How about I don't care about "math." I care about politics.

[JackRiddler]

Millions of people have yet to vote and they should have a choice. Of course Sanders will and should go to the convention with all the delegates he wins. If that's not enough to take the nomination, they should do all to affect the platform and change the undemocratic rules of the primary. I will be happy to help enable this with additional small contributions, along with the millions of others who have done so.

Sanders' politics are forward-looking and realistic, both obviously affordable in this very rich country and rooted in the reality of the true crises we face. Clinton's the one who embodies the continued domination of big money over politics and of a global strategy of perpetual wars. She isn't ready to even try to address the greatest real threat, that we are burning the planet (in a multitude of ways, with one of the biggest extinction events in evolutionary history underway).

If you wanted a single-candidate coronation, too bad. You can fight the future with smug invocations of delegate "math" if you like. Apparently the majority of voters under 40 see it differently, and they are the future, and the end of the New Democrats and their "bipartisan" neoliberal destruction is coming one way or another. Sanders represents the real old Democratic party, the party of the New Deal, and he represents the true future politics of this country, which will be small-d democratic. Whether that will occur within the Democratic party or outside it may for now remain in the hands of the tired old single-party machine nomenklatura, but that won't be the case for much longer.

[Trenzalore]

1. State parties determine the rules for their primaries

Not the convention.

[JackRiddler]

2. Thank you for the pedantry.

You can join the movements to roll back the wrong ways of doing things on every level, or you can invoke the rhetoric of "no we can't" and watch the world burn.

("Superdelegates" are a creation of the national party, of course. The national party can initiate a movement to rationalize the process and make it democratic, of course. But that's not the point. If you're happy with the way things are, so be it.)

[Trenzalore]

3. If you want to change the rules of your state's primary

I suggest you get involved in your state democratic party.

There seems to belief amongst some people on the inter webs that there is centralized power that controls everything where none exists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Actually some of us are advocating now that

legislatures refuse to pay with tax money for closed primaries, regardless of who does it.

[JackRiddler]

24. That's more like it.

Just about the last thing I'm going to do is actually work for one of these parties as a factotum. History shows over and over that you get more organizing and mobilizing people to storm from the outside than subordinating yourself on the inside in the bullshit hope of eventually convincing the machine to be less of a machine.

This is what democracy looks like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Well they are proviing they do not want democratic elections

with a small d, for the record. Hell, it is to the point that I do not believe they want us to vote in the general either.

[Trenzalore]

37. So your strategy is to lobby elected officials who were put in place by the system

Instead of state party officials and you consider that storming the castle from the outside

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Some of my state officials do see beyond your short views

[Trenzalore]

49. Good for them

The change would be easier to push through the party as a private organization it gets to determine its own rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. So an independent private organization has a say on how state taxes are used?

by the way, my state constitution does have a note on using public funds as illegal gifts to private parties.

[Trenzalore]

61. I want to keep my closed primaries in PA

So best of luck to you in whatever state you are in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Do so, but your state party

Should pay for the whole thing. You want it closed. Fine. It is not democratic, (with a small d) it is a private function, your party should pay for the damn thing. Pretty simple really

[randome]

77. If all parties are treated equally, and all primaries paid for, it is not discriminatory.

Everyone pays taxes for fire stations but only a few people actually need them. If you want to pull funds from the Democratic party primaries, you would need to pull them for everyone.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[brush]

44. Why not just join a party, or form one that reflects your politics.

If independents formed a party the state would pay for its primaries too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Independents are now the majority

in time the parties will get that.

But please continue to shit on indies.

At this point, I am getting to the conclusion that you would prefer if we did not vote, PERIOD, end of discussion.



And if you want a closed primary, a closed party function, which is private, I should not foot it as a tax payer. You can do that.

[brush]

53. All the more reason to start your own party if Independents are the majority. Seems a no-brainer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. NO it is a no brainer, it shows your lack of understanding of what is happening.

but you guys would prefer, with the Republicans mind you, that independents do not vote at any stage of the process, and anyway primaries are NOT democratic and US elections are so compromised that they are a joke at this point ok,

Started to be obvious in 2000, so when my "primary" gets here, I will pretend to vote, in a pretend election and assume my "vote" is not going to count. You can now deduce how legitimate I believe this "process" to be. I also expect to be that rotten in November, if not worst.

[brush]

59. Why would I not understand? The situation is what it is. You either keep complaining or do . . .

something about it.

A third party would actually be a good thing, making the possibility of coalitions forming between two parties — maybe the Dems and a more left-leaning party (hint hint) that could dominate US politics and leave the repugs out of the equation.

It takes work though, much more work than foolishly stating that people you don't know lack understanding of what is happening.

What's really happening now though is that Sanders has lost.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. I am doing something about it

i am approaching my duly elected members of the legislature

By the way, people are pissed at PARTIES, which are NOWHERE in the Constitution. Of course, you won;t have to worry much about the pesky left, in 2 to 3 cycles, the realignment is almost complete. Which is another thing you do not understand.

And by the way, the laws passed to prevent an independent from running for POTUS by state after state after state, need to go.

[brush]

63. This re-alignment you speak of, that's funny.

What you don't understand is that once this primary is over, the so-called Sanders movement will evaporate as the disillusioned people who didn't get their free college will peel off.

It'll dissolve just as the Occupy movement did.

It takes more than big rallies of millennials (too few who vote), it takes organizational structure which Occupy purposely refused to do, for a movement to continue.

And you say that people are pissed at PARTIES.

You and some others may be pissed at parties but most people are not. There are more people in parties than not.

There's no question about that, but keep living in your realignment world where you're approaching members of the legislature WHO ARE MEMBERS OF PARTIES.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Political realignment

We are in the midst of one. This is poli sci 101 and the theory emerged first in 1955. I forgive you for not having a clue of what I speak off. You should be excited though. The Democrats are going back to the past and becoming a party friendly to business.

This would be the 7th political system and it started to be way obvious in 2008. The process is well underway. You are a conservadem. You essentially won. As to that third party you keep alluding. Either the Rs are going back to 1852, or going away and like physics, politics abhors a vacuum.

I know most partisans have not one clue of how the political system they clam to understand actually works or evolves. But the FDR coalition is in tatters. For the record, a symptom of this is the number of people who have left both parties. Look on the bright side, the business republicans have a new home. When Charles Kock for all intents and purposes endorses HRC we know the process is almost complete.

[brush]

66. Funny how the parties survive though.

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

The repugs used to be the progressive party, Ike even called for union strengthening; the dixiecrats left the Dems and went over to the repugs; the teaparty created a ruckus but have been absorbed; Sanders join the Dems from the ranks of the independents but failed to prevail and has already filed for his senate re-election in 2018 as an independent — the parties absorb or reject upstart movements and still stand. Ok, if that's what you call party realignment, I agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. That is precisely a party realignment

And the Whigs and know nothings survived, didn't they? But the Rs will have a choice, become a progressive party, or go away. You won, I now consider the Democrats a pro business friendly party.

The FDR coalition is over. You won.

The next few years will be bad for whatever remains of the middle class and labor and minorities. The last ones will take a while.

As a species we can kiss species survival good bye as well.

I might just not vote anymore. Oligarchies prefer it that way. Or if I do, with the full knowledge that it really doesn't count.

[brooklynite]

27. You realize that, without Superdelegates, Clinton would still be ahead?

With no superdelegate option to catch up?

[JackRiddler]

41. Presumably you do not realize that this in no way addresses what I wrote.

Furthermore, no one can make a counterfactual stick. Who would be ahead under different rules is nothing you can know. (See e.g. post 35, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1824686)

[JaneyVee]

39. Tad Devine helped create the superdelegate system.

[JackRiddler]

42. So, am I Tad Devine?

Let me check... no, I am not!

[Tarc]

4. Perhaps because math is factual, and not subject to emotion-driven rhetoric

The Democrats' system of proportional delegate allocation makes it virtually impossible to catch up at this point.

[JackRiddler]

9. Your claim is in no way relevant here.

And does not address what I wrote. Please don't feel you need to reply again. Thank you.

[Tarc]

32. As Herm Edwards said, "you play to win the game"

If Sanders keeps on like this, he won't have much of a say at platform-crafting time either. How much of an influence he has will largely depend on his actions on April 27th.

[JackRiddler]

34. Life guidance: platitudes from former NFL coaches!

I expect you and I do not even agree on what "the game" is.

[whatchamacallit]

51. ^^^This^^^

[TheDormouse]

5. Whoever the winner is, they will need math to get their agenda enacted

if they actually take the White House.

We've seen what happens when you win the White House but don't have majorities in Congress and don't have sympathetic justices on the Supreme Court.

[JackRiddler]

22. As Clinton has no fixed agenda whatsoever, it will be easy for her!

But I am unfair. Beneath the ever-changing bullshit du jour of the rhetoric, she has a very consistent record. Never met a war she didn't like, never failed to serve the corporate interest especially when it's her payday, rarely failed to screw the poor.

By the way, to translate what you wrote: "We" have seen what happens when New Democrat neoliberal politics shrink your party in Congress. Sanders and the progressive caucus have not been in charge. The failure of the Democratic party to hold majorities is the product of 24 years of Clintonista, "New Democrat," neoliberal, "No We Can't" politics.

[artislife]

30. Yes, she does

She will work better with a republican congress than Trump.

[LuvLoogie]

6. In a representative democracy, one needs numbers to pass legislation.

The relative liberal or conservative character of those laws is directly related to numbers/votes. Money is used to reach voters that will elect their representatives. There is a lot of math involved.

Campaigns need to deal with the math, while their candidates deal with the message. National politics requires a lot of networking and actual logistics, physical presence, i.e. the face to face, looking you in the eye forming of alliances. Phoning it in to the choir on a one hour per week radio show is not enough.

That is why Bernie can't get over the top. In thirty years he never left Vermont.

[JackRiddler]

13. No.

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

In any politics, one needs persistence to get numbers.

Surrendering because a round looks bad is preemptive capitulation.

Losing a round doesn't end the fight. 2017 will follow 2016. If the president is a neoliberal machine politician -- someone who embodies the domination of big money in politics, who supports more war, and who isn't ready to address the destruction of the ecological basis for human life on this planet -- then people will just have to fight to push or replace said politician. Tough. There is absolutely no reason for Sanders to surrender that fight now, or for you to expect that it does not continue into the future.

[LuvLoogie]

46. Not asking you to surrender. But you're swinging for the fences

without knowing the strike zone. Bernie is a mid-series, walk-on DH who wants to be declared MVP of the team while trashing his teammates and blaming the managers for his .100 average.

[sentenza607]

7. Fair enough... nt

[SFnomad]

8. Denial of math is denial of reality n/t

[JackRiddler]

10. This platitude does not address the subject.

I am not denying math, although I may deny your "math." In any case, math is at best a tool for mapping reality, it is not equivalent to reality. That is all irrelevant, however.

If the subject is politics, then politics may be more important to many people than your own calculations. Perhaps they prefer to fight for what they believe in, rather than simply assent to some claimed majority will in favor of what they do not support. Tough.

Since you're so reality based and have quick, reflexive resonses, please don't feel you need to ever reply to anything I write again. Thank you.

[SFnomad]

11. The OP (subject) states ... How about I don't care about "math." ... sounds like denial to me. n/t

[JackRiddler]

15. Only if you lack reading comprehension

beyond a level so literal-minded that you'd barely be able to walk. Also, if you are incapable of understanding the meaning of punctuation. Tough shit if you are, I'm not writing for you anyway. Please feel free never to address me again. There are plenty of other threads for you to trash with your meaningless, partisan, reflexive nonsense. Thank you.

[SFnomad]

17. You people sure are suffering from a lot of sour grapes ... Tuesday is going to be hard for you n/t

[JackRiddler]

19. "You people"? I speak for myself.

I am not a cog in a machine.

[SFnomad]

20. You sound just like another cog of the BS cheerleader squad n/t

[Octafish]

12. Thank you for keeping the "Democracy" in the Democratic Party!

The steamrolling reminds me of the Brooks Brothers Riot in Florida.

[LuvLoogie]

48. Sometimes getting out-voted feels like getting steamrolled.

[KingFlorez]

14. Not one primary has been canceled

It just doesn't appear that the rest of the primaries will dramatically alter the trajectory.

[JackRiddler]

16. You are not addressing the OP.

The point is that "math" is not an argument for surrendering one's political convictions. The disagreements, the conflicts, are real.

[brush]

52. You probably need to start a party with your political convictions then because the Dem . . .

party has chosen Clinton.

I hear Bernie has already filed as an independent for his 2018 reelection run so maybe you guys can get together, you know, kick around a few ideas. Hell, the states will even pay for you primaries if you get it up and running. Not a bad deal, huh?

You'll have to give up those caucuses though that Bernie does so well in as parties have to pay for their own caucuses, that is unless you want to foot the bill for their exclusivity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The realighmnet is almost complete

why you are hearing some very familiar themes from 2000



That includes "no we can't." Oh so inspirational...

This will be an amusing "election" to watch, including November, What we are seeing is a dress rehearsal.

[oberliner]

23. Change the undemocratic rules of the primary?

What are the undemocratic rules of the primary?

[JackRiddler]

26. As if you mean that question honestly.

Superdelegates.

Finance (something that the party could put rules on for qualifying in party primaries).

Debate decisions, including collaboration with the likes of CNN etc. in the trivialization.

Arbitrary sequencing of contests without any kind of advance discussion on what would be fair.

Arbitrarily different rules in each state.

Closed primaries and other devices to reduce participation.

[oberliner]

28. What about caucuses?

Do you think those should be done away with altogether and replaced with primaries?

[JackRiddler]

31. Probably. A very big discussion has to be opened up on all of it.

Caucuses are obviously exclusionary, but that doesn't mean primaries aren't also structurally rigged. Democracy is meaningful if there is a rational, fair, open and consistent set of processes that allow candidates without name recognition to gain it and have a fair share of the exposure, that create real substantive debate on issues rather than "horse race" bullshit, and that everyone can understand easily and participate in.

[oberliner]

36. Agreed

I think the whole system definitely ought to be looked at. There is certainly a lack of consistency across the states, that's for sure.

[mythology]

33. Super delegates aren't going to impact the race

There were debates, unless you want them to not be aired, I don't see how you can schedule them without tv networks. Airing them on the internet isn't going to work yet.

Who defines what is "fair" in terms of the sequence? You do realize that even if you reversed the order, Clinton would still be ahead right? It's not her fault that Sanders didn't win southern states. Obama managed to win them in 2008.

A closed primary doesn't reduce participation. There's no cost to registering as a member of the party. Anybody can do it.

[JackRiddler]

35. Superdelegates already impacted the race.

When on Day 1, before anyone had voted, CNN & Co. could announce that Clinton had a 600-delegate lead!

[highprincipleswork]

29. Fully agree. Well-expressed. All the nit-pickers who mostly care only about "winning" are

missing the point.

This is supposed to be our democracy.

We are supposed to be represented.

It is supposed to be for us, not thrust down our throat.

I hope the Democratic Party learns the right, INCLUSIVE lessons from this primary season, and does not act vengefully, or in an exclusive, punishing way, or fails to recognize the broad-based appeal of Progressive values that have gotten both candidates this far.

If we see the typical retributions, enemy list appointments, swing to the Right bullshit, then we know the Democratic Party will continue its ever-narrowing spiral into more defeat and irrelevancy.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

40. Over ten million Americans have voted for Clinton

Isn't it their democracy too?

[highprincipleswork]

43. If all you want is your selves, then enjoy your party. You may or may not win in November.

Probably Hillary will go back rightward, where she feels most comfortable. I guess you guys must feel comfortable there too. If you don't, learn to live with it.

[Faux pas]

38. Kickin'

[Betty Karlson]

50. That was one amazing piece of straight-talking!

Many thanks for posting it.

[JackRiddler]

72. Thank you.

[jwirr]

54. K&R

[Dem2]

55. Sanders is a good candidate

Perhaps he's not the right person for the job at this time, but it's encouraging to see how readily accepted his message has been. I hope we see more movement in this direction over time. I see you like the word nomenklatura, not sure we have a Communist system here, but I catch your drift as a synonym for "establishment cronies".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Math: Your "choice" - 2 tbsps arsenic is "not as bad" as 1 tbsp of arsenic = dead.

[redstateblues]

64. It will be interesting to see how many "revolutionaries"

Turn out for the mid terms. That is where the truth of Bernies so called revolution will be told. Will he use his popularity to get other progressives elected or will he return to being a back bencher? Hopefully the former.

[JackRiddler]

68. That's two years away.

Politics is not only about voting or passively expecting politicians in a rotten system to change anything. I'm sure you will see millions march and organize for change against the neoliberal establishment all through 2017, no matter who is president. Fight for $15, ending student debt, BLM, immigration reform, getting big money out of politics, the fight against TPP, the movement to end fossil fuel use and all the rest of the currents that have largely coalesced behind Sanders will not go away -- and we can hope they will be joined by a newly robust peace movement against the perpetual war policy that so damages our nation and the world.

[Beacool]

69. It's called an election, not a coronation.

One candidate has received more votes and pledged delegates than the other. It may suck to be on the losing end, but facts are facts. That doesn't mean that Sanders is not entitled to stay in the race until the last vote has been cast.

As for the "undemocratic" rules of the party, the only undemocratic part of the process are caucuses, not closed primaries. Caucuses disenfranchise far too many people. IMO every state should have a closed primary. Want to vote in a primary? Then join a party. Why should outsiders have a right to choose a party's nominee? If you're not a member of a club, would you be entitled to decide who runs said club? Of course not. Have some skin in the game and join a party, if not, wait until the GE to vote.

[JackRiddler]

75. It's called a convention and it does not only elect candidates.

I'd like to see a maximum of pro-Sanders non-Clinton delegates there, no matter who ends up getting the nomination.

[uponit7771]

70. Math is a progressives friend

[JackRiddler]

71. Math may be but "math" is not.

Progressive politics is not about the hopeless "math" with which the establishment works to shut everyone up. Progressive politics doesn't stop because it isn't viewed as feasible by self-same establishment. Otherwise no status quo would have ever changed.

[uponit7771]

73. syntax, facts matter not the Benghazi mindset of making shit up. Sanders camp doesn't get to

...define what is or isn't progressive.

Their candidate doesn't hold the gavel for progressiveness at all

#SandersSoSanctifiied

[JackRiddler]

74. Your post: Generic nonsense unrelated to anything in this thread.

Please don't feel that you ever need to respond to anything I write again. Don't want to trouble you. Thanks!

[uponit7771]

76. related to your post though, Sanders is not a progressive standard bearer relative to the facts

[JackRiddler]

78. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

You've done your service, please don't feel more is necessary.

[JackRiddler]

79. Still my view & timely.

Think of what a better country this would be if the politically involved did not waste a minute talking about hairstyles and personal bullshit, or the products of the largely for-profit polling industry, and instead debated issues in an effort to persuade each other of their positions on the grounds of logic, evidence, ethics and morality.