Source
r/PoliticalDiscussion•
MRIson

DNC Chairman in CNN interview: "Unpledged delegates [superdelegates] exist so party leaders don't have to compete with grassroots movements."

Did the DNC Chairman just admit publicly the Democratic nomination process is rigged?

I just heard the interveiw live, I'll try to find a clip of it when it's posted.

EDIT - Exact quote: "Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists"

Posted Feb 11, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC · edited

025
Phillyfan321•

That's literally why they exist.

Once again: The democratic party nomination process has no requirement to be a democracy. They are legally allowed to say, "Go away Sanders we are nominating Clinton. Run as an independent as you want".

22
MRIsonOP•

Oh I know. It just doesn't seem wise to say it so bluntly.

-1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
thegreatestajax•

No one has ever accused DWS of being wise.

1
MCRemix•

I'm doubting that this is an accurate quote. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but it would be absolutely shocking to me if she said it so bluntly in a CNN interview. I suspect that its missing context or that she said something similar, but missing key linguistic adjustments.

Three other thoughts...

  1. The effect of super-delegates is probably overstated. Source

  2. No kidding, the entire point of superdelegates is to give the establishment a vote and frankly, as long as they are just breaking a tie or resolving a close race, that's okay.

  3. I don't get why anyone expects Bernie to be treated fairly by the DNC at all. He's been running against the DNC and making their life difficult for his entire political career and is just now using the DNC for his own political purposes. Why should they support him?

12
MRIsonOP•

I heard it while listening to their stream in the car, so I couldn't dvr it or anything. I'm really hoping CNN posts a clip. I understand this is the point of super delegates - it just doesn't seem like a wise decision to put it so bluntly when there is a very strong anti-establishment movement in the party.

And for the record, I'm not a Bernie guy. The comment just shocked me a little.

1
MCRemix•

it just doesn't seem like a wise decision to put it so bluntly when there is a very strong anti-establishment movement in the party.

That's the only reason I'm doubting you at all, it seems like a horrible thing to admit, even if we all know it's true. I just cant imagine DWS was that stupid...

1
Gorthaur111•

I am a Hillary supporter. I like Bernie as well, and I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. Why is what the chairman said "a horrible thing to admit"? I don't understand what's wrong with it, but maybe we are coming at this with different assumptions about how the nomination process works.

3
MCRemix•

Well, to be clear, my comment about it being a horrible thing to admit is purely based on optics. I'm totally good with how the process works, I think it has good reason behind it. But most people (and especially in this cycle) dont like the idea that the establishment gets to second guess the electorate.

1
MRIsonOP•

Found the clip on CNN in the stream section: "Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists".

When I have time I'll try to capture it an put it on youtube later.

2
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
allboolshite•

Why does the establishment get an extra voice? Each super delegate gets a regular vote also, right? So they get their say at that time.

Creating an imaginary class like this strikes me as nonsensical as "corporate personhood" -- a false protection ripe for abuse.

Your last point is a great one, though. Especially for this campaign.

1
deathproof-ish•

I agree with all except your third part.

I don't run the DNC (probably for the best) but I don't think they should choose the nominee based on who'd been more loyal or not.

Anyone should be allowed to run, the public should decide and the DNC should support party members decisions.

I know a lot of DNC members are upset that Sanders was an independent and is now running as a Democrat but frankly if democrats across the country feel he's qualified he should be given a fair shake.

The "he hadn't been loyal to the party" line is frankly a little disturbing. I don't care who's loyal, I want the best candidate there is to offer.

-1
MCRemix•

I should probably separate out two separate opinions I hold, because I don't totally disagree...

  • I agree with you that voters shouldn't necessarily care about loyalty. The vote should be on the best candidate (which we all define different ways). His loyalty to the party is only relevant insofar as it affects his likelihood to win and/or succeed as president. (I think it hurts him.)

  • I stand by my original comment though about reasonable expectations. The DNC isnt robotic and objective, it's made up of human beings. Human beings that he has made a point of fighting against for his entire legislative career, with direct slams against the DNC itself and its leaders prior to this campaign. Because of this...I understand why DNC leaders would not want him, from the party's perspective, he's just trying to use them to make himself more electable, because he'd never win as an Independent. So why help someone who has been demonizing you for years...

6
deathproof-ish•

I like this answer, it makes sense. I think demonizing him for it as a voter is fine but if the process is sold as impartial (which I believe it is) it should be conducted that way.

You have an excellent point, super delegates will naturally lean towards the party member that has been around longer than someone perceived to be a thorn in the side for just as long

1
Atraktape•

It's not rigged if everyone knew the scoring system before the primary started.

7
[deleted]•

[removed]

5
CarpeCarp•

Sanders wants the benefits of running in a primary of an established party. He should have to play by their rules, which were clearly available to him before he signed up. If he doesn't like the rules, he's welcome to run as an independent.

4†
Hello_Dawl•

You say that, but if he won the popular vote and the Superdels pick Clinton, even without Sanders running as an independent you are politely handing the GOP full control. Which scares me even as a Republican.

0
CarpeCarp•

Based on actual vote counts, Hillary actually got more of the popular vote in 2008 than Obama. And Obama won the general election in a landslide.

4
Hello_Dawl•

Did he get more raw pledged delegates? I mean, of course if you win Florida and a few other huge states you'll have the popular vote. But she still lost out in delegates, right?

2
CarpeCarp•

Yes.

2
mimhoff_•

But Florida was controversial in 2008. The DNC was going to take their delegates' votes away because they moved their primary too early. Clinton kept campaigning there but Obama stopped.

1
DrBrotato•

I watched it live on CNN and while it was poorly worded, she meant that party leaders didn't take delegate positions from people in the grassroots movements. That way everyone could still participate at the convention.

It didn't really address the context of the question, which is how is it fair when Sanders wins big, but splits NH delegates overall. I'm not a fan of DWS, but superdelegates have been around for quite a few election cycles.

3
MRIsonOP•

Ah that's makes sense. It definitely came out poorly worded.

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

  • Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
  • Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments that you disagree with.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1