Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Rigged

I have heard enough whining from the Bernie Bots about the Democratic primary process being rigged against him.

Of course it is rigged.  It is rigged in favor of Democrats.  The people who are active in the primary process, particularly in caucus States, are most all life-long Democrats, who have always been loyal to the Democratic party.  So is Hillary.  Bernie is not.  He has spent his life refusing to join the Democratic party, only now grudgingly participating in Democratic primary contests, while still clinging to the title of independent.  Does he expect a reward for that?  Does he expect the party's loyalists to not favor other party loyalists, and extract a price from him for not being one?

After all, these are the Democratic primaries, intended to pick a candidate for the Democratic party, not the Democratic party and whichever independents want in on the show this year.  Bernie has never demonstrated enough loyalty to the Democrats to officially join them, even now; why should they reward him now?

6 comments:

Mister Sterling said...

The is an old Republican tradition: give the guy who came in second place the chance to be the nominee in the next cycle. It happened with Nixon (albeit a decade later), Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain (W cut him in line), and Romney. Trump is the first man to buck this trend in decades.

The Democrats didn't follow this pattern. Until now. Now they are giving the keys to a woman they rejected in 2008. They had valid reasons to reject her then, and even more reasons to reject her now. When a party does this succession dance, it is doomed to collapse. That's my argument. Bernie crashed the party. Not to destroy it. But to try to save it.

Green Eagle said...

But at this point, he is destroying it. He has been seized with a case of rampant Naderism. His success has gone to his head, and his behavior now is contemptible.

Marc said...

One problem the DNC, DWS, and by being the 'anointed one', Mrs. Clinton, have with what has transpired is that they are alienating the folks they should be wooing at this point. Yes, Hillary basically has a lock on the nomination, but with the way the various party actors (and I'm not giving Mr. Sanders or his supporters any excuse) in Nevada ran the operation, it did give fuel to the idea that the the higher ups are working against Mr. Sanders and his supporters.

DWS, in her position of the party, should be working to bring the two together, instead of acting as if Mr. Sanders is an unruly child who needs a time out. The reduction in the number of debates from 2008, and placing most on the weekend, are seen to minimize the exposure of Mrs. Clinton until the national campaign. Her unilateral action back in December after the data breach was a big flag that there would be only one tolerable outcome to the primary campaign by the DNC. As the Face of the DNC, she needs to reach out to those who support Mr. Sanders and not expect them to fall in line and support Mrs. Clinton, as the (R)'s are falling in line for Trump. Mrs. Clinton and DWS need to win over Mr. Sander's supporters, instead of treating them as barbarians pounding at the gates.

Mrs. Clinton has the money and organization to make it to the White House. What she needs are voters. Pissing off potential supporters is not the way to get their vote. There are a two of primaries - Puerto Rico and California - which will be bellwethers for November, but for different reasons. Puerto Rico is important to see what kind of backlash the Republicans face for sitting on their hands during the financial crisis - the clock is nearly run out, and there doesn't seem to be any movement in the House. For California, it will be the final primary which will show how much popular support both candidates have - and the yardstick with which the DNC needs to use in how much support both candidates have among 'independent' voters. The DNC (and probably Mrs. Clinton) will need to reach out to those real and potential Democratic voters to ensure they turn out in November. Low turnout kills the Democrats in non-Presidential years, and giving supporters reasons to want to avoid the Presidential nominee will affect down ticket candidates.

We need the Senate back and a weaker (R) presence in the House to get anything done for the next four years. 2020 is the year for census redistricting, and the Democrats need to take more states between now and then to undo the gerrymandering which has given the (R)'s such a lock on Congress. The party needs to grow voters, and give them a reason to come back in 2018 by showing they can govern and get stuff done - if the Senate and House stay the way they are, we'll have another two to four years of gridlock and more media 'bothsiderism' as the reason, and then the present maps will remain in effect (or get worse) for the following decade.

Zog said...


"Of course it is rigged. It is rigged in favor of Democrats."

Bull. It's rigged in favor of conservatives. The test is simple: if a longtime Republican jumped into a major race, would the party leadership still support the longtime Democrat, or decide to support the Republican instead?

Fortunately, we do have that test case: the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Primary between Joe Sestak, at that time a Democratic member of the U.S. House, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter. Specter, a longtime Republican, had jumped from to the Democrats in 2009, mainly because he thought he would lose a GOP primary to Pat Toomey, and he saw becoming a Democrat as the best chance of retaining his Senate seat.


"The people who are active in the primary process, particularly in caucus States, are most all life-long Democrats, who have always been loyal to the Democratic party. So is Hillary. Bernie is not."

Perfect parallel to that 2010 Senate Primary. Sestak had been a long-time Democrat, loyal to the party; Specter was not.

"He has spent his life refusing to join the Democratic party, only now grudgingly participating in Democratic primary contests . . . . Does he expect a reward for that? Does he expect the party's loyalists to not favor other party loyalists, and extract a price from him for not being one?"

Good question. Except that the party leaders didn't favor Sestak the loyalist; they decided to help out the ex-Republican Specter, who was only then grudgingly participating in the Democratic primary. Look at the bigwigs in Washington: Obama, Biden, and Reid all came out in favor of Specter. Ed Rendell, the Democrat who was the state's governor at the time, endorsed Specter over Sestak. The Pennsylvania Democratic Committee voted, 227-79, to support Specter instead of Sestak.

Sestak overcame all that to win the primary. However, Toomey won the general election, 51% to 49% -- it was close. The fact that the Democratic leadership had supported the conservative Republican Specter over Sestak in the primary, running a smear campaign against the latter, played a large role in Toomey's eventual win.

What do you do when a state Democratic party is run by traitors?

Green Eagle said...

I'm not talking about something that happened in the past. I am talking about what is going on right now, and right now, Bernie is deliberately damaging Hillary Clinton's chances in the general election, even though he knows there is no way he can win the nomination. With that kind of party loyalty coming from Bernie, why would real Democrats have a thing to do with him?

Mister Sterling said...

I think Clinton's chances of winning the election remain strong. The national demographics suggest that we'll have a Democrat in the White House for decades so long as the GOP continues to reject Hispanic voters, and their racist, old man base continues to age and die. What cannot be denied is that Clinton's reception among independents, moderate (read: pro-choice) republicans, men, and voters under 40 has been weak out the gate. She is showing weaker numbers than John Kerry had in 2004. He got Swift Boated. She needs the opposite. She needs to Swift Boat Trump.