Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Her Sister

(6,444 posts)
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:25 AM Jun 2016

WaPo: Bernie Sanders’s Democratic Party reforms focus on things that would’ve helped BS win

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/15/bernie-sanderss-democratic-party-reforms-focus-on-things-that-wouldve-helped-bernie-sanders-win/?postshare=9331466000216234&tid=ss_tw

During a brief statement in Washington on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders outlined four proposals to reform the Democratic Party. Those proposals are as follows, given in the order Sanders presented them.
1. Get new leadership at the Democratic National Committee.
2. Approve "the most progressive platform ever passed" at the Democratic National Convention in July.
3. Enact "real electoral reform" within the Democratic Party.
4. Get rid of superdelegates



SNIP
But that is why Point No. 4 above is odd. Sanders fleshed out all of these points, of course, and to explain why he wanted to ban superdelegates, he noted that about 400 had pledged to Clinton before voting even began, echoing a common argument that this somehow affected the results of the ensuing contests. There's not really any evidence that it did: Clinton's strength among members of the Democratic establishment was clearly beneficial, and superdelegates overlap with that group, but I'd challenge you to find a significant population of voters in any state who would point to the raw count of superdelegates as having swayed their decision. Did Clinton romp in the South because black voters saw her superdelegate edge? Did she get demolished in New Hampshire because of it?


SNIP:
It is the job of the Democratic Party to gain new members who will then vote for Democratic candidates. To raise money from those members to help run campaigns on behalf of those candidates. In recent years, the number of people who identify with the party has declined; the number of people who identify with the Republican Party has declined slightly faster. In early 2005, there were more Republicans than Democrats and more Democrats than independents, according to Gallup. By January of this year, 26 percent of Americans identified as Republicans and 29 percent as Democrats. Forty-two percent called themselves independents. In other words: The party isn't getting its job done. (It's not getting the job done in state-level races, either, but that's a different discussion.)

From the standpoint of the party, though, Sanders's proposal would only make the problem worse. Allowing non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary might get voters invested in the candidate they support — but it wouldn't get them invested in the party. The party wants to identify people whom it can reliably turn out to vote in important contests; allowing people to vote in Democratic primaries without being Democrats doesn't help them with that identification. What's more, it doesn't build loyalty to the ticket. Democrats tend to vote for Democrats. Independents votes for ... whomever. (Although in practice they vote for the party with which they privately align themselves, outside of the pesky gaze of Wasserman Schultz.)

It's not weird to suggest that more people should get to vote in elections. It's somewhat weird to suggest that the party has a duty to let non-members help pick its nominee. It's very weird to suggest that the Democratic Party would want to intentionally weaken itself


It goes on and touches on why BS did not ask for the end of caucuses!
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo: Bernie Sanders’s Democratic Party reforms focus on things that would’ve helped BS win (Original Post) Her Sister Jun 2016 OP
But notice what's missing from Sanders's list: caucuses. Her Sister Jun 2016 #1
Because they only complain about the situations that didn't favor them. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #4
Poor Bernie Frances Jun 2016 #2
There's more information in the link/article about the reform Her Sister Jun 2016 #5
I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the primary motive behind all this isn't self-serving. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #3
It was, and is, still all about Bernie. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #6
This ^^^^^^^^^^^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2016 #10
Of course it is SharonClark Jun 2016 #14
He forgot to demand that only people who are mostly bald with a fringe of white hair.... Walk away Jun 2016 #7
Most of our presidents have had a full head of hair caquillo Jun 2016 #8
kick & recommended. William769 Jun 2016 #9
Super delegates and closed voting are insurance policies Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2016 #11
The first comment is priceless MattP Jun 2016 #12
How many of us would've written the exact thing if we worked for the WaPo? displacedtexan Jun 2016 #13
Seems kind of short sighted... nt eastwestdem Jun 2016 #15
Oh, snap! BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #16
 

Her Sister

(6,444 posts)
1. But notice what's missing from Sanders's list: caucuses.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:30 AM
Jun 2016
But notice what's missing from Sanders's list: caucuses.

TwilightZone

(28,833 posts)
4. Because they only complain about the situations that didn't favor them.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:35 AM
Jun 2016

Follow the will of the people unless the will of the people favors my opponent. Then, never mind.

Frances

(8,578 posts)
2. Poor Bernie
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:33 AM
Jun 2016

He has not played his hand well.

3 of the 4 demands on the list are things that would have helped Bernie in the primaries. Only 1 is about progressive reform and it gives absolutely no information about what that reform is.

 

Her Sister

(6,444 posts)
5. There's more information in the link/article about the reform
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jun 2016

Things like same day registration, education about voting. You know everything for Independents.

TwilightZone

(28,833 posts)
3. I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the primary motive behind all this isn't self-serving.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:34 AM
Jun 2016

This article spells it out, of course, but when the only things the Sanders campaign ever complains about are the situations that didn't go their way, it couldn't be more obvious.

Similarly, the "let everyone vote to bring more Dems into the party" approach never made the least bit of sense. If you don't require people to change party affiliation to vote in your own primary, they have no motivation to change parties. That argument always made the point opposite of the one it was apparently intended to make.

SharonClark

(10,310 posts)
14. Of course it is
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jun 2016

Revolutions always end up being about the revolutionaries trying to gain power and becoming power hungry themselves.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
7. He forgot to demand that only people who are mostly bald with a fringe of white hair....
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:42 AM
Jun 2016

and glasses can ever win a Democratic primary!

caquillo

(521 posts)
8. Most of our presidents have had a full head of hair
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:17 AM
Jun 2016

I believe our last bald president was Gerald Ford (1974-1977), and before him Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961).

That said, this 'tradition' doesn't bode well for either Sanders or Trump.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(114,919 posts)
11. Super delegates and closed voting are insurance policies
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:09 PM
Jun 2016

They make sure we don't nominate gadflies like Donald Trump.

MattP

(3,304 posts)
12. The first comment is priceless
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jun 2016

Hey Bernie you want a movement stop by the bakery and buy a bran muffin.

displacedtexan

(15,696 posts)
13. How many of us would've written the exact thing if we worked for the WaPo?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:52 PM
Jun 2016

A freaking ton, I bet. Wow! And the comments. They sound so rational. I loved the one who explained the difference between being an involved Dem for 40 years and an Independent wanting to "reform" the Dem Party.

BlueMTexpat

(15,493 posts)
16. Oh, snap!
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jun 2016

Exactly. Bernie's thinking less about "reform" and more about weakening.

Just leave him by the wayside he has chosen and move on to victory in November!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»WaPo: Bernie Sanders’s De...