Sure w/e, but lets also remove some caucus and use primaries instead.
This is fine (assuming that they don’t screw it up through their own ineptness when it comes to imaging). But I wish they’d come out against caucuses, too.
The Democratic Party should be opposed to all forms of voter suppression, including caucuses. They should take a powerful stand against gerrymandering, too - and not just when it disadvantages them. And strongly support a paid holiday on election day.
Voting rights should be something that would appeal to everyone, but there can’t be any wishy-washy half-measures. The Democratic Party has to stand firmly for democratic elections. They need to be seen as a clear alternative to the Republican Party in this.
But I can’t say I’m particularly hopeful that this will happen.
But the Unicorn Brigade screeching about super delegates, are the ones who want caucuses. Its where Sanders amassed most of his delegates. They aren’t about making primaries more fair or democratic. They only want to fiddle with the system so they can take it over with a minority of support.
I am for eliminating caucuses – they practically eliminate low- and middle-income workers, most who cannot dedicate a whole day; same goes for single parents and those who take care of ill loved ones. Regular voting works better because it is far more democratic. Additionally, I will never again give my blessing for non-Democratic Party candidates to run in the Party primaries. I feel a person should have at least a couple years as a Party Member under their belt to run in the primaries. This would at least show some dedication to our values.
Each elected official has the votes from far more Ordinary Democrativ voters than any of the delegates from the primary elections let alone those chosen via elections.
Not a bad or new idea. Populism with a side of elitism was a but tough for most to swallow. Why don’t the Democrats give being real a chance. Drop all the crap. Adopt a strict pro people agenda and be proud of it. Like this:
We’re not going to hurt corporations but we’re also not going to let them hurt us. We’re not going to take from the wealthy but we’re not going to let them take everything from us.
We are opposed to denial as policy. It’s getting warmer and racism is still a huge problem. Bigotry is on the rise and guns are a part of the problem.
We are opposed to lies. Tax cuts don’t generate revenue and they largely benefit those that don’t need them. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not winnable and should be abandoned. ISIS does not pose a serious threat to the USA and
should only be fought by means that risk the lives of no Americans.
We are opposed to the “America as policemen of the world” concept. It’s achieved little good for us, is at the root of most of our international problems and in many cases has rewarded us with treachery, theft of our resources and the murder of our fellow Americans in uniform.
We are dedicated to equality. What America has to offer should be equally available to people of all races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, heritage and physical capability.
We are opposed to taking things away from people. We don’t want to take guns away and we don’t want a woman’s right to chose taken away. We don’t want unions taken away and we think is a cardinal obligation of Government to assist getting healthcare to all and should cease taking it away. Education is the path to the future. Cutting it or taking it away in other forms deprives those of it that would use it to steer, advance and better our country. We are opposed to cuts in Social Security or Medicare. Those should be the last thing any benevolent "for the people " government would take away.
We are opposed to wasteful privatization. We’d like to Make America Great Again too and privatization of traditional government functions was not the case when all agree America was great.
We are adamantly opposed to mega dollars influencing and outright buying our politics. Your vote for a candidate in your state should have more power than a mega donor’s check that lives in another. We are opposed to “of the people and by the people” being bought out of our democracy.
We are opposed to propagandizing the American people. It doesn’t matter what political direction it comes from or what direction it’s attempting to push people we will seek legislation to shut it down. The First Amendment was written to ensure the truth would out despite government and the powerful’s objection to it. It wasn’t ratified to permit grand scale lying to the American people. Institutional propaganda is seen by us as an anti-American evil.
We believe authority is a tool owned by the people and loaned to authority figures for the sole purpose of making the lives of the people better. Brutality, spite or meanness by anyone in authority should be punished harshly on first offense.
We are committed to making America a good neighbor in the world. Erecting walls and brutalizing the citizens of other countries is not American. We have enemies but ramping up their animosity with senseless rhetoric is reckless and ineffective. If we cant talk constructively with our foes we won’t talk at all. We will listen to anyone and will talk with anyone.
America’s job is here in America. It is not our purpose to meddle with the will of people in other lands. We believe George Washington was right when he cautioned us not to involve ourselves in foreign entanglements. Meddling in the affairs of other countries has made us countless enemies and returned very little reward. We believe we should just make America great and the rest of the world can do so for themselves how and when they choose.
Probably lose every election such a platform was used in but the loser would lose as a true populist and progressive. No blue dogging to win. No “center left” shit. lay it out there and take the hit.
Ending both superdelegates and caucuses sounds good to me.
Have the Democratic party nomination process be as small-d “democratic” as possible and let the chips fall where they may.
Simple, straightforward, easily defensible, and sends a message to voters that the Democratic Party is all about “one person, one vote” equality, not a private club that rewards insider status and the ability to manipulate antiquated, convoluted processes.
Hillary won all the large states by wide margins in primaries. That was not because the party apparatus supporter her, although that’s undoubtedly true, but not because they disliked Bernie or his policies or supporters.
The party insiders supported Hillary because she was First Lady, Senator from New York, Secretary of State, nearly president but for Obama’s superior 2008 primary strategy and political skills. I dare say that’s why more VOTERS supported her, too, by wide margins. Bernie’s a good guy but a legislative gadfly, safely ensconced in tiny Vermont. and a lot of us plain thought she’d make a better president than Bernie.
I concede – although not without a fair dose of doubt – that Bernie would have defeated Trump where the accumulation of attacks (mostly distorted) took their toll on Hillary. Bernie supporters must equally concede that he was vulnerable as well, and that the ultra-progressive policies he has espoused for 40 years were and are just as unlikely to produce a legislative majority as always in the face of the messaging machine of the Right and FOX News.
Superdelegates aren’t your problem. Convincing swing voters to support a “political revolution” is your problem. They know it’s a code phrase for higher taxes and more government and they don’t like it. And even progressive like me who do support it know it’s a political loser so we’re not going to sacrifice a more moderate approach to prove yet again that more socialism sold that way loses.
Yup, that’s my platform. Also no open primaries, though same-day registration’s probably fine, or at least shortening the time between registration and voting – in New York, eg, you’ve got to register months before most people are even aware there’s a race, which is crazy. (FWIW, for those who think killing open primaries would be an establishment plot, it’s very likely that the 2008 race stayed so close because of Republicans who heeded Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” call.)
This is so stupid.
I want elected officials to go to the convention, and I don’t want them to take delegate spots away from “regular” voters. I want them to be able to vote their conscience, instead of being beholden to a pledge made months earlier in the campaign. I want democracy to mean that the individuals who got a spot at the convention because they were successfully elected to office will have a say in who the party chooses. We’re not talking smoke-filed rooms here; we’re talking about votes, publically cast.
Primaries are not just brackets that candidates have to go through to get to the general. They are a mechanism the party uses to choose a candidate that represents what they stand for.
Maybe it’s because I’ve seen how easy it was for certain groups - e.g. the religious right, the tea party - to take over a weak, complacent structures. Superdelegates provide institutional memory - ballast.
In any case, it’s a false charge that they “threw” the Democratic primary in 2016. Hillary had been working her butt off for years and years, talking to people, raising money for people, studying issues, developing policies. Bernie wasn’t even a member of the Party when he waltzed in at the last minute declaring only he could rescue it. In the end Superdelegate votes were not even needed for her to secure the nomination of - hello - her own party.
tldr: Superdelegates make it harder for outside factions to take over party mechanisms. Cf. GOP.
Well spoken. Thank you.
Yeah, this really seems like it’s just throwing a bone to a sore loser. Who, after what came out from the Mueller probe, might not have been as popular as he was led to believe. So I say this: focus on winning 2018 and 2020, the super delegate conversation can wait until then.
If I understand correctly, SD were meant to keep the un-electable fringe pluralist candidates out. The kind of candidate that could only be elected with foreign intervention. I support that broadly and saw no problem with it.
Aren’t most SDs themselves current or formerly elected officials? I consider that to be a democratic process in and of itself.
Really, I have a hard time believing this is a grassroots issue.
More closed primaries too.
Agan, we see that the BernieBros are just like the worst of the Republican ultra-right who, when they can’t win by the rules, demand that the rules be changed.
Bernie lost by four million votes. After he did, twelve percent of Sanders voters did exactly what they threatened to do: vote for Trump, putting him over the top and gifting him with the Presidency.
Now, they think they get come back and tell the rest of us what to do?
Enough.
Hillary WAS the voters’ preferred candidate by several millions. Sanders people unwittingly did just what Putin wanted…
I see that a large part of the Democratic party is still bent on making the party smaller; punishing those they deem insufficiently loyal to Hillary and excluding independents, rather than forming the coalition needed to get sufficient votes in the right places to win in 2020. A party with only 30% of registered voters needs independents to win. Circling the wagons to exclude independents is counter-productive. A good place to start might be “What would it take to attract new voters and energize existing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?”; because that is where 2016 was lost. Punishing the voters in those states by refusing to address the policy concerns they care about is counter-productive.
80% of those who supported Bernie showed up for Hillary, more than the Hillary supporters who showed up for Obama in 2008. I don’t see those voters showing up for Democrats again without significant reform, especially after the Bernie supporters were purged from the DNC. You can’t make people show up to vote, you need to give them reasons to show up to vote, and a process that is 100% free and fair with regard to both issues and candidates is a key part of that. I don’t see it happening, and I don’t see Democrats being competitive in 2020. Instead I see whining about caucuses because Hillary didn’t do well in caucuses.
It wasn’t the “Bernie Bros” who changed the rules on the fly in 2016, it was the Hillary supporters. It wasn’t the Bernie supporters who decided to not do a registration drive; and while that allowed Hillary supporters to not register more Bernie supporters for the primary, it also mean’t that Hillary didn’t have those votes in the general.
Again and again I see people wanting tight-fisted, exclusionary control of the party, keeping out Bernie Democrats, keeping out independents, and making the Democratic party smaller. The Democratic paty may already be too small to be viable. I don’t see any candidate that could get the votes of both Hillary Democrats and Sanders Democrats.
And “I hate Trump” is not a reason to vote for Democrats. Didn’t work in 2016, and will be even less effective in 2020. The Democratic party is all in on “I hate Trump” and has pretty much nothing else. Democrats who really hate Trump would be looking for ways to beat him in 2020, but the focus is on excluding people we don’t like.
Hillary got more votes and won more states in the nominating campaign. That’s how you win a nominating campaign. Won fair and square too. The rules were all set before the campaigns started too.