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

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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

Get rid of the superdelegates, the closed primaries, the super Tuesdays, and then I'd say you've made some reforms.

Don't forget getting rid of caucuses.

Except Iowa.

Iowa has coin tosses & in Nevada you apparently draw from a pack of cards, to settle ties. Talk about having archaic rules in need of reform !

Iowa does caucuses pretty well. It's basically the only state that does, but it does caucuses pretty well. Coin tosses are how you resolve tied votes in individual precincts. Which shouldn't (and didn't) happen that often.

The caucus format is a lovely tradition that is very difficult to implement.

Iowa does it well.

Iowa should keep their caucus.

[Mr. Morden]

I followed the first meeting a little by reading Josh Putnam on Twitter.  He said that this first meeting was pretty preliminary, and didn't really get into the guts of the issues they're supposed to tackle.  They'll have more meetings in coming months in different cities:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/860892493801558018

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Shadows]

DNC Unity Commission Vide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu7FuyOqA2w

Larry Cohen (Vice Chair & CWA, Union Rep. & Sanders nominee) started & is an absolutely phenomenal speaker & has that presence & charisma. Should absolutely run for Congress ! The Sanders' campaign has some amazing people in there !

Jeff Weaver - Can the DNC Incentivize open primaries like they incentivize for late primaries (more delegate allocation!)

Some Lawyer - Yes

(Loads of meaningless talk about schedule !)

Larry Cohen - Schedule is not part of our mandate, but as clarified the Unity Commission could recommend additional delegate allocation for open primaries !

[Shadows]

Holy ShI*. This one Clinton delegate kept sh**t*ing on Carter. "Failed Presidency", "Had no idea what he is doing" , "Made Dems lose states & Senate", "Bad candidate" "Chaos" etc etc!

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything. Guess there is real heat between Clinton people & Carter - More so people because Clinton is a hawk who voted to kill millions in Iraq & Carter is a human rights advocate who had the most peaceful of any Presidencies !

[McGovernForPrez]

Holy ShI*. This one Clinton delegate kept sh**t*ing on Carter. "Failed Presidency", "Had no idea what he is doing" , "Made Dems lose states & Senate", "Bad candidate" "Chaos" etc etc!

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything. Guess there is real heat between Clinton people & Carter - More so people because Clinton is a hawk who voted to kill millions in Iraq & Carter is a human rights advocate who had the most peaceful of any Presidencies !

Listen I love Jimmy, but he's universally considered to have been a weak president. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time with the oil crisis though and that basically screwed him. It's interesting that he voted for Sanders because Jimmy himself was a fairly outsider candidate back in his day.

[Virginiá]

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything.

Oh give me a break.

[Shadows]

Holy ShI*. This one Clinton delegate kept sh**t*ing on Carter. "Failed Presidency", "Had no idea what he is doing" , "Made Dems lose states & Senate", "Bad candidate" "Chaos" etc etc!

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything. Guess there is real heat between Clinton people & Carter - More so people because Clinton is a hawk who voted to kill millions in Iraq & Carter is a human rights advocate who had the most peaceful of any Presidencies !

Listen I love Jimmy, but he's universally considered to have been a weak president. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time with the oil crisis though and that basically screwed him. It's interesting that he voted for Sanders because Jimmy himself was a fairly outsider candidate back in his day.

I never liked Carter's domestic policies & handling although I respect him massively for his views on foreign policy (Middle East conflict, no wars etc). He wasn't a good President but then so was Obama who is another weak President !

But I have never seen a DNC Unit commission say time & again with such vitriol "Failed", "had no idea" - Generally people have some restraint while talking about a former President & say it didn't work out well, could have done better, some aspects were disappointing etc - This was like they were talking about a failed Republican President !

[Shadows]

We have no such comments for Obama who is a total failed President under whom Democrats lost everything.

Oh give me a break.

You know it's the truth - Obama's economy has the most unequal wealth distribution probably in decades, very low youth home ownership, poor labour force participation, average GDP growth, poor numbers for inflation adjusted wages ! He did add close to 10T $ of debt but got very little done in terms of that. Clinton although he had some issues like Glass Steagall, had a much more successful economy - You can criticize some bad policies of Clinton but no1 can say the economy failed - If Clinton was a Republican, they would be hailing him as the best GOP President, far ahead of Reagan (he did govern as more to center) !

The main criticism about Carter in the DNC Commission was about a failed party leader under whom the Democrats lost a lot. Obama is the worst president in recent history about party losses - 900 State Legislature seats, countless House & Senate seats , Governor races - This isn't about opinion but plain facts - It is difficult to argue with facts - You can't call Carter a "failed President" due to party seat losses & say & Obama is successful on that account.

Let's have some fair reporting Virginia & not be overly partisan !

[heatcharger]

Why is Shadows allowed to insert a bajillion large images in one post? Threads need not be clogged with this stuff.

[Shadows]

How is Obama a better party leader when it comes to election losses compared to Jimmy Carter? The stats are clear !

[Virginiá]

You know it's the truth - Obama's economy has the most unequal wealth distribution probably in decades, very low youth home ownership, poor labour force participation, average GDP growth, poor numbers for inflation adjusted wages ! He did add close to 10T $ of debt but got very little done in terms of that. Clinton although he had some issues like Glass Steagall, had a much more successful economy - You can criticize some bad policies of Clinton but no1 can say the economy failed - If Clinton was a Republican, they would be hailing him as the best GOP President, far ahead of Reagan (he did govern as more to center) !

No, it's just I wonder exactly how much of all of that is entirely his fault. It's easy to just look at numbers, look at who was in the WH at the time, and say, "must be their fault." Of course, people are always like, "they had super duper big majorities for 2 years, they could have fixed EVERYTHING obviously," which is interesting because I've heard different people talk about how Democrats could have fixed [different issue] with those same brief majorities, and if you put all those people together, you have a collective opinion that Democrats clearly should have fixed all America's problems in 2 years.

Obama is the worst president in recent history about party losses - 900 State Legislature seats, countless House & Senate seats , Governor races - This isn't about opinion but plain facts

Actually this is mostly what my reply was focused on. I'm sorry, but putting all that on Obama is a lazy man's argument. It's real easy to say "it happened under Obama, ergo, it is Obama's fault," but it is not that simple and you know it (or maybe you don't). Democrats were fresh off of 2 waves in a row which inflated their power beyond its real baseline. On top of that, the recession and Obama managed to accelerate the movement of Southern state political power from Democrats to Republicans. My frustration with the "blame Obama" argument here is born from more than just partisanship, it's from my dislike of people pointing to the top and blaming that person no matter what. The same logic that insists that when a company or a govt institution screws up big, heads must roll, even if it largely wasn't their fault and/or there was nothing they could do anyway.

I also find it amusing because on one hand, I see lots of people blame all those losses on Obama, yet some of those same people will turn around and argue that in midterms, all a party needs is a "strong platform and message for the voters," ignoring the almost universal truth about midterms: they are referendums on the president in that particular moment, and what policies you are promising voters doesn't really hold a candle to their frustration with the person in the White House, and by extension, their party.

Let's have some fair reporting Virginia & not be overly partisan !

Come on lol. You can be just as partisan on here.

[Shadows]

You know it's the truth - Obama's economy has the most unequal wealth distribution probably in decades, very low youth home ownership, poor labour force participation, average GDP growth, poor numbers for inflation adjusted wages ! He did add close to 10T $ of debt but got very little done in terms of that. Clinton although he had some issues like Glass Steagall, had a much more successful economy - You can criticize some bad policies of Clinton but no1 can say the economy failed - If Clinton was a Republican, they would be hailing him as the best GOP President, far ahead of Reagan (he did govern as more to center) !

No, it's just I wonder exactly how much of all of that is entirely his fault. It's easy to just look at numbers, look at who was in the WH at the time, and say, "must be their fault." Of course, people are always like, "they had super duper big majorities for 2 years, they could have fixed EVERYTHING obviously," which is interesting because I've heard different people talk about how Democrats could have fixed [different issue] with those same brief majorities, and if you put all those people together, you have a collective opinion that Democrats clearly should have fixed all America's problems in 2 years.

Obama is the worst president in recent history about party losses - 900 State Legislature seats, countless House & Senate seats , Governor races - This isn't about opinion but plain facts

Actually this is mostly what my reply was focused on. I'm sorry, but putting all that on Obama is a lazy man's argument. It's real easy to say "it happened under Obama, ergo, it is Obama's fault," but it is not that simple and you know it (or maybe you don't). Democrats were fresh off of 2 waves in a row which inflated their power beyond its real baseline. On top of that, the recession and Obama managed to accelerate the movement of Southern state political power from Democrats to Republicans. My frustration with the "blame Obama" argument here is born from more than just partisanship, it's from my dislike of people pointing to the top and blaming that person no matter what. The same logic that insists that when a company or a govt institution screws up big, heads must roll, even if it largely wasn't their fault and/or there was nothing they could do anyway.

I also find it amusing because on one hand, I see lots of people blame all those losses on Obama, yet some of those same people will turn around and argue that in midterms, all a party needs is a "strong platform and message for the voters," ignoring the almost universal truth about midterms: they are referendums on the president in that particular moment, and what policies you are promising voters doesn't really hold a candle to their frustration with the person in the White House, and by extension, their party.

Let's have some fair reporting Virginia & not be overly partisan !

Come on lol. You can be just as partisan on here.

I don't disagree with you on any of these things, but you have to have uniform standards. Carter's economy had problems but he had high economic growth. He was overall a disappointing president but if he is blamed for Party losses (the one delegate said party suffered losses & that makes him failed etc), then by that logic Obama is the most failed.

True Democrats had high numbers from where losses were inevitable but if you look at a 100 year history - This is the worst position & highest losses ever - Obama didn't just cause some losses but huge one's, of unprecedented nature. Now all that is not on Obama but as the CEO/Captain of the ship, it has to fall primarily fall under his lap. Mid-terms tend to be often losses but nowhere near his gigantic amount! You have to judge Obama & Carter with the same scale !

Obama, IMO could have been the best FDR but turned out to be well, Obama ! Anyways agree to disagree !

[Virginiá]

Well I don't have any comment on Carter - not well enough versed in his presidency to offer input. Also you're right, even with a more modest baseline considered, Obama did leave the party in worse shape than it should have been, and his neglect of the party in general (eg: DWS) really ticks me off still to this day, but at the same time I believe there are other reasons, including structural and just bad timing (redistricting) that contributed to where we are now.

Either way, overall it doesn't bug me that much and others should try and look at it long-term. We had a bad decade, but the tides are still shifting our way. So, we lost the South, but we were going to lose it at some point anyway. Americans side with Democrats/liberals on tons of important issues, and the GOP's base is literally dying off, so our time will come soon enough. We've spent the last 35+ years in a conservative era, and as it always does, the pendulum will swing the other way (if history is any judge, it will also be soon-ish)

[GoldenMainer]

Why is Jeff Berman, a former lobbyist for the Keystone Pipeline and private prison GEO group on this commission? And why is Charlie Baker, a co-founder of the same Dewey Square Group that worked to undermine the Affordable Care Act, involved in this? What a joke. Let me guess, they were appointed by Clinton?

I do love me some Nomiki Konst.

[Mr. Morden]

The Unity Commission will be tackling the subject of open primaries this weekend:



It was thought that they might tackle the superdelegate issue, but looks like that'll be saved for one of their later meetings.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The Unity Commission will be tackling the subject of open primaries this weekend:
<snipped image>
It was thought that they might tackle the superdelegate issue, but looks like that'll be saved for one of their later meetings.

Interesting. I really expected open primaries to be one of the harder issues to resolve - though I suppose that superdels hits closer to home for the Clinton members of the commission .

[McGovernForPrez]

The Unity Commission will be tackling the subject of open primaries this weekend:
<snipped image>
It was thought that they might tackle the superdelegate issue, but looks like that'll be saved for one of their later meetings.

Interesting. I really expected open primaries to be one of the harder issues to resolve - though I suppose that superdels hits closer to home for the Clinton members of the commission .

I don't get why there isn't just an open primary for everything. The way the U.S. party system is structured, the more fluid a party's platform is the better. Two party systems are only viable here so all the coalition building is done during the primaries. By ignoring certain parts of the electorate the party is less incentivized to evolve its platform.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The Unity Commission will be tackling the subject of open primaries this weekend:
<snipped image>
It was thought that they might tackle the superdelegate issue, but looks like that'll be saved for one of their later meetings.

Interesting. I really expected open primaries to be one of the harder issues to resolve - though I suppose that superdels hits closer to home for the Clinton members of the commission .

I don't get why there isn't just an open primary for everything. The way the U.S. party system is structured, the more fluid a party's platform is the better. Two party systems are only viable here so all the coalition building is done during the primaries. By ignoring certain parts of the electorate the party is less incentivized to evolve its platform.

I quite agree. I've heard involved grassroots dems take a very proprietary tone when it comes to this sort of thing. There's an underlying attitude of "it's our club, let them do their own thing if they want it so bad."

[Mr. Morden]

Haven’t been following this closely, but we’re apparently supposed to get some recommendations soon:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/06/democrats-unity-commission-iowa-caucuses-preview/924405001/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding possible changes to the caucus process:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On a different note, here’s an interesting graph from FHQ:

[Former Kentuckian]

Why is Jeff Berman, a former lobbyist for the Keystone Pipeline and private prison GEO group on this commission? And why is Charlie Baker, a co-founder of the same Dewey Square Group that worked to undermine the Affordable Care Act, involved in this? What a joke. Let me guess, they were appointed by Clinton?

Bingo. They're both listed as part of the commission under "former Clinton" staff (Berman listed as "former Clinton campaign consultant" and Baker listed as "former chief administrative officer of the Clinton campaign").  She knows how to pick some winners.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bill Clinton lost Congress, and most of the South switching to the GOP in downballot races happened on his watch.

Obama turned the Democratic Party over to the Clintons.  They ended up the "owners" of the Democratic Party in a real sense.

[Mr. Morden]

Josh Putnam live tweeting today's proceedings:

https://twitter.com/FHQ

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939173503902904321

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939186555041800192

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/939190374345641985

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

ABC has more here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-2020-proposals-change-superdelegate-primary-system/story?id=51667181

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pyro]

ABC has more here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-2020-proposals-change-superdelegate-primary-system/story?id=51667181

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judging from the reports thus far, this commission has basically put forward the idea that the superdelegate system is, essentially, an appropriate, necessary tactic for a fair and democratic nominating process, but open primaries are not.

Looks to me as though this entire show is a farce.

[Holmes]

I didn't get that feeling at all. In fact, I feel more like the fact that they're still allowing caucuses as a fair and democratic nominatiom process is a farce.