People want Bernie Sanders and his issues treated seriously and with respect. That's fine. I think we should. So now that the horse race numbers are clearer (when you talk about horse race numbers, Bernie finishes second. That's not disrespect, it's honesty) about NY and the primary, maybe we can focus on the issues. And maybe better define what they should be.
Doyle McManus:
Bernie Sanders can still win the Democratic presidential nomination — but it's going to take a miracle. Actually, several miracles. He'll need to win the primary next week in New York, where polls show him running well behind Hillary Clinton. Then he'll need to win most of the mid-Atlantic states, including Pennsylvania. And he'll need to win big in California and New Jersey in June; small margins of victory won't give him the number of delegates he needs to overtake Clinton's substantial lead. That's not a conspiracy; it's just arithmetic.
And that's OK. This is a case where coming close will still count for something.
From the beginning of his improbable run, Sanders has had two goals in mind. One was to become the Democratic nominee; the other was to build a grass-roots movement that could bring about a “political revolution” from the left.
Sanders and his supporters haven't given up on the first goal. But they're also running his campaign with that second, longer-term goal firmly in mind.
Last week, a voter in New York asked the Vermont senator what he would do if he doesn't win. Most candidates would have batted the query away. Sanders said: “That is a wonderful question.”
It is a wonderful question (and Bernie agrees). How about, for example, taking the delegate allocations seriously? Greg Sargent is on it:
Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders emphatically declared that there’s still plenty of time to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning a majority of delegates, and hinted that if so, he might move to extract concessions from her at a contested convention. That actually could happen, since Sanders has the money to keep on going until the last votes are cast.
If so, here’s one way this could end: Sanders could demand concessions in the form of reforms to the Democratic nominating process. That’s something voting reformers (and a lot of Sanders supporters) would be very grateful to see happen — and it would make sense, given that one of the big stories of the Sanders challenge is that it has exposed a number of flaws with that process.
Closed primaries like NY, maybe with better and less outlandish registration rules? Semi-closed (D’s and unaffiliated but no R’s) primaries like Rhode island?
As for the superdelegates, with a caveat, note this:
The caveat is that in 2008 depending how you reckon, O probably won that year, too.
Posted so you can directly compare, on policy:
TRANSCRIPT: Hillary Clinton meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 9, 2016
TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016
The above led to today’s Daily News endorsement of Clinton NYDN front page here)
An interesting thing comes out of the above Clinton interview from Kevin Drum (bolded):
This isn't breaking news or anything, but it's a surprisingly direct defense of plain old politics, which modern politicians are supposed to condemn with extreme prejudice. Politics is the problem, not the solution. It's why Washington doesn't work. Too many Beltway folks playing the same old political games.
But as Clinton says, that's not really true. Like anything, political maneuvering can go too far. But the problem with Washington these days is too little politics, not too much. Bring back earmarks! Bring back logrolling and back-scratching! Bring back carrots and sticks! Bring back conference committees! Bring back a bit of give and take.
You don't hear politicians defend the grubby business of politics very often these days. It's nice to hear it once in a while.
Ari Melber with a superdelegate tale… from 2008 (Seeking Superdelegates):
The superdelegate debate continues to play out across cyberspace and the entire party. More than 400,000 activists have already backed the democratic standard for superdelegates through an online petition from MoveOn.org (which endorsed Obama). Prominent Democrats unaffiliated with either campaign, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile, proclaim that superdelegates must ratify the voters’ will. Even some pro-Clinton superdelegates are echoing that position, like Representatives John Lewis and David Lewis, who withdrew Clinton endorsements after their districts overwhelmingly backed Obama. Whether driven by voters or the spotlight of Internet activism, a democratic standard augurs more attrition for Clinton than Obama. That’s because twenty-two superdelegate politicians backing Clinton hail from areas Obama has won, while only twelve Obama backers face the reverse quandary, according to Congressional Quarterly.
which, btw, puts this piece in perspective.
But superdelegates can ratify the voter’s will in different ways. By district? By state? By national numbers? Nothing is simple, and as always the answer in a given cycle depends on who you are for.
Josh Putnam:
On Democratic Party Rules Changes for 2020
This is a thorny set of issues that involves state-level traditions that stretch back more than just a cycle or two and partisan divisions between state government control and the national parties. Very simply, the national parties have managed the nomination system to varying degrees in the post-reform era by deferring to the states on a number of issues to allow states to better tailor a plan that works for them but also within an overarching set of national party guidelines.
That is an institutionalized feature of the process that seeks to overcome a multifaceted coordination problem: nominating a presidential candidate within two diverse, big tent parties.
The problem with eliminating superdelegates is a little different. There is no overlap with state party rules or state laws, but nixing those unpledged delegates is an idea that requires superdelegates -- members of the DNC -- to vote to strip themselves of that power. It is not a non-starter, but that idea is a long way from being enacted (even if Sanders supporters sit on the RBC or a commission examining the rules).
The only addition to the list of perennial grievances is the handling of the debates. This is something that is not really codified in the Democratic Party rules. The RNC added debates-curtailing rules to their rulebook, but with mixed results. But even that can get pretty close to the Sununu line.
If one is placing bets on likely rules changes or additions, look to the debates issue. The others are more difficult to manage much less control.
Emma Roller (and see what I bolded):
Democratic Party leaders will also be unlikely to revise their system. As Mr. Putnam, the political scientist from the University of Georgia, said: “Their goal is not democracy, per se. It’s a system that produces a candidate who can win a general election. Sometimes those things don’t align perfectly.”
While Mr. Sanders has made the idea of a “political revolution” central to his campaign, he has been notably reticent about the outsize role that superdelegates play in the nominating process. It’s not hard to figure out why: His campaign still holds out hope that he can peel superdelegates away from Mrs. Clinton as long as he keeps winning states.
“Sanders really can’t be attacking the superdelegates as long as he still hopes to win their support,” Mr. Schnur said. “At the precise moment that he determines that they’re not switching is when he goes on the attack.”
One thing that is difficult to convey, and I know this from arguing about it: polls that show Bernie beating Trump/Cruz do not mean he’s a better fall candidate. The superdelegates don’t believe it, either. If they did, guess who they’d endorse and vote for?
By the time CA rolls around, Hillary needs a small loss and Bernie needs a big, big win. But note George Skelton:
Reformers can kill all the fun. There’s no better example than the California battle shaping up between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Because of past do-gooders, neither candidate can really run up a big score in the June 7 presidential primary.
Sometime reforms don’t have the intent you want. See Josh Marshall:
Former TPMer Greg Sargent has an interesting post today about how the Sanders campaign could end and end well - specifically, by using his clout at the convention to reform the primary process. It's an intriguing suggestion and makes a lot of sense since the Democrats' system could use reforming even if it's not quite as messed up as the Republicans' one. But the problem is that the things most in need of reforming are the only things keeping Sanders in the race. That may sound like a provocation. But it's actually true!
Let me explain.
This is interesting from Tom Hayden, not because of the Hillary angle (he has switched to her), it’s the ‘why’ about D party/progressive unity, and of course, who he is and about what he wants:
So here we are, at the end of one generation on the left and the rise of another. Both camps in the party will need each other in November—more than either side needs to emerge triumphant in the primary. We still need the organizing of a united front of equals to prevail against the Republicans. It will take a thorough process of conflict resolution to get there, not a unilateral power wielding by the usual operatives. It’s up to all of us.
Posted with all due respect. He’s right.
At some point in the near future (different time frame for everyone), we’ll need a pivot to focusing on November. I’m just about there.