Monday, June 20, 2016

CBC: No Cuts to Superdelegates. They Don’t Want the "Burdensome Necessity of Competing Against Constituents."


Writer and radio host Benjamin Dixon

by Gaius Publius

The news is that the negotiation ahead of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia around the rules by which the Party will conduct future primaries has hit another bump, this time over the number and role of superdelegates. Sanders would like far fewer, either zero or a number not sufficient to predetermine the outcome of an election. (In Texas, the platform also calls for superdelegates to be prevented from voting on the first ballot, but that won't fly nationally, I'm sure.)

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) disagrees with his proposal, strongly.

Before we launch into this, I want to remind you there are two pieces to this story, not just one. The first is the news itself, brought to you via Politico (immediately below). The second is how to understand the news, brought to you by Benjamin Dixon (below the Politico story). Please consider both pieces as you digest this part of the Democratic saga.

Politico (my emphasis throughout):
Sanders collides with black lawmakers

The Congressional Black Caucus 'vehemently' opposes Sanders' call to abolish superdelegates.

Bernie Sanders is on a crash course with the Congressional Black Caucus.

In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the CBC is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the party’s superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. "The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process." ...

"We passed a resolution in our caucus that we would vehemently oppose any change in the superdelegate system because members of the CBC might want to participate in the Democratic convention as delegates but if we would have to run for the delegate slot at the county level or state level or district level, we would be running against our constituents and we're not going to do that,” said Butterfield. “But we want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents."
Politico helpfully undercuts the stated CBC's state reason — the change would add the "burdensome necessity of [our] competing against [our] constituents" (i.e., citizens) — by adding this non-sequitur immediately after:
The opposition to open primaries is based on the fear that allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in Democratic primaries would dilute minority voting strength in many places.
Opposition to no superdelegates and opposition to open primaries are different issues, but only if you're reading carefully.

Politico's framing — in effect, "Sanders tangles with blacks" — enflames the racial conflict without admitting to doing it. Which is where Benjamin Dixon's comments come it.

Dixon writes:
The most pervasive narrative of this election has been that black people love Hillary Clinton and reject Bernie Sanders. This is a false narrative when you consider the actual numbers. The true story is that black Democratic establishment loves Hillary Clinton and has rejected Bernie Sanders. Black people, generally, have rejected the entire system.
Dixon's whole piece is broader and very good. But what's above is all you need to know for the current discussion.

Takeaways: One, don't let organizations like Politico stir the racial pot, as they're doing above, and are sure to continue to do. Race is being used here to divide, in order to prevent structural solutions unfavorable to all establishment elites and institutions, not just those involving minorities.

Two, if Dixon is right, institutional Democrats, of all races, are a group apart from their constituents, as untethered from their constituents' concerns as they wish to be, and institutional Democrats, by and large, want to keep it that way. That why the CBC writes that they prefer the
current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention [because it has] rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents...
Because constituents don't seem to be first on the minds of most institutional Democrats, do they? If they were, they'd run their elections differently. (A point that Sanders, if you've noticed, has been making, with little success.)


Labels: , , , ,


At 4:59 PM, Anonymous Dorothy Reik said...

The California Democratic Party passed a resolution eliminated super delegates. Democratic National Committee members would be able to attend the convention as delegates without running but they would have to vote as their state votes and could not pledge votes early. The resolution was proposed by three party leaders and passed without objection.

At 8:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the CBC want to run the Democratic Party like the 1950s Republicans, I will go where democracy continues to exist.

At 11:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, we know Politico, the New York Time, the Washington Post, NPR, etc., etc., etc. distort and manipulate.

But the analysis here seems to be is a bit incomplete.

There are 714 super delegates. This is 15% of the total number of delegates, pledged plus super. ( ).

The summary of the CBC position " ... the CBC writes that they prefer the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention [because it has] rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents ... Because constituents don't seem to be first on the minds of most institutional Democrats, do they?"

But the current number of Democrats in the House and senate is 232. This is barely a third of the number of super delegates.

Even if one considers the composition of congress immediately after Obama took office, the number of Dems would be about 320, still less than half of the number of super delegates. The proportion goes over 50% only if recent Democratic congressional majorities were to return, Democratic state governors were included as super delegates and Democrats were governors of roughly 40 states.

Therefore, the majority of super delegates ("institutional Democrats") have NO constituents, by definition. Get rid of these, for sure.

The CBC and Sanders have a lot of room for compromise in defining super delegates as ONLY Dem members of congress and Dem governors, for example.

John Puma

At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good augmentation, John.

One must understand the function of these bought delegates. They exist in order to prevent another McCarthy problem for the Ds. When actual voters choose the wrong guy, there must be a way, according to the rules, to overturn the will of those silly voters.

One must also understand how one becomes a bought delegate. One must be a member of congress --OR-- be named by the DNC. And who are these non-members that the DNC names? Well, they are an assortment of moneyed elites, bagmen for the money and lobbyists for the money.
What? You thought these assholes, including members of congress, weren't of, by and for the money if the money names them a bought delegate?
While it is true that they are not bound to any sort of voter proportionality, necessarily (see above), it is ALSO true that they will do the will of the money... or they won't be nom'd ever again to the highest position in the D cathouse.

As for the position wrt closed primaries (and caucuses... moreso), one must only look to the results (wrt Bernie) this cycle to realize why they need these. They serve as LEGAL voter suppression... another mode of preventing an inconvenient nominee for the money.

AND, as we saw this cycle, if the results for the money look in doubt, the DNC can also restrict polling places, hours, and even cull the registered from the rolls in order to reach the predetermined outcome (for the money).

I'm very disappointed, though not particularly surprised, that the CBC is part and parcel to all this corruption and suppression. It's been THEIR voting that made the difference for the money's whore du jour ($hillbillary) getting the nom. Just proves that black voters are morons and blacks who make the big time are just as corrupt as the rest.

Now that Bernie has seen fit to utterly torch his "movement" by admitting that he will vote for $hillbillary... well I feel like a fool for ever letting that pos give me hope. Fuck him. Fuck the CBC. Fuck the bought delegates. Fuck them all.

I'm done with democraps. I had eschewed ever even pondering voting for any R. So I'll vote for Stein again.

You want to see how pointless Bernie's entire campaign was? If Stein gets around 1% again... that'll prove that Bernie flushed the entire year. Another "movement" never to be heard from again.

At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now we are entertained (?) by the CBC concern performance over the latest police executions and inevitable retaliation(s).

Sadly, in America there is no such thing as introspection. If there were, the CBC would realize that some of that blood (and future blood) is on their hands.

If the CBC wanted things to change for the better, they would have insisted on their (idiot) electorate voting for Bernie instead of the SOS candidate $hillbillary.

In campaigning for the $tatu$ quo and against change, they both keep their positions of corruption and money whoring, **PLUS** they guarantee that the carnage will carry on and get worse.

With the D convention shaping up as a betrayal reminiscent of the '68 police riot convention of the Daly machine, social unrest and racism are starting to be reminiscent of the '68 era also.

Fascinating how, when nothing is allowed to change, things stay the same.

Instead of ca$hing their bribery checks, maybe they should have been doing something constructive toward change for the better. But how would THAT make THEM rich???


Post a Comment

<< Home