The second option, which Perez supports and which appears far more likely to be enacted, would allow superdelegates to continue to exist, but they couldn’t vote during the first round of the presidential roll-call vote. They could, however, vote during the second round or any subsequent roll call, and they would still be permitted to support any candidate they wanted.
Perez believes this approach ensures that “we have an inclusive party, transparent process, democratic principles, and empowers the grass roots,” a DNC official said.
And that’s what set the House members off, because none of them believes there will be any more than one roll-call vote for the nominee.
In their view, that means elected Democratic officials — who have been put into office by hundreds of thousands or even millions of constituents — won’t play a role in nominating their party’s presidential candidate.
Given that optics would have made it difficult (though not impossible) for superdelegates to vote against the majority winner, this would acknowledge that and give it to the voters to decide, but if a majority of the voters haven't backed one candidate (which is increasingly likely if you have more than two strong/viable candidates), this gives the supermajority the ability to swing the undecided vote towards one of the candidates, and prevent a protracted fight (at the convention, at any rate, if not during the primary season).
I think it might also mean that candidates would be less likely to drop out during the primary season if they're behind, because if they can ensure that no one gets over 50%, they could still have a chance to win if they can get the superdelegates on board.
Yeah, this seems reasonable on the whole. The danger with abolishing superdelegates while retaining proportional allocation of delegates is that it would be a recipe for convention chaos, as it would be difficult for any one nominee to hit 50%. With this plan if you have one nominee with (say) 45% of the delegates, the superdelegates can put them over the top, instead of having to work out a deal with a variety of other candidates.
OF course, there's still some potential for chaos, especially if the margin between the top 2 or 3 is not huge.
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:03 pm
I'm not saying he does, but why not? Where is his baggage? Much like 2008 Obama, he's moving and shaking but not on the RADAR... yet. The only thing Obama had was that as far as federal politicing went, he came from nowhere, so re-aligining to him quickly was supremely difficult.
He's great on policy but he's a bland boring white guy. He'd lose for the same reasons Gore and Kerry lost - many voters don't care about policy positions one bit.
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:03 pm
I'm not saying he does, but why not? Where is his baggage? Much like 2008 Obama, he's moving and shaking but not on the RADAR... yet. The only thing Obama had was that as far as federal politicing went, he came from nowhere, so re-aligining to him quickly was supremely difficult.
He's great on policy but he's bland and boring. He'd lose for the same reasons Gore and Kerry lost - many voters don't care about policy positions one bit.
It's also worth pointing out that if the Republicans had had superdelegates, we might not have Drumpf as President.
Lots of people understandably have a problem with party members being able to put a finger on the scale, but the purpose of that is to make sure a populist doesn't seize control of the party and do something crazy like ally with Russia.
The Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee adopted a new rule on Friday that would prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders from seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential race. The move seems to be the latest salvo in the ongoing jockeying over the party’s future that emerged following the at times bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016.
The Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee adopted a new rule on Friday that would prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders from seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential race. The move seems to be the latest salvo in the ongoing jockeying over the party’s future that emerged following the at times bitter primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016.
The summary sentence saying that it would "prevent outsiders like Bernie Sanders" from seeking the nomination is pretty egregiously misleading. All the rules change would do is require anyone who wants to seek the Democratic nomination to: (1) join the Democratic Party; (2) commit to accepting the nomination if they win it; and (3) commit to serving as a Democratic president if elected.
One can quibble with how binding that all is, or whether the rules change (with the limited impact that it would have) makes sense, but it by no means would stop anyone from seeking the Democratic nomination. It's just that you have to become a Democrat and commit to staying a democrat in order to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. Seems fair enough, really.
It's way too early to seriously look at polling, but this caught my eye...
Biden was the choice of 32 percent of Democrats in a Harvard CAPS/Harris June poll that was obtained by The Hill. The party's 2016 standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, came in second with 18 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was third with 16 percent.
Seems to me that this is proof that polls don't reflect anything at this stage.
I spend about 90% of my media time immersed in political coverage and political punditry and political Twitter, and I have never once seen anyone propose or support or hope for a future Clinton candidacy.
This isn't because she isn't popular; it's just because people know how political careers work. Clinton's is over, and she knows it more than anyone.
(Biden's is too, although, as much as I love his, it's unclear whether *he* knows it.)
Holman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:45 am
Seems to me that this is proof that polls don't reflect anything at this stage.
I spend about 90% of my media time immersed in political coverage and political punditry and political Twitter, and I have never once seen anyone propose or support or hope for a future Clinton candidacy.
This isn't because she isn't popular; it's just because people know how political careers work. Clinton's is over, and she knows it more than anyone.
(Biden's is too, although, as much as I love his, it's unclear whether *he* knows it.)
Yeah, I think the Clinton number just represents a mix of name recognition and a core of Clinton supporters who are dedicated and pissed off about what happened with the 2016 election. There's no way she's running, and no way that she'd win. It would have to be a crazy specific chain of events her to run and be competitive - something like if it came out that there was actual vote changing shenanigans, and she came to be seen as the 'legitimate' president.
Biden's definitely running, though, and he'll be competitive, at least. He can mix name recognition, nostalgia for the Obama administration, and he's got a populist touch which will give him some appeal to both centrists and some progressives. He's beatable, though.
Remus West wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:07 am
Did you think there were ignorant voters only on the Right? We have our share too.
No, I get that. It's not that my reaction was "huh, here's a piece of misinformation on the left". It's just very interesting to see (across political spectrums) what particular facts seep in, and how they get there. I assume this is just a random byproduct of reading a million "the democratic primary was rigged" stories.
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
We are surrounded by ignorant morons. And their votes count just as much as ours.
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
My god...
I've been on this Earth for three decades and I didn't know about the knuckle trick!? That's way better than the stupid rhyme I could never remember.
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
My god...
I've been on this Earth for three decades and I didn't know about the knuckle trick!? That's way better than the stupid rhyme I could never remember.
I guess I'm not sure the value of the knuckle in this. It's just that we start with a 31 day month, and then alternate between 31 and 30, except for February. What is the value add of the knuckle? Just remember how it starts and that they alternate.
Although thinking about it now, I'm kind of mad at the idiot who came up with the rhyme. What a dumb way for people to learn this.
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
My god...
I've been on this Earth for three decades and I didn't know about the knuckle trick!? That's way better than the stupid rhyme I could never remember.
I guess I'm not sure the value of the knuckle in this. It's just that we start with a 31 day month, and then alternate between 31 and 30, except for February. What is the value add of the knuckle? Just remember how it starts and that they alternate.
Although thinking about it now, I'm kind of mad at the idiot who came up with the rhyme. What a dumb way for people to learn this.
July and August ruin your alternating theory and validate the usefulness of knuckles.
Although I just memorized it like any other fact rather than rely on hocus pocus.
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
My god...
I've been on this Earth for three decades and I didn't know about the knuckle trick!? That's way better than the stupid rhyme I could never remember.
I guess I'm not sure the value of the knuckle in this. It's just that we start with a 31 day month, and then alternate between 31 and 30, except for February. What is the value add of the knuckle? Just remember how it starts and that they alternate.
Although thinking about it now, I'm kind of mad at the idiot who came up with the rhyme. What a dumb way for people to learn this.
July and August ruin your alternating theory and validate the usefulness of knuckles.
Although I just memorized it like any other fact rather than rely on hocus pocus.
Remus West wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:07 am
Did you think there were ignorant voters only on the Right? We have our share too.
No, I get that. It's not that my reaction was "huh, here's a piece of misinformation on the left". It's just very interesting to see (across political spectrums) what particular facts seep in, and how they get there. I assume this is just a random byproduct of reading a million "the democratic primary was rigged" stories.
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
We are surrounded by ignorant morons. And their votes count just as much as ours.
But the leaders of North Carolina’s largest city found on Monday that they and their constituents were sharply divided on whether Charlotte ought to host this particular convention, which will presumably decide whether to nominate President Trump for re-election.
The reluctance had little to do with the complex logistical and security challenges surrounding a convention, or any doubts about whether Charlotte was capable of meeting them. It was mostly about whether a Democratic-leaning city with a carefully cultivated reputation wanted to associate itself with what Mr. Trump and many in his party now stand for.
The only other contenders appear to be "Las Vegas, whose bid was put forward without the support of the local government" and Moscow, which has put in a late bid to host the convention, with the full backing of the local government.
Democrats have narrowed their list of 2020 convention candidates to Houston, Miami Beach and Milwaukee, and appear to have run into less resistance than Republicans have in Charlotte.
Another story (LA Times) about Charlotte's buyer's remorse.
The Republican Party's difficulty in finding a host for the 2020 convention speaks both to the nation's polarization in the Trump era and to the diminishing support for Republicans in cities that have the capacity to manage large-scale events. Even in Republican-dominated states, big cities have grown more culturally diverse and Democratic, with many residents seeing themselves as targets of Trump's anti-immigration measures, divisive racial rhetoric and social policy attacks.
Charlotte, a city where minorities are a majority, within a county that voted 62% for Hillary Clinton, is still nursing civic wounds from a police shooting of an African American man that provoked violent protests two years ago and a fight with the state government over its limits on LGBTQ rights, a law that invited corporate boycotts. Now, this growing city of glass bank towers, brick warehouses and construction cranes is bracing for another two years of culture wars and security fears — and the potential to be ground zero for anti-Trump protests in the summer of 2020.
...
Council member Braxton Winston, who led protests after Keith Lamont Scott, an African American man, was shot by police here in 2016, responded to the argument for openness to Republicans by saying that he does not see Trump as a normal Republican.
"I see him as a human avatar of white supremacy," he said from the dais before casting his "no" vote.
In an interview this week, Winston said he would nonetheless spend the next two years working to make the convention successful and ensuring that workers and lower-income people share the economic benefits, while protesters have an adequate platform.
"If anybody in this nation thinks that we're not in a challenged time at best … or we're at some kind of philosophical cold civil war among ourselves at the very worst," he said, "I think you're living under a rock."
Sepiche wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:38 pm
but the purpose of that is to make sure a populist doesn't seize control of the party and do something crazy like ally with Russia.
msteelers wrote:
I just had a conversation with a 50ish year old woman who thought that the number of days in any particular month changes from year to year, and when asked what month had 28 days responded with "May".
To be fair, they all have 28 days.
Fair point. I retract my judgement of this woman.
Nah. That woman definitely doesn’t know about the knuckle trick. Judge away!
My god...
I've been on this Earth for three decades and I didn't know about the knuckle trick!? That's way better than the stupid rhyme I could never remember.
It's not trump 'stable genius' level but it's been getting me by for about 40 years now. Thanks mom!
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
The new energy on the left is all about making government bigger and bolder, an ideal driven by a burgeoning movement toward democratic socialism. It’s inspired likely 2020 Democratic contenders to draw battle lines around how far they’d go to change the role of government in American life.
Warren supports expanding many of the programs in play, and she’s voted to do so. But the rollout of her bill suggests that as she weighs whether to get into the presidential race, she’ll focus on how to prioritize workers in the American economic system while leaving businesses as the primary driver of it.
Warren wants to eliminate the huge financial incentives that entice CEOs to flush cash out to shareholders rather than reinvest in businesses. She wants to curb corporations’ political activities. And for the biggest corporations, she’s proposing a dramatic step that would ensure workers and not just shareholders get a voice on big strategic decisions.
Warren hopes this will spur a return to greater corporate responsibility, and bring back some other aspects of the more egalitarian era of American capitalism post-World War II — more business investment, more meaningful career ladders for workers, more financial stability, and higher pay.
As much as Warren’s proposal is about ending inequality, it’s also about saving capitalism.
The 1% will scream bloody murder, but what about their enablers?
proposals to overhaul corporate governance poll well — almost shockingly well, in fact, for an idea that’s had no organized advocacy community or high-profile champions until extremely recently.
Earlier this year, Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm, asked a large sample of Americans about codetermination, complete with an explicit partisan framing:
In many countries, employees at large companies elect representatives to their firm’s board of directors in order to advocate their interests and point of view to management. Democrats say this gives regular workers a greater say over how their companies are run and will increase wages, while Republicans claim that this makes companies less efficient and be bad for the economy. Would you support letting employees at large companies elect representatives to their firm’s board of directors?”
They found broad support for the idea, even with Republican-leaning voters.
...
Combining its large sample with demographic information, Civis is able to model support for these different ideas down to the congressional district level and finds that, astoundingly, codetermination polls well in literally every single House district. Looking state by state, it commands 58 percent support in Wyoming and is more popular than that everywhere else.
If she can turn it into a bumper-sticker slogan, she might just have a winner here.
