Bernie Sanders: to fix the Democratic Party, curb superdelegates, make it easier to vote in primaries, and account for funds


#41

Because the communists, communitarians, greens, and anarchists do not and by the design of the system can not have a party which reflects their interests.

The nazis, republicans, and libertarians have the republican party of course.

Some states already have voting where you’re not locked out if you’re an independent, it doesn’t seem to do them much harm; in others you can cast a provisional ballot as an independent and it’ll be counted if the race is sufficiently close iirc


#42

Then, in that case, they will need to enact laws that say when it’s a blue win, it’s winner take all, but when it’s a red win, it’s proportional to the popular vote!


#43

During the McGovern campaign, much of the Democratic establishment openly supported Nixon. Most of the rest of it covertly supported Nixon.

The money behind the DNC deliberately threw that election; they will always prefer right wing capitalists to an actual left wing government. They’ve been using their deliberately manufactured false history of 1972 as a cudgel against the left ever since.


#44

Uh, what? You probably have SOME evidence for this theory, right?


#45

There’s plenty if you dig, but start here:


#46

Well, I was there, and remember it pretty well.

DFN was a marginal group at best, basically Connally giving interviews whenever he could get people to listen to him. A bigger influence on the 1972 campaign was the fact that it was an incredibly ugly primary, that Wallace and Scoop took their voters with them, that Eagleton stabbed him in the back both publicly and privately, that McGovern ran a really terrible campaign, and of course that Nixon cheated.


#47

Not really. The superdelegates supported the decision made by the primaries and the caucuses. They supported the winner of the popular vote (Clinton). The only way one could say that the superdelegates came into play is if they’d gone against the popular winner.


#48

Of course, none of the links provided show any evidence that the DNC worked against McGovern.


#49

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/7/the-myths-of-mcgovern/

They begin by discussing Vietnam, but quickly move on to the election.

Is there an overt, detailed confession? Of course not. Listen, and use your own judgement.


#50

The problem with that kind of ‘here lt’s put a thumb on the scale’ is more often than not it’s used as a club to keep them from bothering Us and our Important Business.

Let’s try something radical. No not even radical. Let’s just try something for the dem primaries.

Not a winner take all first past the post. Let’s try something that is more like this:

Now while only one CAN win? This gives a closer reflection of what the constituites want which shows the dem leadership the lay of the land, and more importantly? It shows a look at an alt voting system that can be discussed in mainstream which might hel p break or at least offset gerrymandering if implimented in actual primaries.


#51

You think Humphrey represented the Democratic power structure in 1972?? Oh dear.


#52

Nah, Humphrey was just the errand boy for the money behind the party. Some things never change.

Meany was more central to the sabotage. Most of the establishment big names were at least partially involved, though.


#53

Not even close.

George Meany was a union boss, not an industrialist. Get your bad guys straight. There were sound reasons he was angry at McGovern, the delegate rules largely shut Labor leaders out of convention power, so the unions did not give organized support to McGovern.

The 1972 convention was very nasty, there were a lot of hurt feelings, and frankly McGovern had a lot to do with that. The delegate rules that he had mainly drafted after the '68 convention were a total mess, with all kinds of unintended consequences. As one result, most of the primary candidates - of which there were many - did not actively support McGovern as they otherwise might have. Big corporate money, however, was all flowing into the GOP coffers, often in violation of the law (though like the Watergate break-in that wasn’t proved until long after Nixon’s win).

This isn’t ancient history, I was actively involved in Democratic politics at the time. McGovern’s problem was that (a) he was a rotten candidate, and (b) he managed to inadvertantly piss off many of his natural allies. However, the party leaders hated Nixon with a passion, and did not set out to undermine McGovern’s election, no matter how much you want it to be so.


#54

The superdelegates did not support the decision made in the primaries and caucuses after the fact. Most of the superdelegates announced their intentions early in the process. Thus they were used as a cudgel to keep everyone in line. Stories about Bernie winning a particular primary were always qualified with, “but of course ultimately he has no chance as Clinton’s superdelegate support is overwhelming.”


#55

Who said Meany was an industrialist? I believe @wanderfound said he was “establishment”. That is a true assessment. Kind, but true. (See the AFL-CIO’s role in 1973 Chile, and every other Cold War imperialist action taken by the US.). Labor leaders like George Meany whose only goal was a seat at the establishment table are one of the reasons organized labor is dead in the U.S.

I for one do. He may not have been as personally powerful as he once was, but he was not a trivial character.

Democrats for Nixon was not marginal. It got a lot of media. Beyond who was actually signed up, the group gave cover to the entire political establishment in the U.S. South (which at that time was still firmly in the hands of the Democrats) and prominent conservative Democrats everywhere, to openly support Nixon and still remain in the party.


#56

WF’s term was “right wing capitalist.”

I for one do. He may not have been as personally powerful as he once was, but he was not a trivial character.

As junior senator from MN he played around as minor a role as a Senator can, especially in the Party.

Democrats for Nixon was not marginal. It got a lot of media.

I wouldn’t say “a lot”. Connally loved issuing press releases, and some elements of the press were happy to print them. What little attention anyone gave him disappeared when LBJ endorsed McGovern.

Added: Meany was a jackass, but the reason Big Labor didn’t actively support McGovern wasn’t because they had some kind of secret establishment agenda or as intentional sabotage, it was pique because McGovern’s people denied them the seats they thought they deserved at the convention. However you feel about labor’s right to some kind of built-in presence in the party, it was naive political ineptitude to treat them this way during that critical campaign and then expect them to deliver anyway.


#57

What you are describing is how the caucuses limit franchise; there are a whole lot of people who do not have the luxury of taking off work in the middle of the day to participate in an hours-long debate, nor would the caucuses even be able to function in the desired manner if they did.


#58

When I’ve caucused it was evening or weekends, and usually in easy walking distance of home.


#59

They didnt keep voters “in line.” Voters in the various states still had their franchise.

Superdelegates are a fine mechanism to prevent another McGovern.


#60

In reference to Richard Nixon.

OTOH, from my point of view, most of the Democrats are right-wing capitalists as well.