or a multi-ballot convention — to unhorse the Tribble-Headed Angry Man before he can make it to the general election. IN which case, you open the possibility of a 4-way race for thw White House, with none of the candidates achieving a majority and the election of president being thrown to the House of Representatives. Want to lay odds who comes out of THAT contest as the winner?

      So why stay in the race? Well, first off less than half of the states have voted, and the half that haven’t include Big Kahuna (CA) and Little Kahuna (NY). By themselves, they’re not enough — even if Sanders wins them by YUGE margins. But they’re delegate rich, and delegates do more than simply decide the nomination. They also decide the platform, which is really the best a Sanders supporter like myself can realistically hope for. Bernie’s moment may not come again, but his platform can outlive his candidacy this way.

  23. Mr David B Scott

    Naïve question: If the Electoral College is archaic and undemocratic as many think it is, why can’t you say the same for Super Delegates for the same reasons?

    • Norma Munn

      I understand your logic, but the US Constitution is the bedrock from which a country and its government were established. Political parties are not considered the basis for creating a country, but are mechanisms for selecting and running candidates. It seems at first glance logical to compare them, but it is like comparing apples to peanuts.
      That said, straight forward logic is not really a satisfactory answer for the underlying issue in both situations.
      Both the Electoral College and the Super Delegates, I think, result from a lack of trust in what we often consider as the “democratic” process, i.e., that a majority of voters should control the outcomes of elections and political decisions. That assumes that the majority is always wise and knows best, which history has shown is not quite the case. Such an approach also leaves little room for minority or diverse views, and in a country as large as this and essentially settled by immigrants from all over the world, that is not a small question. We will probably always struggle with the tension between the Majority Rules and the need to accommodate the rest.
      Even so, the process of having Super Delegates at a party convention (notwithstanding the well argued case above) carries more than a whiff of condescension, albeit less than decades past. My guess is that social media and the Sanders & Trump campaigns will bring even more changes for both parties over the next decade, perhaps even the emergence of a serious third or fourth party. Will we be a better country? More knowledgeable in choosing candidates? Will the TV political commentary become more thoughtful and useful to voters? I seriously doubt any of these outcomes are any longer possible.

    • Thomas Mills

      I don’t believe the Electoral College archaic and undemocratic.

      • Arnold Brown

        If the electoral college and the system of super-delegates is not archaic and undemocratic, then I think we need a debate in semantics. Both institutions date to a time when the common citizen was not trusted to make decisions about many aspects of his government, a time when political decisions were made in smoke-filled back rooms. Further, the super-delegate system was put in place to minimize the growing influence of liberals, like me.
        The number and selection of “unpledged delegates” (i.e. super-delegates) is up to party officials, without consulting the electorate. Although they are called “unpledged,” most announce their fealty before a single primary vote is cast.
        Super-delegates usually support an establishment candidate, and they can be used by a party to direct the course of a primary election – that is when a challenging candidate is civil and rational in his discourse (e.g. like Bernie). However, super-delegates would be of absolutely no use in stopping a Trump-coup. If Republicans could use a super-delegate trump-card (please excuse the pun), their party would disintegrate even faster than it is at the moment – and there might even be greater violence.
        How undemocratic are super-delegates? In the case of the Democratic Party, there will be 4,768 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention. Among these will be 717 super-delegates of which 459 have already committed themselves to vote for Hillary (most of the others are truly “unpledged,” and fewer than 2 dozen have pledged their support for Bernie). Each pledged delegate selected through the primary election process represents approximately 10-12 thousand voters, which means each unelected super-delegate also has the voting-power of 10-12 thousand voters.
        From the 459 super-delegates who pledged themselves to Hillary, she had the equivalent of a 4.5-5 million vote advantage over Bernie – even before a single primary vote was cast! Please consider how some of you Hillary supporters would feel if the situation were reversed. No matter how you slice it, super-delegates are completely anti-democratic and absolutely unfair.
        Please put partisan opinions aside for a moment. Although it may be too late to change/eliminate the super-delegate system in this primary cycle, it should be done as soon as possible or we will soon become known as the undemocratic Democratic Party.

        • Marsha Ford

          The writer asks, how would Hillary supporters feel if the situation were reversed. It was reversed in the 2008 Democratic race, when the superdelegates for Obama put him over the winning delegate margin, and Hillary suspended her campaign. I was a Hillary supporter then, but I did not think she had been robbed of the nomination by the superdelegates. They inject a certain wisdom and experience into the process.

    • Progressive Wing

      Because party rules are not determined/operated by government, federal law, or the US constitution. They don’t have to be “democratic” as in “one person, one vote.” And the establishment of super-delegates is not “archaic.” It are relatively recent.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!