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

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate because there seem to be more Hillary fans than Bernie fans on here and some don't seem to understand why people were, and still are, angry and why these reforms are so important. I don't know that they would have made a difference in 2016, but hopefully we avoid the mess of 2016.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that Trump would've won the popular vote if not for the MILLIONS of illegals voting for Hitler-y c**nt-on.

You know, it's truly amazing how similar Trumpbots and Bernie bros sound. And it's even more amazing their inability to see that.

[Former Kentuckian]

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that Trump would've won the popular vote if not for the MILLIONS of illegals voting for Hitler-y c**nt-on.

You know, it's truly amazing how similar Trumpbots and Bernie bros sound. And it's even more amazing their inability to see that.

I'm not a Bernie Bro and it's gross and insensitive to joke about Hitler. Unlike Trump's baseless xenophobic nonsense with no semblance of reality, the Democratic primaries are/were flawed and everyone realizes that and, thankfully, are working to make 2020 more fair.

[IceSpear]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate because there seem to be more Hillary fans than Bernie fans on here and some don't seem to understand why people were, and still are, angry and why these reforms are so important. I don't know that they would have made a difference in 2016, but hopefully we avoid the mess of 2016.

Your points are valid, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, Hillary still won the pledged delegate count and popular vote and was therefore the legitimate winner. That's a totally separate question from whether or not superdelegates are fair or necessary.

[Former Kentuckian]

I really respect Sen. Tim Kaine for coming out so hard against superdelegates considering he was part of a campaign that benefitted from them so much.

Kaine didn't benefit from them. For one thing, he never ran for president. Secondly, superdelegates were irrelevant as always, since Hillary won both the pledged delegates and popular vote in a landslide.

The Democratic nominee needed 2,382 delegates to win. Hillary had 2,205 pledged delegates. She won because of superdelegates. Superdelegates created a sense of inevitability since Hillary started with hundreds of superdelegates before Iowa and the media included them in her totals despite the DNC saying not to. It was blamed for depressing turnout because of inevitability. And we'll never know the complete popular vote of the 2016 Democratic primaries because caucuses weren't required to release them.

If the superdelegates of states Bernie won had been required to vote like the voters of their states, things might have been different. And if caucuses, where Bernie did well, were required to release raw voter data, the popular vote may have been different. Maybe. Maybe not. But the reforms will hopefully level the playing field, even just a little.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. If you remove the superdelegates completely, she wins easily. The reason she "needed them to hit a majority" was because there was such a huge amount of them, so anybody would "need them" in a race that is even remotely contested.

Nobody voted based off Hillary being inevitable. If they did, Bernie would not have gotten 43% of the vote. He continued to win states, some by a landslide, long after Hillary's nomination was mathematically certain. So this narrative about voters being swayed by a CNN delegate count doesn't hold water.

If superdelegates voted how their state voted, then Hillary would've won by an even bigger margin in the delegate count since she won most of the big states. If you include the popular vote for caucuses, most of which were in low population states and thus would not impact it much, maybe Hillary wins by 10-11 points instead of 12 points. You're grasping at straws here.

I do agree with you that it's a good thing they're getting dramatically scaled back. They're a nuisance and accomplish nothing.

Superdelegates weren't removed from the primary, though, and they are why she won, good or bad, and that's why controversy exists surrounding them and why they're being reformed. It shouldn't be controversial to say Hillary won because of superdelegates. It's the truth. If every single superdelegate had voted for Sanders, it would have  pushed him over the required  amount needed (but that wouldn't have been fair to Hillary, then. Superdelegates erase fairness). They were never going to do that, of course, and that's part of the problem. Both Sanders and Hillary were short of the required amount, but superdelegates pushed Hillary over enough to win.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say that we will never know the actual popular vote, even if it didn't make a difference. These are problems that many people had with the 2016 primary that, even if it isn't true, appeared to some to favor Clinton and are thankfully being corrected.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate because there seem to be more Hillary fans than Bernie fans on here and some don't seem to understand why people were, and still are, angry and why these reforms are so important. I don't know that they would have made a difference in 2016, but hopefully we avoid the mess of 2016.

Your points are valid, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, Hillary still won the pledged delegate count and popular vote and was therefore the legitimate winner. That's a totally separate question from whether or not superdelegates are fair or necessary.

I think we agree. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of her being the nominee. I don't think there was fraud or anything improper. I'm just arguing that superdelegates pushed her over the majority and that is why people are angry, and why people from all sides of the 2016 primary are pushing for reform. It needs to be changed so that there isn't even an impression of unfairness (and, honestly, I think not having Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the helm will play a huge part in correcting some of this. Not only were her decisions bad, her interviews were even worse and terrible PR).

[Mr. Morden]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/clinton-and-bernie-allies-are-still-at-odds-over-caucus-vs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

The Sanders-istas are urging the DNC to take a vote on the full package of reforms suggested by the unity commission, without subjecting them to amendments:

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/05/bernie-supporters-arent-exactly-getting-what-they-were-hoping-for-out-of-the-dnc_partner/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Do we have an update on what the commission has concluded?

[Mr. Morden]

Do we have an update on what the commission has concluded?

Sorry, I guess I never responded to this.  Their report is available here:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/URC_Report_FINAL.pdf

But this story summarizes some of the highlights:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-unity-reform-commission-2016-presidential-primary_us_5a2c59fbe4b0a290f05145d2

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee convenes today for a couple of days of meetings, and may well vote on some of the Unity Commission proposals:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/969178374269820928

[Mr. Morden]

Chris Reeves live-tweeted the Rules and Bylaws Committee's meeting today:

https://twitter.com/tmservo433

and Josh Putnam offered his own commentary on said tweets:

https://twitter.com/FHQ

If I'm reading this right, then I don't think they actually voted on anything today.  Maybe they will in their session tomorrow.  One interesting thing that seems to have come up is a suggestion that the superdelegates not get to vote at all on the first ballot, but only get a chance to vote if it goes to 2 or more ballots.  No idea if that'll go anywhere.

Also:

https://twitter.com/jonward11/status/969340655033028608

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

More reform proposals being considered: All superdelegates are now on the chopping block:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-are-weighing-a-proposal-to-eliminate

You must be logged in to read this quote.