Democrats, Can We Agree?

eliz said:

I think the DNC should get rid of superdelegates AND caucuses.

I bet many Republicans wished there were three times as many Republican Superdelegates.

eliz said:

I think the DNC should get rid of superdelegates AND caucuses.

Why? They had them for dozens of years and were never an issue before. Because now some cry "unfair"? 

Super delegates are basically fair because they shift their votes to reflect the winning pledged delegate count. This happened in 2008 when they shifted from Clinton to Obama.

However, super delegates can be useful. Suppose Clinton got indicted before the convention? The super delegates could then ensure she is not nominated.

Super delegates can be a brake when things really go wrong.

eliz said:

Are you really still talking about polling?  Didn't you learn this lesson with California?

What an appropriate title in this instance - Move on. It's time.

BG9 said:

eliz said:

I think the DNC should get rid of superdelegates AND caucuses.

Why? They had them for dozens of years and were never an issue before. Because now some cry "unfair"? 

Super delegates are basically fair because they shift their votes to reflect the winning pledged delegate count. This happened in 2008 when they shifted from Clinton to Obama.


However, super delegates can be useful. Suppose Clinton got indicted before the convention? The super delegates could then ensure she is not nominated.

Super delegates can be a brake when things really go wrong.

They're a way to kill a Trump candidacy too. That is, if your party has principles, which, in the GOP's case, it does not.

But caucuses can be wild. 

Hey, remember when Ron Paul bought Iowa?

If you get rid of all Super Delegates it would mean that top Elected Officials would not have a vote on the Nominee of their Party unless they ran for Delegate and won. In certain States, for example New Jersey, they would have to run on the Slate of one of the Presidential Candidates.

If everything is going to be decided in Primaries why have a Convention at all?

BG9 said:

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of voting for Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

And out of the 7% where the may have differed, some may be gun regulations where Bernie is obnoxiously conservative   

LOST said:

If you get rid of all Super Delegates it would mean that top Elected Officials would not have a vote on the Nominee of their Party unless they ran for Delegate and won. In certain States, for example New Jersey, they would have to run on the Slate of one of the Presidential Candidates.

If everything is going to be decided in Primaries why have a Convention at all?

Two reasons. One is the week of publicity to motivate the base and present the party platform.

The second is the National Convention is the highest authority of the party. It can set rules and bylaws that bind the DNC and state parties subject to the parties charter. The Democratic party charter can be changed by a majority vote of convention delegates followed by a ratification vote of the DNC.

This means the super delegates, besides voting for a president, can vote on amendments to the rules and regulations (charter and bylaws) of the Democratic party.

Woot said:

BG9 said:

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of voting for Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

And out of the 7% where the may have differed, some may be gun regulations where Bernie is obnoxiously conservative   

OK, on what gun regulations is Bernie "obnoxiously conservative?"

paulsurovell said:

imonlysleeping said:

Sure. Seems totally reasonable for the Democratic party to now enthusiastically rally around its presumptive nominee, and at the same time to support Bernie as he sees the process through--and to use the convention as an opportunity to thank him for his very significant contributions to the process and party. Hard to see how reasonable people could have an issue with those things at this point. So how about it, Democrats? Can we agree?

I think that is fair and would be the most effective way to unite the party.

Americans agree 48-36.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902144/poll-america-bernie-sanders-race

Since the counting of the 2.6 million uncounted CA ballots, 3 counties have flipped to Bernie:  Santa Barabara, Glen and San Luis Obispo.  Hillary is down to 55.7.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/party/democratic/

Paul

Why does it matter?

paulsurovell said:

Since the counting of the 2.6 million uncounted CA ballots, 3 counties have flipped to Bernie:  Santa Barabara, Glen and San Luis Obispo.  Hillary is down to 55.7.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/party/democratic/

Still a decisive victory

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell said:

imonlysleeping said:

Sure. Seems totally reasonable for the Democratic party to now enthusiastically rally around its presumptive nominee, and at the same time to support Bernie as he sees the process through--and to use the convention as an opportunity to thank him for his very significant contributions to the process and party. Hard to see how reasonable people could have an issue with those things at this point. So how about it, Democrats? Can we agree?

I think that is fair and would be the most effective way to unite the party.

Americans agree 48-36.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902144/poll-america-bernie-sanders-race

Including all of Donald Trump's supporters   

paulsurovell said:

Woot said:

BG9 said:

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of voting for Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

And out of the 7% where the may have differed, some may be gun regulations where Bernie is obnoxiously conservative   

OK, on what gun regulations is Bernie "obnoxiously conservative?"

Admittedly I am not rational on gun issues.  But he is mixed at best on gun laws.  He voted against the Brady Bill.  He also voted for gun manufacturer amnesty.  

Bernie should stay in the race if he wants to. He has an important message and the vast majority of Democrats like him and think he's a force for good. That doesn't mean they think he's the right nominee, of course. Democrats have decisively chosen otherwise. But there's no reason for him not to keep pushing his message as long as he can as long as he isn't bashing Hillary or otherwise damaging the party.

with regard to guns, I don't own one and I don't believe most people need one.  That said, I also recognize that 200+ years of legal precedent has made it settled law in this country that individuals can own firearms (with only a few exceptions).  We'd need a Constitutional amendment to change this, and that's not going to happen.  With that as our reality, Bernie's position on guns is pretty close to my own, which I don't think is "obnoxious," but more a pragmatic acceptance that this country isn't going to put major controls on gun ownership any time soon.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Yesterday, I read the following article. After reading it and checking this guy out, someone who's not going to ruin his progressive creds by lying, I n ot want to vote for Bernie even if he won the nomination.

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-the-trouble-with-bernie.html

I'm curious why it's ok to be a pragmatist on guns but not the other issues?  Bernie's never been afraid of extreme positions but most of those don't shoot up kindergartens.  Proper gun control is one of my major issues.  Before free college and breaking up the banks.

ml1 said:

with regard to guns, I don't own one and I don't believe most people need one.  That said, I also recognize that 200+ years of legal precedent has made it settled law in this country that individuals can own firearms (with only a few exceptions).  We'd need a Constitutional amendment to change this, and that's not going to happen.  With that as our reality, Bernie's position on guns is pretty close to my own, which I don't think is "obnoxious," but more a pragmatic acceptance that this country isn't going to put major controls on gun ownership any time soon.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

as far as I know, there isn't 200 years of legal precedent establishing the right for banks to be "too big to fail," or the right for lenders to saddle students with high interest loan debt.  So as pie-in-the-sky as those ideas may sound, at least they are theoretically possible and legal.  most extreme gun control measures would never pass muster in the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate, but that's reality.

eliz said:

I'm curious why it's ok to be a pragmatist on guns but not the other issues?  Bernie's never been afraid of extreme positions but most of those don't shoot up kindergartens.  Proper gun control is one of my major issues.  Before free college and breaking up the banks.

ml1 said:

with regard to guns, I don't own one and I don't believe most people need one.  That said, I also recognize that 200+ years of legal precedent has made it settled law in this country that individuals can own firearms (with only a few exceptions).  We'd need a Constitutional amendment to change this, and that's not going to happen.  With that as our reality, Bernie's position on guns is pretty close to my own, which I don't think is "obnoxious," but more a pragmatic acceptance that this country isn't going to put major controls on gun ownership any time soon.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Woot said:

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell said:

imonlysleeping said:

Sure. Seems totally reasonable for the Democratic party to now enthusiastically rally around its presumptive nominee, and at the same time to support Bernie as he sees the process through--and to use the convention as an opportunity to thank him for his very significant contributions to the process and party. Hard to see how reasonable people could have an issue with those things at this point. So how about it, Democrats? Can we agree?

I think that is fair and would be the most effective way to unite the party.

Americans agree 48-36.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902144/poll-america-bernie-sanders-race

Including all of Donald Trump's supporters   

Democrats 47-42 want Bernie to stay in the race.

Woot said:

paulsurovell said:

Since the counting of the 2.6 million uncounted CA ballots, 3 counties have flipped to Bernie:  Santa Barabara, Glen and San Luis Obispo.  Hillary is down to 55.7.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/party/democratic/

Still a decisive victory

Counting the uncounted ballots will continue next week.

LOST said:

Paul

Why does it matter?

Because the results of the CA election should reflect the votes of 2.6 million ballots that were not counted.

After meeting with Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders held a rally
in Washington, where he repeated his pledge to keep going through the
convention and where his supporters chanted "shun the nonbelievers."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Its beginning to sound like a cult.

There's a lot of conflicting information right now. (See http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/9/1536939/-Sanders-key-campaign-staff-prepare-to-help-Clinton-win-the-General-Election-and-unify-the-party, for example.) I will be interested to hear what is said following the final primary voting next week.

Did you all see the news about Clinton Foundation Donor receiving a position on a Nuclear Policy Board? He is also a big donor to the Democratic Party and is a super delegate.

It is one thing to have super delegates that are politicians, but to me, it is another when super delegates consist of wealthy donors. Just another instance of people with the most money having the most "voice" in politics.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

This is also very interesting about how there is no correlation between public sentiment and whether a bill will pass.... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

and if you have time this one from John Oliver is amazing! Politicians spend most of their time fundraising for their party. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

Why am I posting these? Because I think it is vitally important to get money out of politics. I know Clinton has a plan for campaign finance reform, but it doesn't seem to go far enough.

eliz said:

I'm curious why it's ok to be a pragmatist on guns but not the other issues?  Bernie's never been afraid of extreme positions but most of those don't shoot up kindergartens.  Proper gun control is one of my major issues.  Before free college and breaking up the banks.

ml1 said:

with regard to guns, I don't own one and I don't believe most people need one.  That said, I also recognize that 200+ years of legal precedent has made it settled law in this country that individuals can own firearms (with only a few exceptions).  We'd need a Constitutional amendment to change this, and that's not going to happen.  With that as our reality, Bernie's position on guns is pretty close to my own, which I don't think is "obnoxious," but more a pragmatic acceptance that this country isn't going to put major controls on gun ownership any time soon.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Because most people in Vermont own guns.  He would never have been a congressman in Vermont with an anti-gun platform.   

Woot said:

paulsurovell said:

Woot said:

BG9 said:

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of voting for Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

And out of the 7% where the may have differed, some may be gun regulations where Bernie is obnoxiously conservative   

OK, on what gun regulations is Bernie "obnoxiously conservative?"

Admittedly I am not rational on gun issues.  But he is mixed at best on gun laws.  He voted against the Brady Bill.  He also voted for gun manufacturer amnesty.

Regarding gun manufacturer immunity, Sanders has pointed out that the legislation does not provide immunity in cases where the manufacturer or dealer has knowledge that a purchaser intends to use the gun illegally.  This was confirmed recently in case that held Badger Guns of Wisconsin liable for the sale of a gun to a "straw" purchaser who sold the gun to a criminal.

In my view Bernie should have insisted that the bill make such lawsuits easier before signing on.  He has recently indicated that he will support repeal of the bill.

On other gun control legislation, Bernie's position is similar to most Democrats, which explains his lifetime D- rating from the NRA.

He has made the point that his credibility among rational gun owners makes him the preferred candidate to reach out to the majority in Congress to craft gun control legislation that can pass.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9533389/bernie-sanders-gun-lawsuits-democratic-debate

I don't understand how Clinton is more maligned than was Teddy Kennedy, a serial philanderer guilty of negligent homicide.

tjohn said:

I don't understand how Clinton is more maligned than was Teddy Kennedy, a serial philanderer guilty of negligent homicide.

Are you speaking of Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?

BG9 said:

After meeting with Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders held a rally
in Washington, where he repeated his pledge to keep going through the
convention and where his supporters chanted "shun the nonbelievers."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Its beginning to sound like a cult.

Looks like this false story had its intended result.

Like the false reports of "chairs thrown" in Las Vegas, this "chant" never happened.

Watch the video.