HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LiberalFighter » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

LiberalFighter

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Wisconsin
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 33,605

About Me

Member since 3/21/2002

Journal Archives

If the results of the election is reflected by that poll

Percent of Pledged Delegates Needed
***** : Now ---- After
Clinton : 32.7% -- 30.0%
Sanders: 67.5% -- 70.2%

Pledged Delegates Remaining (721)

Percent of All Delegates Needed
***** : Now ---- After
Clinton : 11.3% -- 7.6%
Sanders: 88.9% -- 92.6%

All Delegates Remaining (889) Does not include automatic delegates that have not publicly declared. There are about 20.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 22, 2016, 01:05 PM (0 replies)

People clamoring for DWS to be removed demonstrate their lack of DNC history.

And they likely are not regularly involved in the Democratic Party. They are outsiders clamoring for members of an organization they are not a member to change their rules and leaders.

Check out the DNC Wikipedia

Notice how long DNC chairs tend to serve. I am not a fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And I look forward to her leaving but it can wait until they have their regular election to fill that and other positions which don't happen until next year.

The impact imo of the DNC during the general election is nothing compared to the Democratic nominee's campaign. The DNC acts as a subsidiary at that point.

By the way. Sanders continues to make enemies by making his outrageous statements when his status will be in doubt after the election.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat May 21, 2016, 07:36 PM (8 replies)

Primary History

Larger Democratic Delegation -- 7 Nov 1981
Officials of organized labor told the Democratic Party today that it should dramatically increase the number of elected officials serving as delegates to Presidential nominating conventions but should not abandon the principle of having equal numbers of men and women as delegates.


Democrats Bury Purge Provision for Delegates -- 8 Nov 1981
When North Carolina Gov. James B. Hunt Jr., the commission chairman, asked if anyone wanted to debate the rule mandating "equal division" of each state delegation between men and women, there were no takers. While formal action awaits the January session, it was evident that the provision--for which women in the Democratic Party waged a 12-year fight--is now permanently embedded.

But there was no consensus on the way to bring more members of Congress and other elected officials into the next convention hall. On Friday, both the AFL-CIO and the Association of State Democratic Chairs recommended that 30 percent of the 1984 convention seats be reserved for uncommitted elected and party officials.

In 1980, only 10 percent of the delegate slots were reserved for them, and they were required to pledge that their presidential votes would fall in line with the other delegates from their states.

Rep. Gillis W. Long (D-La.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that the reason only 37 House members served as delegates was that they did not want to choose between Carter and Kennedy and thereby align themselves with one faction at home.

He said the caucus wanted to choose two-thirds of its members as 1984 delegates--but only if they could go uncommitted, adding: "If they do not have that freedom, I assure you they will not participate."


A Brief History of Superdelegates -- Daily Kos 15 Feb 2008 -- Nate Silver wrote this under a pseudonym.
There were a number of rationales given at the time for the implementation of superdelegates, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. The primary purpose of this diary will be to explore those rationales, based on a survey of contemporaneous newspaper accounts from the New York Times. However, it is also important to understand the underlying context: as of 1982, the Democrats had had two absolutely disastrous results out of the last three Presidential election cycles.


Democrats change nominating process -- 21 Jan 1982
The basic rationale for the action, favored by National Chairman Charles Manatt. the Democratic leadership in Congress and the AFL-CIO. is that elected officeholders and party officials are the pick-and-shovel folks of party polities and are entitled to a bigger say. Also. it's argued that since lhey presumably reflect the voice of the, grass roots. their presence In a sense reflects mainstream thinking.

There Is also a seldom-mentioned elitist aspect to the rationale. Thal Is that the party bigwigs have a bigger grip on political realities -on which candidate has the best chance to win against the Republican nominee. Offered as Exhibits A and B are the nominations of McGovern and Carter, neither of whom was the choice of the party backs, In 1972 or 1976.

Finally, there is the political scientists' argument that members of Congress who have had little or no choice in the nomination of a Democratic president and are not likely to have the optimum stake in bis success. and hence aren't likely to be true partners In pushing his legislative program. Again, Carter is the prime exhibit offered.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat May 21, 2016, 07:02 PM (0 replies)

I disagree on 2 and 4, and part of 3.

The method used to allocate delegates is fair and equitable.

Computation of (intermediate) Base Votes for Jurisdictions with Electoral Votes

The rules of the Democratic National Convention call for the following formula to be used in determining the allocation of delegate votes to each jurisdiction sending a delegation to the Convention.

Each jurisdiction with electoral votes is assigned a number of Base (delegate) votes based on an "Allocation Factor" multiplied by 3,200 arrived at through a calculation involving the following factors:

State's Democratic Vote (SDV): The jurisdiction's popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012). Source: The vote totals for 2004 and 2008 below were obtained from FEC.gov on 24 November 2010. The vote totals for 2012 were taken from The Green Papers 2012 General Election Presidential Popular Vote and FEC Total Receipts by Party on 17 January 2013.
Total Democratic Vote (TDV): The total popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The state's Electoral Vote (SEV) averaged over the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The total Electoral Vote of all jurisdictions (538).

The formula for determining a jurisdiction's Allocation Factor is:

Allocation Factor = ( ( SDV TDV ) + ( SEV 538 ) )

The number of Base votes assigned to a state is Allocation Factor 3,200 rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions 0.5 and above are rounded up).

To summarize, half of a jurisdiction's base vote is determined by the number of Presidential Electors assigned to that state and half are computed by the number of people who voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last three elections.


States are and should be weighted. Why should a state like Texas receive more delegates than New York when Democratic turnout is lower?

State- Census * * * * 3 yr Turnout * * * Delegates
TX * 26,059,203 * - * 9,669,461 * * * * 147
NY * 19,570,261 * - * 13,456,847 * * * *247
CA * 38,041,430 * - * 22,874,243 * * * *475


The delegates allocated to southern states were less than other states with comparable census population but had higher Democratic turnout. If a candidate is going to win the nomination weight should be given to states that are likely to turn blue.

If delegates were allocated based on census population Clinton's margin over Sanders would be larger than what it is now. Using 4,051 as the total delegates and the win/loss percent the delegate count would be roughly Clinton: 1,859 and Sanders: 1,482. A spread of 377 instead of the current 272 pledged delegate advantage that Clinton currently has.

She also won every state with a census population of 10 million or more with California still up.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri May 20, 2016, 11:50 PM (0 replies)

Sanders brought more Oregon voters into the Democratic Party.

Yep! He brought in 7% fewer voters in Oregon.

2008 Primary
Obama: 375,311
Clinton: 259,782
Sub Total: 635,093

Write-In: 5,537
Grand Total: 640,630

2016 Primary
Sanders: 333,638
Clinton: 257,374
Sub Total: 591,012

Write-in: 10,634
Grand Total: 601,646


Sanders would like to think Oregon is a state that looks like the Democratic Party. Except it isn't. It deviates from the Democratic electorate by a factor of 42 with zero being New Jersey.
New Jersey's Democratic Primary Electorate
White: 57%
Black: 26%
Hisp/Lat: 11%
Asian/Other: 6%


Oregon's Electorate
White: 87%
Black: 1%
Hisp/Lat: 4%

Asian/Other: 7%


Sanders has won every state with 78% or more white population except for Iowa, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Clinton has won every state with 15% or more black population except for Michigan. New Jersey and District of Columbia are in that range.

Clinton has won every state with 19% or more Hispanic/Latino. New Mexico and California are in that range.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri May 20, 2016, 12:38 PM (21 replies)

Here is an interesting comparison with delegates in 2008 and 2016.

There were more automatic delegates in 2008 (852 delegates).
Those 852 delegates were 19.2% of the total 2008 delegates compared to 14.9% in 2016.

There were only 3,566 pledged delegates in 2008. That is 485 fewer than in 2016.

Group -- 2008 -- 2016
DNC - -- 428 -- - 434
DPL - - -- 21 -- -- 20
Senate -- 51 -- -- 47
House -- 239 -- - 193
Govs - - - 32 -- -- 21
Adds - - - 81 -- - - 0
Totals -- 852 -- - 715

The 2008 delegates were prior to the sanction against Florida and Michigan.


The odds were more against Obama in 2008 compared to Sanders in 2016.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Wed May 18, 2016, 09:23 PM (0 replies)

Sanders' supporters claim the Democratic Party is rigged.

The problem with them is they don't want to follow the rules or even the law. Because it stands in the way for Sanders to win.

It appears that they think the rules and laws is why the Democratic Party is rigged. Better yet, they appear to think that they should be exempt from the rules and laws while everyone that doesn't support them should continue to follow them.

So in effect, they want to rig it so that it favors them instead of everyone having to follow the same rules and laws to ensure fairness.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Tue May 17, 2016, 08:59 AM (16 replies)

Hillary and Bernie are both Liberal

Hillary and Bernie are both Liberal

?1454177411

?1454177537
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 15, 2016, 11:37 PM (1 replies)

Harry Enten" Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal (FiveThirtyEight)

Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 15, 2016, 11:36 PM (0 replies)

This and other sources would say otherwise.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/house-and-senate-partisanship
House

Senate
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 15, 2016, 11:33 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »