'Shadow' app that failed in Iowa caucus was doomed from the start, say those forced to use it

1 Like

You are still allowed to vote for whoever you want in general elections, even if you’re registered to a party. But you also get to vote in primaries (unless they are open in your state, they are not in MD) which is the single biggest lever we have (as voters) to steer parties in particular directions. Why someone would completely abdicate that ability because they don’t want to have “Democrat” as a database value in a system somewhere is really beyond me.

There’s a lot to complain about wrt the Dems and the DNC. If you do not even do the most minimal thing you can do to change it, other than wailing about it on the interwebs? Yeah, I just don’t have much respect for that approach, personally.


Isn’t that a bit of an odd question? It sounds to me a bit like, “Is using a knife in your kitchen foul play?” Well, I need to know whether you are using it to cut vegetables or stab your spouse.

If the Democratic party’s system for choosing a candidate is for five people to meet in a room and simply choose the person they want then that is their system and that’s not illegal. I wouldn’t even call it unfair. What I would call it is “probably very unpopular”.

If they advertise a democratic-seeming system to be popular and create a sense of legitimacy they make an implicit promise to the people who participate in that system that the system is fair. If the real system is smoke filled rooms they have a responsibility not to deceive people into thinking it isn’t. If they hold elections they have a responsibility to hold them impartially and to abide by the results.


When the Democrats ACTAULLY decide on their candidates this way, please let me know. I’m too busy watching the primaries, that process by which people vote for the Democrats who will run in the general…

1 Like

I have no interest im steering the parties and focus much more on local elections than on national as these and not party primaries, have a larger impact on my community and life. Since most national politicians are grown locally, this aproach has a greater chance of netting me better vetted and conditioned national candidates than joining the hirarchy games of one particular cult or another.

I think it’s tough for people to hear, on one hand, “We could rig it if we wanted and that would be okay.” and on the other, “We don’t rig it, get over yourself.” It’s extremely Trumpian.

1 Like

I finally registered as a D in 2016.


They’re all politicians. To me that means they’re guilty until proven slightly less guilty.

Really, what can you expect? The real main priority for the Democrat ruling council is to maintain their own power and privilege. To that end they will tell any lie, commit any fraud. That’s why they tried so hard to sabotage Sanders in 2016. It’s why they’re trying to twist things now to throw the nomination to Biden, even though they know he’d lose a Presidential election. He’d lose because he is what so many of the people in this country are heartily sick of - another business as usual party hack whose ideas are firmly entombed in the 1950s. Another rich old white guy who doesn’t understand anything except his own narrow social strata and doesn’t care about anyone outside it. But the party elite don’t care if he loses; they want a candidate they think they can control. They would rather see this country slide downhill to hell under Trump than to take a risk of nominating someone who really would shake up the party and the national status quo, because a change like that might cost them their cushy jobs and their ability to defraud the party members on their expense accounts. Warren and Sanders better regularly check the brake lines on their campaign tour buses.

I have no counterpoint to voting for Pete or Warren. As you said, I find any of the Democrats infinitely more appealing than anybody in the GOP. As I’ve said regularly on bb, Warren is my first choice, however if it’s close between Sanders and a more centrist candidate by the time they get to Maryland, I’ll very likely shift to Sanders. I am HOPING he and Warren have some kind of “deal” set, regarding deciding to drop out after a certain point if one is clearly pulling ahead, so the progressive voters can consolidate support behind a single candidate.

I’m glad your actual voting strategy is significantly more sound than your exaggerated criticisms of the Democrats and DNC. :wink:

I’m glad your actual voting strategy is significantly more sound than your exaggerated criticisms of the Democrats and DNC. :wink:
That’s exactly the argument you can not support. Do tell, what “exaggerations” did I employ?

You should remember, however, that the DNC admitted to their actions. Furthermore, as noted above, they don’t follow their own rules. No, NOT OK, no matter how much armwaving you employ. It doesn’t matter in any way if they were successful in their scheme, although they certainly were, at least in the primary.

Once again, you don’t get to roll in the muck, then point out your opponent is a swine. That’s known as “blatant hypocrisy”.

Or, the Democrats/DNC are trying to preserve their sole ability to define their own nomination rules so, for instance, a fascist-leaning administration is prevented from coming in and doing it for them. Another way to look at it…

I don’t see that as another way to look at it. If you want to be protected from fascist influence you should make a system that is transparent and predictable as possible and say there are no individuals or small groups who have the power to change or override that system.

What you should absolutely not do is go to court and argue that you have the absolute right to rig the system. Once you’ve successfully argued that you’ve given a semi-fascist regime tons of ammunition to use against you whether it’s arguing your party is corrupt and needs to have state intervention, or by creating a short list of people who can legally rig the process for the semi-fascists to threaten.


I don’t fundamentally disagree with you, at all, actually. What I disagree with is the self-destructive, not-terribly-productive, poorly-prioritized focus (all IMHO of course) of a certain segment of liberal, progressive-folks, who seem to spend way more time and energy damaging the possibility of even maintaining a semblance of a democracy in the face of a very real white power fascist threat, by seeming to only pay attention to the “corruption” of the DNC and those on the left who they deem to fail their ethical purity test, when all of that, frankly, PALES in comparison with the real threat. No, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to try to multitask, when it comes to this. And if my read on history is correct, this is exactly how fascist movements have taken over other countries, even when they were technically in the minority — splitting up leftward-leaning folks, some of whom appear to like to attack other people they almost completely agree with when it comes to policy, ethics, you name it, instead of keeping ALL the focus on defeating the impending threat.

1 Like

That’s fair, and I think you are hardly arguing with anyone here. All of those who have votes in the American election seem to be willing to vote for Dick Cheney over Trump is somehow they won the Democratic nomination. For me, when I see the Democrats go to court to argue they are allowed to rig their own primaries it’s not that I think, “We can’t let these monsters rule” it’s more that I want to pull out my hair and scream, “Why are you trying to make yourselves look awful?!?”


Groupthink is a bitch. And so is being largely bought out by the same monied interests that fuel the GOP. I get all of this. I guess I’m more on the AOC (et al.) train, of thinking there’s more hope to reforming the DNC from within, than building a viable progressive third party before the fascists completely take over, and people like myself (and many other people on bb, I will add) conveniently… “go away.” Don’t think it can’t happen here – it most certainly can. I sure hope it doesn’t come to that.


No. Many positions are not directly elected by register voters. They are selected by the leaders of the party.

That sounds like the DNC party election. You can vote for the chair and other positions. From there those people get to assign people to positions within the party.

Some people are party activists and receive positions are superdelegates. (e.g. Amy Klobuchar)

Let’s ignore the $121 million he’s raise for the DNC to date. And that he frequently endorsed Democratic candidates for decades while he was an independent.
The main limitation Sanders has is that he hasn’t been a Democrat for very long. If length of official service in the party is the key metric, then he fails there. The DNC’s support or lack of support will have to be on the merit of his other activities and the relationship he has had with Democratic members and the DNC itself over the decades.

I didn’t say registered voters or the public at large, I said: “The DNC officials are accountable to the people who get to vote in DNC elections…”

I really don’t care about convincing you of anything, so I am going to exit this thread here, unless anybody else wants to have a productive conversation that is slightly more nuanced than “OH MY GOD THE DNC IS EVIL AND IT’S THEIR FAULT DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT WAAAAAAAHHH!!!”

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.