It took Jamelle Bouie to say it:
Am I the only person who thinks the Dem nominating process is basically fine with it's mix of majoritarian and non-majoritarian elements?
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/740142390137262080
Jamil Smith:
"The declaration of Clinton as the presumptive nominee is not "voter suppression." (Yes, I'm seeing people tweeting that.)"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740038431594708992
Rose Bridges makes the crucial point:
"when people say stuff like that I wonder if they've ever followed a single other presidential election"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740038431594708992
I think that's the real problem. A lot of the Berners have not in fact even followed an election before this one.
Bernie has this rather peevish narrative now that neither he nor Hillary will have enough delegates until the convention. This is actually false.
"It is true that the outcome is unofficial at this point. But after today’s voting, Clinton will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates, rendering Sanders’s ongoing case for fighting on untenable."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/07/this-brutal-new-ad-portrays-donald-trump-as-a-full-blown-sociopath/
Then he absurdly claims that it's wrong to have a presumptive nominee at all. We have to all pretend not to know who won until the convention.
Bernie has been exposed as a total hypocrite on things like super delegates and 'rigged systems.' In 2008, he endorsed Obama at the end of the primary season.
After all, Hillary was much closer than Bernie is today-she actually led in the popular vote. But she didn't wait to endorse him till the convention.
Bernie needs to stop being a sore loser. If you won't respect the democratic rules of the game you don't deserve to even be a player.
Jamil Smith:
"In every presidential election that I can recall, there is a presumptive nominee for each party. "Presumptive" being the key word."
"I don't see where the @AP did anything wrong. They surveyed the supers, and Clinton hit the number. Were they supposed to sit on the story?"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740035158179520512
Another false thing Bernie is saying is that he is a very close runner up. Wrong. Three million votes back, close to 300 pledged delegates back, trailing in the popular vote by a landslide double digit margin.
Oh, but no.
Hillary won the popular vote, and lost by 130 delegates-which was also a considerable deficit, but much closer than The Bern.
Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson were also closer. I am grateful that Jesse Jackson is speaking with Bernie. He can give him a reality check-in a tactful way.
Jackson has been there. He lost to Dukakis in 1988 and then the party made some of Jackson's reforms at the convention.
Ironically, one Jackson reform was for more super delegates.
But I agree with Jamelle Bouie, I think the Dem system is pretty good with it's 'mix of majoritarian and nonmajoritarian' elements.
But that's what I love about Bouie: he's a true liberal.
Just a hint: the Bernie and his bros are not liberal, they are illiberals.
I don't necessarily agree then, that there is a need to have fewer SDs in the future-though in a sense they have lead to more-willful-confusion by Team Bernie. Hillary has beaten him without the SDs.
Am I the only person who thinks the Dem nominating process is basically fine with it's mix of majoritarian and non-majoritarian elements?
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/740142390137262080
Jamil Smith:
"The declaration of Clinton as the presumptive nominee is not "voter suppression." (Yes, I'm seeing people tweeting that.)"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740038431594708992
Rose Bridges makes the crucial point:
"when people say stuff like that I wonder if they've ever followed a single other presidential election"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740038431594708992
I think that's the real problem. A lot of the Berners have not in fact even followed an election before this one.
Bernie has this rather peevish narrative now that neither he nor Hillary will have enough delegates until the convention. This is actually false.
"It is true that the outcome is unofficial at this point. But after today’s voting, Clinton will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates, rendering Sanders’s ongoing case for fighting on untenable."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/07/this-brutal-new-ad-portrays-donald-trump-as-a-full-blown-sociopath/
Then he absurdly claims that it's wrong to have a presumptive nominee at all. We have to all pretend not to know who won until the convention.
Bernie has been exposed as a total hypocrite on things like super delegates and 'rigged systems.' In 2008, he endorsed Obama at the end of the primary season.
After all, Hillary was much closer than Bernie is today-she actually led in the popular vote. But she didn't wait to endorse him till the convention.
Bernie needs to stop being a sore loser. If you won't respect the democratic rules of the game you don't deserve to even be a player.
Jamil Smith:
"In every presidential election that I can recall, there is a presumptive nominee for each party. "Presumptive" being the key word."
"I don't see where the @AP did anything wrong. They surveyed the supers, and Clinton hit the number. Were they supposed to sit on the story?"
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/740035158179520512
Another false thing Bernie is saying is that he is a very close runner up. Wrong. Three million votes back, close to 300 pledged delegates back, trailing in the popular vote by a landslide double digit margin.
Oh, but no.
Hillary won the popular vote, and lost by 130 delegates-which was also a considerable deficit, but much closer than The Bern.
Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson were also closer. I am grateful that Jesse Jackson is speaking with Bernie. He can give him a reality check-in a tactful way.
Jackson has been there. He lost to Dukakis in 1988 and then the party made some of Jackson's reforms at the convention.
Ironically, one Jackson reform was for more super delegates.
But I agree with Jamelle Bouie, I think the Dem system is pretty good with it's 'mix of majoritarian and nonmajoritarian' elements.
But that's what I love about Bouie: he's a true liberal.
Just a hint: the Bernie and his bros are not liberal, they are illiberals.
I don't necessarily agree then, that there is a need to have fewer SDs in the future-though in a sense they have lead to more-willful-confusion by Team Bernie. Hillary has beaten him without the SDs.
Still, I would be slow to 'fix' a problem that doesn't exist.
The main reform I do agree with is to phase out the caucuses. As for open vs. closed, I actually think this year shows the efficacy of closed primaries. We want Dems to decide the nominee, not liberal independents too fastidious to call themselves Dems.
Believe it or not, I don't especially want HA Goodman, Seth Abramson, or Shaun King in the Democratic party.
If they want to go, it's an open door.
The main reform I do agree with is to phase out the caucuses. As for open vs. closed, I actually think this year shows the efficacy of closed primaries. We want Dems to decide the nominee, not liberal independents too fastidious to call themselves Dems.
Believe it or not, I don't especially want HA Goodman, Seth Abramson, or Shaun King in the Democratic party.
If they want to go, it's an open door.
What would be the problem with making two changes simultaneously:
ReplyDelete1. Get rid of all the caucuses
2. Get rid of superdelegates
Because no one has shown why the SDs are a problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jesse Jackson in his reforms in 1988 actually got more SDs as a reform.
The only reason Bernie doesn't like them is he's using them as a scapegoat.
I'm with Jamelle Bouie I think it's a good mix of Majoritairan and nonMajoaritarian rules.
Dems don't want a purely Majoritarian system.
Primaries are to get the most well rounded candidate with the broadest support not for a purist niche candidate