I hope that many of the new people Bernie Sanders is drawing into the nominating contests stick around to effect real, lasting change.
1 Like
Sounds like the very definition of machine politics. Pay your dues, advance in rank, take your turn in power.
A political machine is a political organization in which an authoritative boss or small group commands the support of a corps of supporters and businesses (usually campaign workers), who receive rewards for their efforts. The machineâs power is based on the ability of the workers to get out the vote for their candidates on election day.
Although these elements are common to most political parties and organizations, they are essential to political machines, which rely on hierarchy and rewards for political power, often enforced by a strong party whip structure. Machines sometimes have a political boss, often rely on patronage, the spoils system, âbehind-the-scenesâ control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines typically are organized on a permanent basis instead of for a single election or event. Source: Wikipedia
2 Likes
So, Cory doesnât understand that superdelegates are at no time obligated to follow their stateâs voting? They act as a safety valve, to keep whatâs happening to the GOP, from happening to the Democratic party.
Complete non-story.
Alaskan Superdelegates are Kim Metcalfe of Juneau; Casey Steinau of Big Lake; and Ian Olson of Fairbanks and Mike Wenstrup
Steinau is party chair, Olson is a committee man, Metcalfe is a committee woman, and Wenstrup must have been the previous yearâs chair. So, yes, party insiders-- elected at the state convention, perhaps.
But this isnât necessarily a bad thing. The House majority was essentially redistricted out of a job by republican state legislators. An organized party is a necessity.
1 Like
If by âwhatâs happening to the GOPâ you mean âdemocracyâ then I couldnât agree more.
But in any case youâre right. Itâs a non-story, business as usual, a political machine operating as intended and designed. You have to cut @doctorow a break, though, heâs probably spent more of his life in Britain & Canada than in the US, & he was expecting the will of the people to matter, like our infomercials say it does.
1 Like
If you read the conversation through, Metcalfe gets rather patronizing and dismissive. She didnât have to do that to make her point. Being nasty to the enthusiastic young members of your party is not how you build your partyâs future.
4 Likes
I think youâre overestimating how much say the will of the people gets in Britain.
The last time a majority of people voted for the party that formed the government was 1931.
2 Likes
Oh, no, Iâm just sayinâ yâall Britishers think weâre different from that. Like we claim to be. You guys are still nominally a monarchy, after all.
Incidentally my UK relations are currently in town, visiting the paterfamilias while they still can. Iâm making them drink tequila and Old Chub Ale.
Gânight all!
4 Likes
Nope. You missed it completely. What I meant was a political party imploding, due to years of pandering to the fears and prejudices of their authoritarian-driven base, which is dwindling so much that victories can only be won by gerrymandering and voter suppression. They need to change their party symbol from an elephant to chickens coming home to roost. They sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind. And thatâs what Iâm talking about.
2 Likes
For better or worse, in a two-party system, itâs a undemocratic limit on who the electorate gets to even consider electing to office. People who focus on the undemocratic electoral college of the general election are missing the more strategic lever. The electoral college is undemocratic in the sense that it gives states more power than American citizens, which is why my vote in foregone conclusion of Texas will be worthless in the general election. Eliminating the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment that would be almost impossible to pass in this era of states rights rhetoric and the false dichotomy between red/blue states (the real dichotomy being between urban/rural voter districts). But changing the rules of the the party primaries is comparatively easier. Thatâs where people can make the most impact on the two party system. If you want any hope of ever seeing a real democracy with something other than just two corporate-owned parties, the parties must be driven to split up. Happily, the GOP seems on its way to doing just that, horror-show that it is.
If the GOP splits, I suspect itâs only a matter of time before the Democratic party begins to unravel, since Democrats love infighting even more than Republicans. But if Trump successfully cows the GOP into uniting behind him, relatively moderate conservatives will flock to the Democratic Party and likely accelerate its unraveling while the GOP stays strong, which would be an existential disaster for America. This, more than anything he might actually do to the country as POTUS, is why Trump is the greatest danger to the body politic that the United States has known since at least the early 20th century.
Of course itâs a double-edge sword. In a more democratic system, there would be less power for the political class to cull change for their own selfish interests. Change can be good or bad, but the status quo is the tyrants you know. The philosophers whoâve debated the merits of democracy throughout history werenât tilting at windmills. It has costs.
4 Likes
Hmmm⌠well, I gotta agree with you on that one, too.
Both party machines are desperately trying to hold on, but the Republicans have been throwing sand in their own gears for decades. It will be bleakly amusing if recent rule changes intended to keep Ron Paul out end up ushering Donald Trump in.
1 Like
Those are more guidelines.
Theyâll just change them to suit what they want now.
I just find it really funny that theyâre all having to pretend they donât detest Ted Cruz.
In which case the party will have reneged on their deal with Trump, so heâll not be obliged to support the official candidate, putting himself in the position of kingmaker. Heâd probably like that better than actually being president!
1 Like
So close and yet so far. If only they were the Superdelegate Task Force Union.
STFU!
2 Likes
CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) - After several days of tense and occasionally heated negotiation, a candidate has emerged from the Republican National Convention.
Donald Trump had entered the convention with the largest number of delegates, but was unable to secure a clear majority. In the second round of voting, a number of delegates switched to support Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX), but not enough to overcome Cruzâs deficit. Delegates pledged to Gov John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) refused to switch, arguing that their candidate was more electable in the general election than the divisive Cruz.
In the end, Trumpâs rescinding of his pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, left him and his core supporters holding the balance of power.
Having been amongst the first of the mainstream party members to endorse Trump after his own campaign failed, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) emerged as the suprise candidate when Trump announced that he was throwing his support behind him, and Rubio and Kasich followed suit in an effort to prevent Cruz from becoming the candidate.
Christie subsequently announced that former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani would be his running-mate.
1 Like
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHGHGG
That is without doubt the best argument for allowing guns at the convention I have heard yet.
5 Likes
Alaska superdelegate denies duty to represent her stateâs voters in 2016 elections
This is garbage. Superdelegates are not delegates. Itâs right there in the name! Theyâre not pledged to vote for who the population has voted for.
This is a feature not a bug. Itâs so we can have an electable Democratic nominee and not a âMcGovernâ who gets swamped in the general election.
As a not-so-great, now-dead SCOTUS justice would often say: âGet over it!â
But equally, those of us who are closer to McGovern politically are under no obligation to support the (oh so electable) Hubert Humphrey the party wants to give us.
5 Likes
Agreed. You are perfectly free, by your inaction, to help get a Nixon or a Goldwater into office. Itâs senseless. A Nixon or a Goldwater would appear to be against your interests, if you were formerly for McGovern. But it is your right in a democracy to act irrationally against your own interests.
hereditary seats in government
2 Likes
