DNC “Unity Commission” to look at reforms to nomination process for 2020

[Mr. Morden]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

[Technocracy Timmy]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

That sounds like the perfect way to make a big scene about how they've reformed the process to Sanders supporters only to turn right back around and shut it down as quietly as possible.

[Chief Justice Keef]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

That sounds like the perfect way to make a big scene about how they've reformed the process to Sanders supporters only to turn right back around and shut it down as quietly as possible.

[Hindsight was 2020]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

That sounds like the perfect way to make a big scene about how they've reformed the process to Sanders supporters only to turn right back around and shut it down as quietly as possible.

I have a bit more faith in Perez especially with Keith advising him to know that would be stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/323805-unity-commission-another-challenge-for-democrats

The commission was agreed to as a compromise at last year’s DNC, to give Sanders supporters a forum in which to push for reform to the nomination process.  Among the things that this commission will look at are rules for caucuses vs. primaries, open vs. closed primaries, and the role of super delegates.

The story in The Hill seems to suggest that super delegate reform has already been agreed to, but Josh Putnam says that that’s not correct:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629576539340802
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/841629962050367488

I don’t believe the decisions made by the commission are binding.  Any real changes have to go through the Rules & Bylaws Committee.  More on the commission here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-democrats-unity-reform-commission.html

That sounds like the perfect way to make a big scene about how they've reformed the process to Sanders supporters only to turn right back around and shut it down as quietly as possible.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust them one bit, especially after the rule changes they made at the Nevada State Convention. Note that Obama was allowed to gain delegates from having better turnout, but not Bernie.

[Rjjr77]

Why would super delegates want to get rid of super delegates?

[Lief 🗽]

The fact that Sanders has appointed two crazy people who spend most of their time attacking Democrats (comic book man and TYT fake journalist lady) as his representatives is a clear signal that he is not entering into these negotiations in good faith.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The fact that Sanders has appointed two crazy people who spend most of their time attacking Democrats (comic book man and TYT fake journalist lady) as his representatives is a clear signal that he is not entering into these negotiations in good faith.

You have reached a new low.  Did your boyfriend/girlfriend dump you for a Bernie supporter?  That's the only explanation I can think of for your stupidity.

[Shadows]

The fact that Sanders has appointed two crazy people who spend most of their time attacking Democrats (comic book man and TYT fake journalist lady) as his representatives is a clear signal that he is not entering into these negotiations in good faith.

You have reached a new low.  Did your boyfriend/girlfriend dump you for a Bernie supporter?  That's the only explanation I can think of for your stupidity.

He is a troll who is there to humor people - I don't why people take him seriously? Just consider him a conservative Dem comic or something !

[Blackacre]

It's sad to me that nobody seems to be entering these discussions in good faith. This shouldn't be another proxy war. There are real reforms that need to be made that will get clouded by everyone being at each other's throats.

My ideal reforms would be 1) abolish caucuses, 2) prevent superdelegates from making statements about who they'll support until the primaries have concluded, and 3) leave open-vs-closed up to state parties but mandate that any state with a closed primary must make it easier to become a Democrat in time for the primary.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's sad to me that nobody seems to be entering these discussions in good faith. This shouldn't be another proxy war. There are real reforms that need to be made that will get clouded by everyone being at each other's throats.

My ideal reforms would be 1) abolish caucuses, 2) prevent superdelegates from making statements about who they'll support until the primaries have concluded, and 3) leave open-vs-closed up to state parties but mandate that any state with a closed primary must make it easier to become a Democrat in time for the primary.

Sure (I would probably include a steep delegate penalty for closed primaries, though) but I think it's also important for people to realize that there really are two separate groups with different interests walking into that room. A "Grand Bargain" (probably something to the tune of No Caucuses in return for Open Primaries or No Superdels) is possible, but only if people realize that what benefits one group really is going to hurt the other, and they need to compromise.

[Mr. Morden]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

Fair enough, and it's unlikely that the Clinton faction will vote to get rid of Superdels entirely (I suspect that they would support a measure to 'gag' them before their state votes or something like that.)

Point being, neither side is going to get everything that they want. Hopefully, though, the Clinton appointees will recognize that a lot of change is necessary.

[Shadows]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

Fair enough, and it's unlikely that the Clinton faction will vote to get rid of Superdels entirely (I suspect that they would support a measure to 'gag' them before their state votes or something like that.)

Point being, neither side is going to get everything that they want. Hopefully, though, the Clinton appointees will recognize that a lot of change is necessary.

Gag is meaningless & impossible to enforce. CNN & NBC will just do secret interviews & will refuse to reveal names - Also they may campaign for 1 of the candidates & say anything short of I am will vote but will endorse or will use similar language.

I think the Supers have to go but atleast it is expected to be cut down massively. The Debate thing should also come under the rules for 2020 right? I think they should finalize 12 debates before even the candidates are announced. April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March - 1 Each every month - 10 Debates pre-Iowa with Townhalls & forums added as candidates want.

[Blackacre]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

Then implement a delegate penalty for states that choose caucuses to account for the reduced turnout. (Iowa can be an exception) That way, any state that reduces participation by not having a Semi-Closed or Open Primary will have fewer delegates to show for it. If the DNC can contribute toward the cost of a primary, then fantastic. But the point is that caucuses are horrendous for the nominating process and must be diminished.

It's sad to me that nobody seems to be entering these discussions in good faith. This shouldn't be another proxy war. There are real reforms that need to be made that will get clouded by everyone being at each other's throats.

My ideal reforms would be 1) abolish caucuses, 2) prevent superdelegates from making statements about who they'll support until the primaries have concluded, and 3) leave open-vs-closed up to state parties but mandate that any state with a closed primary must make it easier to become a Democrat in time for the primary.

Sure (I would probably include a steep delegate penalty for closed primaries, though) but I think it's also important for people to realize that there really are two separate groups with different interests walking into that room. A "Grand Bargain" (probably something to the tune of No Caucuses in return for Open Primaries or No Superdels) is possible, but only if people realize that what benefits one group really is going to hurt the other, and they need to compromise.

I know. That's why my suggested reforms include both things that benefit the Clintonians (no caucuses) and things that benefit the Sanders folk (gag superdels and make closed primaries more navigatable)

Though in retrospect my suggested changes probably benefit team HRC more, so let's change it to 1) No caucuses/penalties for caucuses 2) gag superdelegates and 3) Semi-Closed Primaries Only. (semi-closed primaries are ones where Democrats and Independents can vote, but the independents can't vote if they chose to vote in the Republican primary, and Republicans are not allowed)

[Blackacre]

"No caucuses" is a complete non-starter, because there are some states that just aren't paying for a primary.  There's nothing that either the DNC nor the Democratic Party of Idaho can do, for example, to force the state government of Idaho to hold a primary.  So if Idaho isn't going to run a primary, how would it happen?  The Democratic Party would pay for it on its own?  Not just there, but in every other state whose state government won't pay for a primary?  Yeah, right.

Fair enough, and it's unlikely that the Clinton faction will vote to get rid of Superdels entirely (I suspect that they would support a measure to 'gag' them before their state votes or something like that.)

Point being, neither side is going to get everything that they want. Hopefully, though, the Clinton appointees will recognize that a lot of change is necessary.

Gag is meaningless & impossible to enforce. CNN & NBC will just do secret interviews & will refuse to reveal names - Also they may campaign for 1 of the candidates & say anything short of I am will vote but will endorse or will use similar language.

Gag can be done. All you have to do is remove the autonomy of superdelegates to do what they want at the convention. If Superdelegates must take marching orders from the DNC, AND the DNC can't pledge them until after all states vote, then they become tiebreakers and not kingmakers

[Bojack Horseman]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

LOL, are you arguing that it would have been politically suicidal to nominate Bernie?

[Hindsight was 2020]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

LOL, are you arguing that it would have been politically suicidal to nominate Bernie?

Maybe I like Bernie but he was nowhere treated as bad by Hillary as Trump "you're a rapist tax cheat who never held a honest Jon in your life" would have

[Kingpoleon]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

LOL, are you arguing that it would have been politically suicidal to nominate Bernie?

Maybe I like Bernie but he was nowhere treated as bad by Hillary as Trump "you're a rapist tax cheat who never held a honest Jon in your life" would have

And "you're really bad at the whole quotes thing and just use it to sound like a complete, utter, and imbecilic hack"

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

LOL, are you arguing that it would have been politically suicidal to nominate Bernie?

-Some people here still believe this transparently ridiculous idea.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm glad the superdelegates aren't going anywhere. Their whole point is to be a check against someone getting the nomination who would be politically suicidal. Hence why Bernie supporters hate them so much...

LOL, are you arguing that it would have been politically suicidal to nominate Bernie?

-Some people here still believe this transparently ridiculous idea.

[7,052,770]

Abolish caucuses or this whole thing is pointless.

Or at least change them to be like the Iowa Republican caucus where you just show up, privately cast your vote, and leave. No one should be forced to sit through hours of blathering, nor should anyone be forced to publicly announce their vote.

[Mr. Morden]

Abolish caucuses or this whole thing is pointless.

Or at least change them to be like the Iowa Republican caucus where you just show up, privately cast your vote, and leave. No one should be forced to sit through hours of blathering, nor should anyone be forced to publicly announce their vote.

Yes, the latter would be an option.  You can't abolish caucuses, because some state governments (often controlled by the other party) just won't ever agree to fund a primary, but you could make the caucuses more primary-like.

[Mr. Morden]

Update: All of the members of the commission have now been named:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-unity-reform-commission_us_58f50d1fe4b0b9e9848d92eb

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   1   Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Chair, District of Columbia
   2   Larry Cohen, Vice Chair, District of Columbia
   3   Charlie Baker, Massachusetts
   4   Jan Bauer, Iowa
   5   Jeff Berman, District of Columbia
   6   Lucy Flores, California
   7   Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio)
   8   Maya Harris, New York
   9   David Huynh, Louisiana
   10   Elaine Kamarck, Massachusetts
   11   Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party Chair
   12   Nomiki Konst, New York
   13   Yvette Lewis, Maryland
   14   Gus Newport, California
   15   Jorge Neri, Illinois
   16   James Roosevelt, Jr., Massachusetts
   17   Emmy Ruiz, Texas
   18   Nina Turner, Ohio
   19   Jeff Weaver, Virginia
   20   Wellington Webb, Colorado
   21   Jim Zogby, District of Columbia