The Decline of the DNC II

[Crimson1967]

“By aggregating votes across ballots and failing to distinguish between gender categories in a meaningful way, the DNC’s process violated its own Charter and Bylaws, undermining both fairness and gender diversity,” argued Free, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation.

I would comment but I have no idea what this word salad even means.

If I were a cynic, I would think someone in the establishment suggested to her she do this after one of the winners threatened to go whole hog in the primaries against anyone who isn’t young enough and woke enough to meet his standards.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I would comment but I have no idea what this word salad even means.

If I were a cynic, I would think someone in the establishment suggested to her she do this after one of the winners threatened to go whole hog in the primaries against anyone who isn’t young enough and woke enough to meet his standards.

I hate to say it, but this has been how to get ahead or bully the higher-ups in the DNC - off and on - since 1969. And it carries over into how they attempt to win elections - anything negative said about any person of color, not the male gender, not a straight person is, by definition, oppression and used as leverage. Well, just so long as the one it's being said about is NOT a conservative or a Republican and then it's okay.

I'm only being slightly facetious. Every once in awhile they manage to navigate it a little better, but this has gone on ever since they put themselves on the record for quota representation at the Reform Commission, it has been the style of argument from someone wanting their way. They took a good idea - prohibit the exclusion of blacks as was practiced by Mississippi (most notably but others, too) in 1964 - and reversed it to "certain groups MUST BE INCLUDED" as if those are the same, and they're not. And once a Wisconsin professor (Austin Ranney) and then Senator Birch Bayh went on the record with the contradictory promise of "no quotas but guaranteed representation by percentage" (summarizing) and the Commission voted it into the rules, they then added youth and women. There was a government professor from Harvard (his name? Samuel Beer) who warned them that "it would be a grave mistake and would never work" - and he was right.

Of course, that was long ago and the DNC - like the RNC (well, sometimes)- changes their rules every five minutes to address the grievance of the last loser. But the arguments used to "get my way" in that scenario are pretty much all the same. Jesse Jackson used to whine about how "I got X percent of the vote but only 1/3X of the delegates", and rather than tell him to get a life, they'd change the rules for him - even though that very subject had been bandied about as far back as 1960 and the Kennedy-Humphrey competition.

I read a variant of the same "racial" argument in 1980 and a weakened Carter having to go along up to a point. So she's probably not saying it because she even believes it; she's probably saying it because it has worked many times in the past.

I mean, look no further than Cory Booker's comments as we entered 2020:

“more billionaires than black people”

Yes, but neither Booker nor Kamala Harris made the cut with the VOTERS or the polling. Harris got as high as 2nd in the polls when she bloodied Biden in the debate, but the fact is the more people saw of Harris in 2019, the more they didn't like her, plain and simple. It wasn't a racist thing, it wasn't a sexist thing; if it had been, she never would have been so high in the polls in the first place.

They were given a fair chance, and they lost. The same thing happened to Howard Dean and Ed Muskie (among others). Muskie didn't lose because people were telling Polish jokes.

 

[Crimson1967]

My big issue with the primary system is I have no idea how it works and reading about it doesn’t give any clear description.

I go to the primary and see a list of delegates to vote for. I see who they are aligned with but have no idea who they are or what they believe. Then I see on the news someone “won” the primary by getting the most votes but then I see the delegate distribution doesn’t always line up with the voting percentages. Then we have the superdelegates.

I saw a John Oliver piece about this from 2016. He quoted Trump as saying the system was screwed up because he had the most support but didn’t have the most delegates. Oliver said you know a system is bad when the most sensible observation came from Trump.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Same Presser:

Schumer: "Trump has the lowest 100 day approval rating since they started polling."

2 Minutes later.

Manu Raju: "There's a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other Congressional leader at 17 percent."

Schumer: "Polls come and go."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917583236256895088

LOL, what a putz!

 

[jthomas666]

Same Presser:

Schumer: "Trump has the lowest 100 day approval rating since they started polling."

2 Minutes later.

Manu Raju: "There's a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other Congressional leader at 17 percent."

Schumer: "Polls come and go."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917583236256895088

LOL, what a putz!

He's definitely past his "Use By" date.

 

[arthurdawg]

Same Presser:

Schumer: "Trump has the lowest 100 day approval rating since they started polling."

2 Minutes later.

Manu Raju: "There's a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other Congressional leader at 17 percent."

Schumer: "Polls come and go."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917583236256895088

LOL, what a putz!

That is hilarious... Schumer doesn't give a crap about anything but the $$$ his votes bring his investment accounts!

 

[bamamc1]

My big issue with the primary system is I have no idea how it works and reading about it doesn’t give any clear description.

I go to the primary and see a list of delegates to vote for. I see who they are aligned with but have no idea who they are or what they believe. Then I see on the news someone “won” the primary by getting the most votes but then I see the delegate distribution doesn’t always line up with the voting percentages. Then we have the superdelegates.

I saw a John Oliver piece about this from 2016. He quoted Trump as saying the system was screwed up because he had the most support but didn’t have the most delegates. Oliver said you know a system is bad when the most sensible observation came from Trump.

Primary? What’s that? All you need to overturn that is George Clooney to show up and replace the winner. Disenfranchising 14 million votes for biden is ok. Constitutional crisis? Evidently not.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My big issue with the primary system is I have no idea how it works and reading about it doesn’t give any clear description.

I go to the primary and see a list of delegates to vote for. I see who they are aligned with but have no idea who they are or what they believe. Then I see on the news someone “won” the primary by getting the most votes but then I see the delegate distribution doesn’t always line up with the voting percentages. Then we have the superdelegates.

I saw a John Oliver piece about this from 2016. He quoted Trump as saying the system was screwed up because he had the most support but didn’t have the most delegates. Oliver said you know a system is bad when the most sensible observation came from Trump.

It's a little messed up, and it's phony top to bottom, but it's the system we have.

I'll try (and fail) to keep it brief. And I know you'll know some of this as you're well-informed. Please note this is an overview, simplistic version, it doesn't cover every nuance.

Short version:
Every state has a contest (some, like Texas, have two), you vote for the candidate, the candidate with the most votes IN A DISTRICT (again - most places) gets either all or a proportion of delegates, and you need 50% plus one of the delegates to win the nomination. The delegates themselves are - like the Electoral College "electors" - are generally loyal members of the party, but they tend to be people pledged before the election with "If my chosen candidate wins then I will obviously be in their favor", so, for example, Biden would have a "slate of delegates" pledged to him and Bernie would have a "slate of delegates" pledged to him (this is because you don't have just one delegate per electoral vote). States or the party set a threshold, a minimum vote percentage you have to have to get any delegates at all and THEN the delegates are proportioned sort of mathematically but also "by district." But again - just like with the Electoral College, there's about a 0% chance of the delegates forming a conspiracy against their own candidate and voting for "the other guy." You may get a stray delegate who got promised something but it doesn't happen en masse. In some states, the names of the delegate pledged to Candidate X are on the ballot, in others not.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Same Presser:

Schumer: "Trump has the lowest 100 day approval rating since they started polling."

2 Minutes later.

Manu Raju: "There's a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other Congressional leader at 17 percent."

LOL, what a putz!

This is where I just plain lose it.

Are (some) Democrats THIS lacking in self-awareness that they don't see when they pull the exact same stunts as Trump? And before I continue, NO, the Democrats haven't invaded the US Capitol. Although I might should conclude that observation with the word "Yet."

"Trump lies!" - so do Democrats
"Trump dismisses polls he doesn't like" - so do Democrats
"Trump has bullied his party into doing whatever he wants" - so do Democrats (see Sinema, Fetterman)
"Trump's party is afraid to stand up to him and take a stand for right" - you mean like just last year when the same people saying this were afraid to come right out and say, "Our President is old and shouldn't be the nominee"?

The one thing the Democrats (sometimes) have going for them is they do actually have some things they believe in as goals for society; the GOP no longer does except - maybe, possibly - closing the border.

But someone needs to give the Dems a lesson in visuals, too.

It doesn't matter if Nguyen Van Lem was a VC spy when he's executed on camera in civilian clothes.
It doesn't matter if the photo on Mt. Suribachi was staged.**
It doesn't matter what Rodney King did before he was helpless on the ground being beaten.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but all of the "but this was the context" doesn't do much to change the visual. So here's a hint: it is admirable of Democrats who are using the words "due process" regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and on this they have my support.

But too many of them are simply taking to the airwaves with the "bring him back," and anyone too politically naive to understand "Bring back this guy who was here illegally" won't fly with the general public probably needs to resign his seat.

If you refuse to use the word "illegal" to describe someone here (you know) illegally but you then turn right around and call that person's removal an "illegal abduction", you obviously don't have any problem using the world "illegal." But there's always the easy out - anyone who disagrees is, of course, a "racist."


** - I'm not saying it was, I'm saying that accusation has been out there for years now.

 

[Crimson1967]

I see a lot of posts on Facebook from people saying “Why are you mad because president you don’t like is doing this when you didn’t complain when the president you like did that?”.

You could ask this person the same question in reverse but they probably wouldn’t get it.

 

[Crimson1967]

It's a little messed up, and it's phony top to bottom, but it's the system we have.

I'll try (and fail) to keep it brief. And I know you'll know some of this as you're well-informed. Please note this is an overview, simplistic version, it doesn't cover every nuance.

Short version:
Every state has a contest (some, like Texas, have two), you vote for the candidate, the candidate with the most votes IN A DISTRICT (again - most places) gets either all or a proportion of delegates, and you need 50% plus one of the delegates to win the nomination. The delegates themselves are - like the Electoral College "electors" - are generally loyal members of the party, but they tend to be people pledged before the election with "If my chosen candidate wins then I will obviously be in their favor", so, for example, Biden would have a "slate of delegates" pledged to him and Bernie would have a "slate of delegates" pledged to him (this is because you don't have just one delegate per electoral vote). States or the party set a threshold, a minimum vote percentage you have to have to get any delegates at all and THEN the delegates are proportioned sort of mathematically but also "by district." But again - just like with the Electoral College, there's about a 0% chance of the delegates forming a conspiracy against their own candidate and voting for "the other guy." You may get a stray delegate who got promised something but it doesn't happen en masse. In some states, the names of the delegate pledged to Candidate X are on the ballot, in others not.

I have a general understanding of how it works. But like you said, it’s a little more complicated and every state has their own system and then you have people dropping out who still have pledged delegates and the whole thing is more complex than the average voter can understand, especially with Iowa and New Hampshire being the gatekeepers for the whole process.

Then you have an incumbent dropping out at the last minute and his VP takes over because they really didn’t have a choice at that point in the process.

That caused people to lose faith in the process and give the other side ammunition even though if Trump suddenly dropped out in August 2020 Mike Pence might very well be our president now.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I have a general understanding of how it works. But like you said, it’s a little more complicated and every state has their own system and then you have people dropping out who still have pledged delegates and the whole thing is more complex than the average voter can understand, especially with Iowa and New Hampshire being the gatekeepers for the whole process.

Iowa is a case of a media concoction that Jimmy Carter used to become well-known and eventually won the Presidency. In all honesty, if that had not happened, I don't know that anybody today would know or care about the Iowa caucuses.

Think about this: how many times since the Iowa caucus became "a thing" nearly 50 years ago has the winner of a CONTESTED Iowa caucus gone on to become President of the United States in that same cycle?

Three times - and despite folks thinking it, NO, Jimmy Carter was NOT one of them (he finished 2nd to "uncommitted"). 2000 Dubya, 2008 Obama, and 2024 Trump.

Then you have an incumbent dropping out at the last minute and his VP takes over because they really didn’t have a choice at that point in the process.

And we both know that if the polls had shown Biden seven points AHEAD of Trump rather than behind that that never would have happened. It was a panic move, and it's amazing they couldn't see that it diluted their "democracy is on the ballot" argument into absolute nothing. They had TWO options that would have enabled them to continue that argument: 1) keep Biden on the ballot; 2) have Biden resign the White House and give Harris the keys.

That caused people to lose faith in the process and give the other side ammunition even though if Trump suddenly dropped out in August 2020 Mike Pence might very well be our president now.

Think about how close this country came to an even bigger catastrophe in 2020:

September 18 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies
September 25 - Trump nominates Barrett to SCOTUS
September 29 - Trump and Biden debate
October 2 - Trump announces he's positive for Covid

Imagine what an absolute train wreck we COULD have had: Trump and Biden both die from Covid a month out from the election, Barrett, too and a 5-3 Supreme Court that Roberts sometimes splits that might have had to rule on a bunch of election challenges from either side in a Pence vs Harris election.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Then you have an incumbent dropping out at the last minute and his VP takes over because they really didn’t have a choice at that point in the process.

One of my favorites was this:

1972 - George McGovern is facing a credentials challenge to his winner-take-all of the California delegation and reminds everyone, "You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game" - meaning delegates ARE obligated on the first vote to support who won them as delegates - and wins up winning the nomination and getting clobbered by a guy who was, in fact, a crook.

1980 - with Ted Kennedy facing certain Convention defeat at the hands of the very rules McGovern created, the "soul of inconsistency" (as one pundit called him) does an incredible 180 and accuses the Carter delegates of "being caught in a time capsule", saying that the delegates in August CANNOT be required or expected to vote in alignment with the rules because "voters in August cannot be expected" to merely affirm the selections made in February.

"You can't change the rules" took only eight years to become "you can, in fact, change the rules, even the ones I created!"