Bernie loses MoveOn.org: ‘Undemocratic Superdelegates’ Can't Overturn Voters

[Cali_Democrat]

By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND

One of the largest advocacy groups to endorse Bernie Sanders on Wednesday gently nudged the Vermont senator toward the exit, arguing that the Democratic nomination can't be won on the backs of "undemocratic superdelegates."

The liberal group MoveOn.org suggested in a statement that Hillary Clinton fairly earned the Democratic nomination after Tuesday's primaries by clinching a majority of pledged delegates.

“MoveOn members believe, as we have long advocated, that the nomination should go to the winner of the majority of pledged delegates, and that undemocratic superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters,” MoveOn Political Action's Executive Director, Ilya Sheyman, said in the statement.

Sanders won MoveOn's endorsement in January with over 78 percent of the 340,665 votes cast by the group's members.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/moveon-sanders-undemocratic-superdelegates

[scscholar]

1. Funny how he called them undemocratic superdelegates when he didn't neede them, but...

as soon as he couldn't win without their help, he suddenly did a 180 degree flip-flop.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Because he's a hypocrite. nt

[wildeyed]

15. He's a politician.

By definition a hypocrite. They all are to some degree. Part of the job. What has always chapped my hide is the way he pretends to be above it all. It's ok when he does it, but everyone else is held to much higher standards

[panader0]

8. "undemocratic superdelegates" is a quote from Move On.

[LanternWaste]

22. When did Sanders call super-delegates 'undemocratic?'

When did Sanders call super-delegates 'undemocratic?'

[workinclasszero]

37. Read this

Today in Bernie Sanders Hypocrisy
Superdelegates are bad, but they used to be good, and they'll be good again if they vote for him at the Convention.

Bernie Sanders doesn't like superdelegates. Neither do members of Bernie's staff, nor Bernie's legions of supporters. Superdelegates are unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic. These party elites, who get to vote however they want, shouldn't be counted in assessments of the Democratic primary race. Superdelegates "don't count until they vote, and they don't vote until we get to the convention," Bernie's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said on CNN last month.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a45267/bernie-sanders-superdelegates/

[Loudestlib]

82. So he didn't?

Didn't think so.

[larkrake]

52. lots of people say that and it is true. SGs usurp the public will

[Hortensis]

31. "He" is the MoveOn.org person in this case.

[workinclasszero]

35. Flip flopped in a heartbeat

SMH

[MADem]

2. Sanders ASKED for that meeting with the White House, too.

That was being spun in a different way yesterday.

I hope Obama gives him a talking-to. He needs to stop this petulant stuff. It's just making him look bad.

Nothing wrong with a "Dream will never die" speech, but he needs to show that his gears are oiled and he's prepared to pivot. I haven't seen that to this point.

[democrattotheend]

4. The fact that Bernie requested it is encouraging

And that Obama agreed to it. If Bernie planned to keep fighting until the convention, I doubt the president would want to meet with him and risk giving him legitimacy.

[MADem]

11. If he tries to lay down conditions to the head of the party, it could go wobbly.

I really hope it isn't that kind of meeting.

I hope it's a "What do you want me to do to help?" kind of meeting, and Obama stresses the "Unity/Stronger Together" message.

[democrattotheend]

33. Hillary had plenty of conditions in 2008

They just weren't policy-related. She wanted help paying off debt and she wanted her name placed into nomination at the convention (I think the way the roll call went down was a compromise). Unlike some, I don't think she asked for or was offered the SOS position in exchange for her support.

I think it's more noble if Bernie is seeking policy concessions or reforms to the party nomination process rather than personal ones.

That said, I don't think Obama is the person he would be asking for concessions at this point. He is only president for another 6 months and he probably doesn't have a ton of influence over this year's convention or the party platform.

[MADem]

34. I don't think anyone would have a problem with those "conditions."

Those aren't "conditions," either--they're simple requests that anyone with a sense of history would honor.

It WAS a "Big Effing Deal" that Clinton went as far as she did as the first woman to mount a credible and sustainable campaign in 2008--she DID crack that glass ceiling, and to act like it wasn't important and worthy of note is beyond wrong.

Had the roles been reversed, and she won and Obama did not, Obama would have been within his rights, in terms of the importance of his run, to ask for and been granted the very same sorts of considerations--his candidacy was historic, TOO.

Obama remains the Head of the Party, and he will stay the Head of the Party until he leaves office and a new Congress is sworn in. He does have clout and will keep it, certainly from now until November (and likely long after).

He's going to be very visible out on the campaign trail, too. He has some of those "coattails," as well!

[larkrake]

53. one demand was being the SoS

[SFnomad]

66. You have proof of this where? n/t

[brush]

36. Is it just me, but shouldn't he be having that meeting with Hillary?

Is there some underlying sexism going on there?

He goes over her head to the President instead of asking her how he can help?

What's up with that?

[MADem]

40. It's not just you. HE should have called HER, too, to congratulate her on her wins.

The LOSER calls the WINNER--not the other way around.

He lacks couth. His own staff called it right: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

[democrattotheend]

64. He did call her on Tuesday night

I believe he said in his speech that he had spoken to her and congratulated her on her wins.

[MADem]

65. No, no no---SHE called HIM and told him she was declaring victory. It was THEN that he

"congratulated her."

He did NOT pick up the phone and make the first move, as he should have. And she was the one who was "gracious," not him:


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282648-sanders-clinton-speak-after-tuesday-primaries

Bernie Sanders spoke with Hillary Clinton in what he called a "gracious" conversation late Tuesday night, despite his promise to fight on in the presidential primary even as she's effectively clinched the Democratic nomination.

"Tonight, I had a very gracious call from Secretary Clinton and congratulated her on her victories tonight," Sanders told the audience at a California rally.
"Our fight is to transform this country and to understand that we are in this together, and to understand that all of what we believe is what the majority of the American people believe."

The crowd loudly booed upon the mention of Clinton. Sanders put up both hands as to quiet the crowd, but did not directly address the response.

It's just bad form, but I imagine after decades of slights on this line, she's used to it. There would be testosterone a-blazin' if Clinton had been a guy and didn't get "his propers" from the loser. But she looks up, which--I gotta give it to her--requires more patience than most people have.

[democrattotheend]

68. So she beat him to it

So what? If I recall, she declared victory after only one state had been called for her (which is fine, because it was enough to put her over the top). But it wouldn't have made sense for Bernie to call to congratulate her on her victories so early in the evening, when 5 out of the 6 states had not yet been called.

[MADem]

71. Huh? It was for him to call her, not the other way around.

The LOSER calls the winner. That's how it works.

Sanders knew what the night was going to look like from the returns at that point. He also knew that, no matter WHAT, Clinton had the preponderance of pledged delegates and there was no way he was going to get enough for it to matter (he's known that for months, now).

She got two endorsements that matter today--POTUS and WARREN.

So she's on her way....it doesn't matter any more, what Sanders didn't do last Tuesday.

[democrattotheend]

72. I'm sure he would have

But considering there were 5 states left to announce returns, it didn't really make a lot of sense to call her after the first one. She chose to call him to give him a heads up that she was going to declare victory, which was gracious of her.

Dude, you won. Congratulations! Shouldn't you be celebrating or working to get her elected instead of quibbling over who was supposed to call who and at what time?

[MADem]

73. When Sanders endorses, and takes to the hustings, it will be done.

Until then there's unfinished business.

If Warren ends up as the VP, though, it won't really matter what Sanders says or does. He'll fade to the background.

The local news is speculating heavily in that regard. Boy, would that please me!

They've been touting her endorsement of Clinton all day ,as well.

[democrattotheend]

74. I don't like the idea of Warren as Hillary's VP

If they had a good working relationship and Hillary actually wanted her as VP and wanted to give her a big role like the last 2 VP's have had I would be all for it, but from what I have read that is not the case. If Hillary is just going to pick her to throw a bone to the Bernie supporters and then keep her outside the inner circle during her presidency I would rather keep her in the Senate.

[MADem]

75. Why don't you tune in and see what Warren has to say about HRC.

You apparently don't realize this, but they've been meeting REGULARLY for months, now.

They know each other WELL.

There's a reason why she signed that Run-Hill-Run letter.

[democrattotheend]

76. I read an article today that said they are not particularly close

And another one a few weeks ago that said Hillary would only pick her if she felt she had to to unify the party. Maybe those articles were wrong, but that is what I have read.

[MADem]

77. Oh, I am sure you did. But I'd recommend that you not believe everything you read.

This is an OLD link, and there have been more since then:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/232942-hillary-clinton-and-elizabeth-warren-met-one-on-one-in-december

[larkrake]

44. why should he meet Hill before the convention?

[CreekDog]

56. To confide in her that he got beat by a girl

[larkrake]

57. LOL

[Blanks]

29. Technically he's just gonna stand outside the Oval Office...

In case Obama leaves and 'meet' with him.

[Hortensis]

32. No. Really, no. President Obama and Senator Sanders

are going to have a professional meeting between two political professionals. They both have power, they both intend to use it, and they both know it. And if Sanders gets testy and combative, President Obama will deal with it. He's also very good at respecting, as demonstrated by personally meeting with Sanders at this point.

[MADem]

41. LOL! Actually HE asked Obama for the meeting--it's not like Obama wanted to pick his brain.

I think Obama is taking the time to see him to lay down the law. Obama is head of the party under whose banner Sanders ran his campaign, and he'd better understand how things work. I think Obama will help clarify much of this for him.

[larkrake]

45. no, Obama respects Bernie, he wont take him to task over anything. Bernie called this meet

not Obama. Bernie is not stretching reason in waiting for the convention. Obama is not his master.

[MADem]

47. Obama is the head of the party. I think Sanders needs to understand that if he wants to

play in our club, he needs to listen to the BOSS.

That IS how it works.

You should read this carefully: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041


Those are Bernie's OWN people talking about him. Hmmm.

[larkrake]

48. the rules allow Bernie to go all the way, Obama wound not assume to Bully and Sanders wont accept an

unlawful order. Bernie has never tolerated bullying and would react badly. It is moot because Obama has too much class to inject himself beyond advising.

[MADem]

59. The rules allow Sanders to sit down after he loses on the first ballot.

He can lose graciously, or he can be a badass jerk. It's up to him.

Obama will be CAMPAIGNING for Hillary Clinton very soon.
He will be doing a lot more than "advising."

FWIW, this isn't the military (LOL@ "unlawful order). But Obama is the head of the party, and the party, as a private entity, can do as it pleases--to include telling members that they need to shape up or kiss any party help goodbye.


It's obvious you have no understanding of how this whole game works.

[larkrake]

62. Has there been any party help?I dont see it,in fact all Bernie opposition and dirtytricks have come

from the Party, shamelessly. The next progressive wont be nice and decide not to run third party. after this ridiculous election, both partys will be avoided by the masses. If DNC goes hard line on Bernie, there will be an exodus from the Party, a hemmorage, leaving only 3rd way and blind followers, and third party will spoil all dem elections in the future. I am a democrat, not a slave. I will not be told "our way or the hiway".

This is not a game, and no one has to play it. Corruption is serious, peoples lives are serious business, not a game. If the party wont work for the people, then damn them, expose them.

I am not loyal to a stupid party, I am loyal to democratic ideals. Until the convention rules state you must conceed before the vote, then call it, but until then, sit down and shut the **** up.

[qdouble]

21. Lordy...

the hardcore fans will throw anybody under the bus, friend or foe

[MADem]

25. Sanders' own staff has already thrown him under the bus.

This article's source is nothing but Sanders campaign insiders:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

When the campaign insiders are throwing shade, it's over.

[larkrake]

46. thats very common and pointless, Hills staff has said worse things about her forever

including WH staff and Secret Service

[MADem]

49. You are deliberately ignoring inconvenient truths. Hillary's campaign MANAGER

didn't talk to a reporter about her. This is Weaver, Devine, Casca-- the "close to the throne" well-paid, hand-holding-the-boss INSIDERS, who are being precisely, word-for-word QUOTED, calling their boss everything save a loose cannon.

You can't compare those people to some no-chin let-go Secret Service agent whose stories have been refuted as a pack of lies--and that IS what you're trying to do.



You want to see what it's like to have your immediate staff turn on you? Read the article. They're TURNING on him.

And for those people to say those things, I can only conclude that he behaved rather badly towards them, and they don't want to take the blame for his screwups--perhaps they anticipate him doing just that, so they're getting out in front of the story.

This is some ugly shit: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

There are many divisions within the Sanders campaign—between the dead-enders and the work-it-out crowds, between the younger aides who think he got off message while the consultants got rich and obsessed with Beltway-style superdelegate math, and between the more experienced staffers who think the kids got way too high on their sense of the difference between a movement and an actual campaign.
But more than any of them, Sanders is himself filled with resentment, on edge, feeling like he gets no respect -- all while holding on in his head to the enticing but remote chance that Clinton may be indicted before the convention.....Sanders has been on email and the phone, directing elements of the campaign right down to his city-by-city schedule in California. He wants it. He thinks it should be his.
“Bernie’s been at the helm of this campaign from the beginning,” said Weaver, “and the overall message of this campaign and the direction of the campaign and the strategy, has been driven by Bernie.”
Convinced as Sanders is that he’s realizing his lifelong dream of being the catalyst for remaking American politics—aides say he takes credit for a Harvard Kennedy School study in April showing young people getting more liberal, and he takes personal offense every time Clinton just dismisses the possibility of picking him as her running mate—his guiding principle under attack has basically boiled down to a feeling that multiple aides sum up as: “Screw me? No, screw you.”
Take the combative statement after the Nevada showdown.
“I don’t know who advised him that this was the right route to take, but we are now actively destroying what Bernie worked so hard to build over the last year just to pick up two fucking delegates in a state he lost,” rapid response director Mike Casca complained to Weaver in an internal campaign email obtained by POLITICO.
“Thank you for your views. I’ll relay them to the senator, as he is driving this train,” Weaver wrote back.

That, to me, sounds like people who HATE what they are doing. They see no future to believe in, quite obviously. The only question, really, is how long has this tension been going on?

The books, I suspect, are going to be best sellers.

[larkrake]

50. drivvel

[MADem]

54. Describing your response is not a substitute for making one. nt

[riversedge]

61. Try coming out of your Bernie bubble for some fresh air.

[MADem]

67. Not sure what you mean by "common and pointless." The point that they -- his own staff--are making

is that

a) he didn't listen to them,

b) he didn't take their advice,

c) he thought he knew better than professional campaign managers,

d) he micro-managed, he did stupid, petty, mean-spirited things, and that

e) he, in essence, is responsible for his own shitty campaign.

They are plainly frustrated, they aren't taking the blame, and they're getting out there EARLY and letting people know in NO uncertain terms who was driving the bus they're refusing to get under.

Like I said, I'll bet the books those guys write will be PAGE TURNERS. I'll buy.

[Skwmom]

5. The heads of Move On have always been for Clinton as evidenced by their actions and memos

they sent out during the primary process.

Amazing how they have no problem with all the undemocratic manipulations that took place during the primary process but then again they played a role in part of them.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. MoveOn endorsed Bernie Sanders

MoveOn endorses Bernie Sanders

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265526-moveon-endorses-bernie-sanders

[NurseJackie]

18. Yes they did ...

... How quickly they forget when rushing to toss someone under the bus.

[Skwmom]

39. The supporters are quite different from the leaders. You need look no further than the unions...

[CreekDog]

58. Move On's endorsement of Sanders was rigged for Hillary

[TwilightZone]

7. They endorsed Sanders

[snooper2]

10. IT IS ALL A CONSPIRACY!

[MADem]

12. Your facts are, quite simply, out of order. That isn't true at all.

And since when is "the will of the voters" considered "undemocratic manipulations?"

He lost. There's a reason why his biggest victories were caucuses--he was not able to deliver actual voters to polls.

[gollygee]

24. That isn't true

Where are you getting that? They've been very clearly for Bernie all along.

[RandySF]

60. .

[Orsino]

9. Sorry, but overturning voters is part of the job description.

I think we actually need them, maybe, to prevent our being saddled with some sort of Trumpish dumbass for a nominee.

Implicit in their role is the ability (but statistical improbability) of their opposing a majority of pledged delegates. Sanders can't really be counting on that at this point. All he's really telling us is that voting is and can only be done at the convention, and Sanders wants to be there with all the delegates he's won, inconvenient though their visibility will be to the Establishment.

He's not going to be the nominee, barring some sort of disaster I wouldn't wish on the party. He's still going to try to make the party something different and better, and he's going to do it in front of as many cameras as possible.

[MADem]

13. If he doesn't "do a Clinton" and graciously concede, as she did (asking to suspend the vote

and install Obama by acclamation) then he will come off as a churlish crank. I hope he doesn't make it drag out until the end.

If he breaks off his most ardent followers, we'll just have to work harder. He's not going to threaten his way into concessions by the victor--that isn't how it works. I am hopeful that he understands this, and this kind of chatter is coming from angry supporters and not Sanders, himself.

Sanders should have called Clinton last night--the fact that he didn't is a bit (but only a bit--I am not losing sleep) bothersome to me.

[larkrake]

19. she conceded at the convention, but Bernie is not allowed that without being a crank?

[MADem]

26. She did not "concede at the convention" -- perhaps you forget her campaigning for Obama ahead of it?

Good grief, if you're going to make untrue accusations at least make ones that aren't so easily refuted.

She congratulated Obama, threw her support behind him, and went to work flipping her supporters towards him. BEFORE the convention.

How can anyone not remember this? It was just eight years ago.



She stopped the vote at the convention that nominated Obama, and asked for a vote by acclamation.


If Sanders doesn't do likewise, he'll come off as, yes, a crank. And given some of the things his OWN staff have been saying lately, we'll just have to see how that all goes...

[larkrake]

30. thats my point, she did it at the convention

and sanders is already calling for unity, so what is the debate here. The article calls him a crank before he is one. If Bernie does not have enough SGs, he will do the same, so why assume the worst? Why is there hate for this mountain of a man? What is the rush? Why isnt he allowed to fight to the end for his followers? The only enthusiam on the dem side is Bernies people. If you want the enthusiasm to revert to Hillary, why disrespect their leader? It is counter productive to be so vicious to a major leader who would bring in Indys and some progressives.

[MADem]

42. Sanders isn't calling for unity--he's not calling for anything save a win in DC, which will not

happen.

He's going to have his behind handed to him in the last contest, too.

There is something going on with Sanders that even his supporters aren't getting. That POLITICO article rips the scab off. Those are the words of HIS staff, HIS team, HIS most ardent supporters--and they paint a rather UNFLATTERING picture of a guy who is not ready for prime time at all.

[larkrake]

43. one note voice here

[MADem]

51. I beg your pardon? Look in your own mirror~! nt

[charlyvi]

83. MADem, Larkrake

I'm enjoying the shit out of this!!!

[Duval]

79. Just hang it up, larkrake.

I agree with what you say, but I don't think "they" will engage in a discussion that goes contrary to their "belief system".

[larkrake]

81. maybe, I dont have much faith

its all in Hills hands- does she want to alienate a swath of voters or unify

[apcalc]

27. She conceded before the convention.

[Orsino]

20. Showing up with heavy support is how to win in a democracy.

It's not legal for our two candidates to cut a deal for support. Sanders has promised to campaign all the way to the convention, and I believe him.

The Establishment leadership of our party is going to need to accommodate part of Sanders' agenda if they really want to keep all of his voters. I am eager to know how his presence changes Philly.

[DCBob]

14. That's a ridiculous pipe dream. They have never done it and they never will.

Especially this year when the Supers almost unanimously agree with the voters.

[Orsino]

23. That's more or less what I said. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

16. MoveOn always said SDs should vote with PDs.

That's always been my position.

And it's always been the position of Super Delegate Christine Pelosi, which the AP misleadingly counted as a Clinton SD on Monday night when the AP declared the election over to suppress the vote.

[Beacool]

17. The super delegate system has been in place since 1984.

I find it interesting how this is the first election where there has been such outrage about their use. In reality, they only have served to push the winner of the primaries over the finish line.

In 2008, a majority of super delegates switched from Hillary to Obama because he was ahead in pledged delegates. Mind you, his advantage was only 102 delegates and the popular vote was close too. Even so, the party did the right thing and nominated the winner of the primaries.

Why is this year treated any differently? As of today, according to RCP, Hillary is ahead by 380 pledged delegates. In the popular vote she's ahead by over 3M.

Therefore, why is there an attempt to make her win illegitimate when she's further ahead in all metrics than Obama was in 2008????

If anything, the one trying to game the system is the candidate who is far behind in every metric.

[MADem]

28. And (double laugh) the guy who helped craft the SD system was Sanders' Big Money Advisor.

Talk about playing both ends against the middle!

Even more to the point, he's a good friend and once a co-worker of the bum running TRUMP's campaign~~!!!!

[azurnoir]

38. guess they didn't want to bite the hand that's feeds so to speak

MoveOn is funded in large part by George Soros who supports Hillary Hillary Clinton - simple survival really

[RandySF]

55. .

[azurnoir]

63. Do you want to push MoveOn under the bus for not supporting Hillary earlier?

I stated simple reality but whatever

[Cali_Democrat]

69. Updated to include link. nt

[eastwestdem]

70. I stopped following them on social media last year...please keep us posted

when it's safe to read their stuff again.

[Duval]

78. Too bad.

Move On will lose many members support for back tracking. The reason they endorsed Sanders in the first place is because they sent out questions to all members asking whom they should support. The answer was Sanders, by a very wide margin.

[Florencenj2point0]

80. I was a founding member of Move On

I was in the original E-mail group named FOB or Friends Of Bill, during the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Move-On was formed to encourage the senate to censure and "move on". ...... does anyone else remember the balloon disaster?

Anyway, good for them, they still have some standards.