Significant Democrat Presidential nominating reforms likely
Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,462
Location: Long Island, New York
23 May 2018, 9:34 am
Superdelegates Are No. 1 on the Democratic Party To-Do List
Quote:
Democratic Party officials, desperate to present a unified front in advance of the all-important 2018 midterms, are working to revamp their presidential nominating process and erase the final vestiges of the bitter 2016 presidential primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders.
The most significant, and divisive, step would involve reducing the role and power of superdelegates — the unpledged party insiders who are free to back any candidate regardless of how the public votes — ahead of the 2020 election. Their influence caused substantial tension two years ago when supporters of Mr. Sanders zeroed in on superdelegates as “undemocratic” and said they created an unfair and even rigged system favoring Mrs. Clinton.
Now, party officials, including loyalists held over from both the Sanders and Clinton camps, are inching toward a compromise that would not only minimize the role of superdelegates but change the party’s operational structure as well.
The ideas on the table range from eliminating superdelegates altogether to reducing their numbers significantly — from more than 700 currently to about 280. Some officials said they preferred a proposal in which only elected government officials, and not party leaders, retain their superdelegate status.
The final agreement could be completed in late August, as party officials try to get their house in order and suppress talk of an continuing Clinton-Sanders divide within the Democratic National Committee.
“People are getting to a decent place,” said David Pepper, a committee member and the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “I think there’s an understanding that if we spend all our time in this internal discussion — so much so that it becomes our external message — then we’ve become off message with voters.”
“This conversation needed to happen but it’s internal politics, and we need to get it over with,” Mr. Pepper said. “We need to move on.”
Liberal reformers have already won crucial concessions from D.N.C. officials responsible for leading the party’s overhaul, including higher accountability standards for state parties and likely new rules for state primaries and caucuses aimed at increasing voter participation.
Larry Cohen, the former union president and chairman of “Our Revolution,” Mr. Sanders’s political arm, praised party leaders for following through on their commitments to reforms. His stance suggested that even the often-critical party outsiders who supported Mr. Sanders in the 2016 election have, to this point, largely been kept at bay by the D.N.C. chairman, Tom Perez, and the vice chairman, Keith Ellison.
“This isn’t a repeat of other stuff,” Mr. Cohen said. “They are truly pushing to adopt these reforms and they’re in lock step.”
Yet even as party leaders try to orient Democratic committee members around shared priorities, fissures remain on some key areas of reform, especially the fate of superdelegates. Several D.N.C. officials familiar with the negotiations said the Democrats most averse to change were state party officials and elected members of Congress who would stand to lose their coveted superdelegate status and the exclusive level of candidate access that often accompanies it.
Donna Brazile, the former D.N.C. chairwoman and a member of the party’s important Rules and Bylaws committee, said she would not support a proposal that fully eradicated the superdelegate designation.
We have to make sure that we do this in the right way, in the most responsible way, and superdelegates should be a part of that process,” she said.
“The way we’re framing this conversation right now, we’re discussing removing people from the table who actually set the menu,” Ms. Brazile added. “There’s multiple ways to get at this issue without telling everybody to go to hell. That’s unacceptable.”
Additional changes that will further reshape the 2020 presidential nominating process are also being discussed.
Mr. Perez has independently announced that he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Mr. Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule.
We have to make sure that we do this in the right way, in the most responsible way, and superdelegates should be a part of that process,” she said.
“The way we’re framing this conversation right now, we’re discussing removing people from the table who actually set the menu,” Ms. Brazile added. “There’s multiple ways to get at this issue without telling everybody to go to hell. That’s unacceptable.”
Additional changes that will further reshape the 2020 presidential nominating process are also being discussed.
Mr. Perez has independently announced that he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Mr. Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule.
The most significant, and divisive, step would involve reducing the role and power of superdelegates — the unpledged party insiders who are free to back any candidate regardless of how the public votes — ahead of the 2020 election. Their influence caused substantial tension two years ago when supporters of Mr. Sanders zeroed in on superdelegates as “undemocratic” and said they created an unfair and even rigged system favoring Mrs. Clinton.
Now, party officials, including loyalists held over from both the Sanders and Clinton camps, are inching toward a compromise that would not only minimize the role of superdelegates but change the party’s operational structure as well.
The ideas on the table range from eliminating superdelegates altogether to reducing their numbers significantly — from more than 700 currently to about 280. Some officials said they preferred a proposal in which only elected government officials, and not party leaders, retain their superdelegate status.
The final agreement could be completed in late August, as party officials try to get their house in order and suppress talk of an continuing Clinton-Sanders divide within the Democratic National Committee.
“People are getting to a decent place,” said David Pepper, a committee member and the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “I think there’s an understanding that if we spend all our time in this internal discussion — so much so that it becomes our external message — then we’ve become off message with voters.”
“This conversation needed to happen but it’s internal politics, and we need to get it over with,” Mr. Pepper said. “We need to move on.”
Liberal reformers have already won crucial concessions from D.N.C. officials responsible for leading the party’s overhaul, including higher accountability standards for state parties and likely new rules for state primaries and caucuses aimed at increasing voter participation.
Larry Cohen, the former union president and chairman of “Our Revolution,” Mr. Sanders’s political arm, praised party leaders for following through on their commitments to reforms. His stance suggested that even the often-critical party outsiders who supported Mr. Sanders in the 2016 election have, to this point, largely been kept at bay by the D.N.C. chairman, Tom Perez, and the vice chairman, Keith Ellison.
“This isn’t a repeat of other stuff,” Mr. Cohen said. “They are truly pushing to adopt these reforms and they’re in lock step.”
Yet even as party leaders try to orient Democratic committee members around shared priorities, fissures remain on some key areas of reform, especially the fate of superdelegates. Several D.N.C. officials familiar with the negotiations said the Democrats most averse to change were state party officials and elected members of Congress who would stand to lose their coveted superdelegate status and the exclusive level of candidate access that often accompanies it.
Donna Brazile, the former D.N.C. chairwoman and a member of the party’s important Rules and Bylaws committee, said she would not support a proposal that fully eradicated the superdelegate designation.
We have to make sure that we do this in the right way, in the most responsible way, and superdelegates should be a part of that process,” she said.
“The way we’re framing this conversation right now, we’re discussing removing people from the table who actually set the menu,” Ms. Brazile added. “There’s multiple ways to get at this issue without telling everybody to go to hell. That’s unacceptable.”
Additional changes that will further reshape the 2020 presidential nominating process are also being discussed.
Mr. Perez has independently announced that he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Mr. Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule.
We have to make sure that we do this in the right way, in the most responsible way, and superdelegates should be a part of that process,” she said.
“The way we’re framing this conversation right now, we’re discussing removing people from the table who actually set the menu,” Ms. Brazile added. “There’s multiple ways to get at this issue without telling everybody to go to hell. That’s unacceptable.”
Additional changes that will further reshape the 2020 presidential nominating process are also being discussed.
Mr. Perez has independently announced that he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Mr. Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule.
This is somewhat reminiscent of 50 years ago when after the Democrats nominated an establishment candidate(Vice President Hubert Humphrey) after the 1968 nominating process that made 2016 look like a love-in, the anti-establishment people seized control and rewrote the rules in their favor for the 1972 nominating process resulting in the nomination of George McGovern. Of course, the progressive wing does not want a repeat of that fall's general election.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
23 May 2018, 9:53 am
I think the reform is necessary to end this "rigged election" myth.
The danger, of course, is that the Democratic base end up electing a nominee who isn't popular either with the general public or the people they have to work directly with, but I'm not sure superdelegates are necessarily the most effective solution there. The US system doesn't really make complaints of entryism fair.
