While we’re at it, NBC’s Chuck Todd is a useless tool.
Senator Bernie Sanders (D) [2016 file photo].
In 2016, at the Missouri State Democratic Convention the four elected positions on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) went to supporters of Bernie Sanders.
In the period since 2016 the DNC revised the 2020 party presidential caucus/primary/convention process to exclude so-called “Super delegates” (Uncommitted Party Leader Elected Official) on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. These PLEO delegates would/can vote if no candidate for the nomination receives 50% + 1 on the first ballot. In addition, as what has always been the case, committed delegates are only bound on the first ballot. After that they can vote for anyone.
The last time a Democratic National Convention went to a subsequent ballot for the nomination of the party’s presidential candidate was 1952.
In 2004, in part of the process in Missouri to elect committed PLEO delegates (by the state party committee), I was asked, in passing, of my interest in running for one of those allocated delegate spots by a representative of a candidate I did not support or vote for in the Missouri primary. I declined. If I had managed to get elected as a delegate I would have been committed to that candidate on the first ballot. If there were any subsequent ballots, in this hypothetical situation, I would have most definitely voted for another candidate.
One of the rules of the delegate selection process is that all candidates have the right of approval for any individual running for one of their national delegate spots. In Missouri these are allocated by formula based on the outcome of the presidential preference primary vote.
In 2016, at the state Democratic Party Convention, 88 individuals filed for eight at-large Hillary national delegate slots. Hillary’s campaign did not strike any individuals from that list. The eight delegate slots were filled by the vote of the Hillary caucus. At the same convention 21 individuals were listed as vying for seven nation delegate slots allocated to Bernie Sanders. I was curious about the disparity. I later learned that over 100 individuals had filed the paper work to run, but the Bernie Sanders national campaign struck most of those individuals from their approved list, without apparently notifying them of the how and why. This upset a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters at the state convention. So much so that there was a motion from the floor to open nominations for national delegate slots from the floor.
Why would a national campaign piss off so many of their supporters? It wasn’t until last night that I finally understood a possible explanation for the underlying why.
In 2016, if, for some reason, the 2016 convention went to a second ballot (brokered), the Bernie Sanders campaign only wanted true believers in their delegate slots. A true believer be more likely to stick with their candidate over multiple ballots, after being released from that first ballot commitment.
Last night NBCs Chuck Todd asked a process question of all of the candidates. If one candidate had a plurality and not 50% + 1, should they be entitled to be the nominee. All of the candidates, but one, replied no, there’s a process in the rules to deal with the selection of a nominee in that situation. The lone dissent: Bernie Sanders.
The irony here is that Bernie Sanders supporters on the DNC (including the four elected from Missouri in 2016) ostensibly voted to approve the caucus/primary/convention rules for 2020, which also removed the vote of uncommitted PLEO delegates on the first ballot.
There is no rule that allows for a plurality of delegates to select the party’s nominee. None.
Here’s a hypothetical situation. Candidate A has 35% of the delegates, candidate B has 30% of the delegates, and candidate C has 21% of the delegates. No one gets to 50% + 1 on the first ballot. Candidate B and C and their delegates come together – one will be the presidential nominee, one will be the vice presidential nominee. On the second ballot they get 51% of the vote. That’s how a subsequent ballot can select the party’s nominee.
After Chuck Todd’s admittedly stupid process question and Bernie Sanders’ dissenting opinion there were discussions on social media, with some Berniebros going on about the unfairness of it all. With the same temperament as the responses from 2016. Think about that for second. Their revolution’s representatives to the DNC ostensibly voted for those rules. Now, somehow, they’re unfair. They feel entitled enough to want to replace their rules midstream with some nonexistent plurality rule. Because.
I like Bernie Sanders. I find his ideas compelling, though he’s not my first choice. I find myself listening to him and appreciating his voice. And then I encounter a significant (not all) number of his supporters, too many, who are serious assholes. [Fuck you if you start in with me, “what about?”] And then I remember 2016 all over again.
I keep getting texts sent to my [stupid] phone from Bernie [Sanders] 2020. I never signed up for them:
Hi [….]! It’s [….] with Bernie 2020. Bernie believes we have a corrupt political and economic system that needs major change. He’s running for president to make our economy, our government, and our health care system work for all of us, not just the wealthy few. Are you in for Bernie?
Wed, Dec 18 1:33PM
No. Not ever. Not after the last 3 years. Now you know how 2016 felt. I’d vote for tulsi before bernie. And she’s a russian dupe.
Wed, Dec 18 1:51PM
Ok, I understand. Do you mind telling me who you plan on supporting?
Wed, Dec 18 1:53PM
Any of the others.
Wed, Dec 18 3:25PM
This on the day the U.S. House of Representatives is debating and (probably) voting on the Articles of Impeachment for Donald Trump (r).
WASHINGTON — For more than a year, President Donald Trump has insisted that Russians did not interfere in the 2016 election, going so far as to call such allegations a “hoax” and a “made-up story.”
On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller, the man charged with investigating the Trump team, filed indictments filled with cold, hard fact, charging 13 Russian nationals with executing an incredibly sophisticated cyber-based operation to aid Trump’s bid for the presidency.
In other words, Mueller called Trump’s bluff.
Immediately after the 2016 election:
Autocracy: Rules for Survival
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.
The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues. Coverage, and thinking, will drift in a Trumpian direction, just as it did during the campaign—when, for example, the candidates argued, in essence, whether Muslim Americans bear collective responsibility for acts of terrorism or can redeem themselves by becoming the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. Thus was xenophobia further normalized, paving the way for Trump to make good on his promises to track American Muslims and ban Muslims from entering the United States.
November 10, 2016, 5:26 pm
“This announcement sends the wrong message to women everywhere. We have reached out to the organizers of the Women’s Convention directly to share our surprise and disappointment, and to offer our help to strengthen the program. We have more women leaders in elected office than ever before, and they are forcibly leading the resistance against Trump and his allies in Congress who are intent on attacking women. EMILY’s List is proud to have supported many of those women every step of the way, and we know that there is a tidal wave of rising stars coming behind them. The choice of Senator Sanders sends the wrong message.”
“Women are already leading in the United States Senate, and this is a moment where we have the opportunity to lift them up. We have to come together as women against the dangerous agenda that Donald Trump and Republicans are pushing.”
EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest resource for women in politics, has raised over $500 million to support pro-choice Democratic women candidates – making them one of the most successful political organizations ever. Our grassroots community of over five million members helps Democratic women wage competitive campaigns – and win. We recruit and train candidates, support strong campaigns, research the issues that impact women and families, and turn out women voters. Since our founding in 1985, we have helped elect 116 women to the House, 23 to the Senate, 12 governors, and over 800 to state and local office. Forty percent of the candidates EMILY’s List has helped elect to Congress have been women of color. Since the 2016 election, thousands of women and counting have reached out to us about running for office. To harness this energy, EMILY’s List has launched Run to Win, an unprecedented effort to help more women run and win at the local, state, and national levels.
Oh, I dunno, I seem to recall there are a lot of highly qualified women active in American public policy, public service, and politics these days.