How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates

[Damajin]

Linked from Drudge, a pretty good article showing some of the inner workings of why Hillary is scooping up all these superdelegates even as Sanders either runs neck to neck with her or flat out crushes her:

http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-...uperdelegates/

In a giant step backwards in eliminating special interests in Washington, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban introduced by Barack Obama in 2008 restricting donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders’ supporters—who take pride in the Democratic presidential candidate’s refusal to accept funds from super PACs—the decision disproportionately benefits Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations.

Campaign finance reform has been a major issue this political cycle, as both Democratic presidential candidates have incorporated it into their platforms—but only Mr. Sanders has acted on his proposal by refusing to accept super PAC money. According to The New York Times, Ms. Clinton received $47.9 million from super PACs in 2015, despite openly advocating for campaign finance reform. Ms. Clinton’s actions contradict her words, and suggest her proposals for reform are merely for political expediency.

Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.

Growing calls for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation have stemmed from her alleged favoritism for Ms. Clinton—ranging from her position as co-chair of Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, to criticism over her limited and poorly scheduled Democratic presidential debates—and the pressure has risen substantially as she faces a primary challenger in Tim Canova, a former consultant to Mr. Sanders on Federal Reserve reform.

Although Ms. Clinton still significantly outpaces Mr. Sanders when it comes to endorsements from superdelegates, those endorsements will have to switch to Mr. Sanders if he continues to win more delegates from the popular vote. Otherwise, the Democratic Party risks rupturing over the controversy that would ensue if the nomination was determined by superdelegates rather than American voters identifying as democrats.

A joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign and the DNC—called the Hillary Victory Fund—raised $26.9 million as of December 31, 2015, much of which has gone directly to the DNC and other Democratic candidates across the country. Thirty-three state Democratic parties signed pacts with Ms. Clinton’s campaign, meaning she is essentially buying support from Democratic leaders around the country. In short, the Clinton campaign controls the money and decides which states receive it after the campaign and the DNC get their cut. According to Bloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000, where six out of six superdelegates supported Ms. Clinton while over 60 percent of the primary vote favored Mr. Sanders. Nevada and South Carolina also have pacts with the Hillary Victory Fund, where Ms. Clinton has already won support from three of Nevada’s eight superdelegates and three out of South Carolina’s six superdelegates.

The superdelegate system was enacted in the 1980s to give the Democratic Establishment more influence in determining the party’s presidential nominee, and as the DNC opens the floodgates to donations from special interests, the future of the party is auctioned off to the highest bidder. Unless Mr. Sanders can overcome the financial obstacles set by the Democratic National Committee to win the nomination, campaign finance reform and removing big money from politics will be a fantasy kept alive only on the party’s fringes.

The specific article has hyperlinks to other articles showing the specific things it references, for extra coverage of this. That being said it made me consider something. It's entire possible that if Sanders gets screwed royally through this and anything else that comes up that he with ample support and his conviction as the primary motives decides to run 3rd party which at that point makes this race even more interesting. He's already being outspent because Hillary is the one taking all the Super PAC money and it hasn't affected his position at all, so really what does he have to lose? DNC is already locked in for Hillary so nothing there, he's got his own campaign infrastructure, etc.

I think the safest bet has always been Trump as 3rd party, but it's very possible that Sanders could be the one to do it even if Trump doesn't. What do you think?

[Dartz1979]

Linked from Drudge, a pretty good article showing some of the inner workings of why Hillary is scooping up all these superdelegates even as Sanders either runs neck to neck with her or flat out crushes her:

http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-...uperdelegates/



The specific article has hyperlinks to other articles showing the specific things it references, for extra coverage of this. That being said it made me consider something. It's entire possible that if Sanders gets screwed royally through this and anything else that comes up that he with ample support and his conviction as the primary motives decides to run 3rd party which at that point makes this race even more interesting. He's already being outspent because Hillary is the one taking all the Super PAC money and it hasn't affected his position at all, so really what does he have to lose? DNC is already locked in for Hillary so nothing there, he's got his own campaign infrastructure, etc.

I think the safest bet has always been Trump as 3rd party, but it's very possible that Sanders could be the one to do it even if Trump doesn't. What do you think?

Sander is ahead of clinton so yeah im hoping he wins the nomination now can he defeat donald trump if he gets the nod i will say it'll be close however if it's someone else besides trump chances are sanders will win by a landslide, now as to who trump should pick for his vp he should really consider someone well exp'd in the field

[The Penguin]

Really this should surprise no one. Hillary has always been the nominee.

Making it look like Starscream's coronation would of been bad comedy though, so they had to make the Democrats think they had a illusion of choice. Enter Sanders and O'Malley. Alas now their puppet candidate is winning so they must take steps to reassert control (much like the Republicans are). I'd love to see Sanders and Trump run third party. I just wonder if Hillary is going to be indicted. FBI's been saying some crazy shit lately.

[Deleted]

Delegates are those people that vote in your stead.

[Alydael]

Sanders won't beat Hillary, even though he is more popular. Hillary is too entrenched in the establishment, they won't let her go down. It is not surprising she is "cheating" with the delegates, corruption is the Clinton M.O. I often wonder who is voting for her. I live in a Dem stronghold city and no one is excited about her. What is there to be excited about? She is an establishment type that has been in politics forever and has accomplished basically nothing.

[Felya]

The DNC does not need to by DNC superdelegates, they are one and the same. They are not independent or choose anyone based on any vote. The primaries are not an independent election, but a party choosing who they will nominate. There is no need for a conspiracy, for your right hand to know what your left hand is doing.

[Reeve]

Didn't read the article, but the concept of the superdelegates is to ensure that the Democratic Party nominates someone that's electable in a general election, no matter what their primary voters say. It's the job of the party to put forward the best candidate, not necessarily the one that the most democrats preferred. Clinton is probably more electable in a general election than Sanders, so it makes sense that the superdelegates would trend towards her.

[lockedout]

Sander is ahead of clinton so yeah im hoping he wins the nomination

While Sanders holds a small lead among pledged delegates awarded to him for his showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention, according to the AP's count. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...delegate-votes

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

The Democratic Party showing American voters that their vote counts!!!

[Damajin]

Really this should surprise no one. Hillary has always been the nominee.

Making it look like Starscream's coronation would of been bad comedy though, so they had to make the Democrats think they had a illusion of choice. Enter Sanders and O'Malley. Alas now their puppet candidate is winning so they must take steps to reassert control (much like the Republicans are). I'd love to see Sanders and Trump run third party. I just wonder if Hillary is going to be indicted. FBI's been saying some crazy shit lately.

They're trying to stonewall any indictment, I'm sure there's lots of favors and cash trading hands on that front. I think a Sanders 3rd party run would frankly kill Hillary, she doesn't have enough support on her own to win a general election and she'd be looking at 2nd place finish at BEST, maybe even a totally disgraceful 3rd from the candidate that was supposed to be as you say coronated this time.

Sanders won't beat Hillary, even though he is more popular. Hillary is too entrenched in the establishment, they won't let her go down. It is not surprising she is "cheating" with the delegates, corruption is the Clinton M.O. I often wonder who is voting for her. I live in a Dem stronghold city and no one is excited about her. What is there to be excited about? She is an establishment type that has been in politics forever and has accomplished basically nothing.

I think it's certainly possible he does, he's 1 point behind in Nevada and even though he's 10+ in SC that gap is closing. Everyone knows she is a terrible person, now they're seeing her run a terrible campaign for the 2nd time and are getting ample reminders of exactly how shitty a person she is.

[Sorrior]

Didn't read the article, but the concept of the superdelegates is to ensure that the Democratic Party nominates someone that's electable in a general election, no matter what their primary voters say. It's the job of the party to put forward the best candidate, not necessarily the one that the most democrats preferred. Clinton is probably more electable in a general election than Sanders, so it makes sense that the superdelegates would trend towards her.

Actually most research I have read shows Sanders ahead of clinton

[Damajin]

Didn't read the article, but the concept of the superdelegates is to ensure that the Democratic Party nominates someone that's electable in a general election, no matter what their primary voters say. It's the job of the party to put forward the best candidate, not necessarily the one that the most democrats preferred. Clinton is probably more electable in a general election than Sanders, so it makes sense that the superdelegates would trend towards her.

The article addresses the specific ways that the Clinton campaign is funding the state party orgs that put those superdelegates in place.

What do you think of the possibility/potential of a Sanders 3rd party run if he has sufficient popular support but ultimately loses the delegate count?

[Deleted]

Sanders won't beat Hillary, even though he is more popular. Hillary is too entrenched in the establishment, they won't let her go down. It is not surprising she is "cheating" with the delegates, corruption is the Clinton M.O. I often wonder who is voting for her. I live in a Dem stronghold city and no one is excited about her. What is there to be excited about? She is an establishment type that has been in politics forever and has accomplished basically nothing.

But she's a woman!!!!!11

[Hoover Hog]

Didn't read the article, but the concept of the superdelegates is to ensure that the Democratic Party nominates someone that's electable in a general election, no matter what their primary voters say. It's the job of the party to put forward the best candidate, not necessarily the one that the most democrats preferred. Clinton is probably more electable in a general election than Sanders, so it makes sense that the superdelegates would trend towards her.

The idea that they are just going with whichever candidate is more electable would seem to check out if Sanders wasn't polling ahead of Clinton in every potential Republican matchup.

I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy going on. Clinton has been and continues to be a much better friend to the DNC than Sanders. The DNC likes her more. Pretty straight forward.

[Fayolynn]

Didn't read the article, but the concept of the superdelegates is to ensure that the Democratic Party nominates someone that's electable in a general election, no matter what their primary voters say. It's the job of the party to put forward the best candidate, not necessarily the one that the most democrats preferred. Clinton is probably more electable in a general election than Sanders, so it makes sense that the superdelegates would trend towards her.

How does it make sense that Clinton would be more electable in the general election then Sanders if Sanders is able to win more delegates then her?

[Reeve]

Actually most research I have read shows Sanders ahead of clinton

Nationally? Keep in mind, it matters how the candidates match up against Republicans, not each other, and it matters more who will show up to vote than how many people prefer a particular candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

How does it make sense that Clinton would be more electable in the general election then Sanders if Sanders is able to win more delegates then her?

Because the general election is made up of more voters than the people who vote in the Democratic Primaries?

[PACOX]

Superdels are for propping up the candidate the establishment wants, working as intended whether you like it or not. Their excuse is that the protects the party from outside interest who don't necessarily the "core values" of the party. Like Sanders or not but he is a prime example of what they are "guarding" against.

It's not too different with the GOP. They have special interest groups who have no other job but to undermine Trump. See the last debate? Trump was booed for actually being truthful. Both Sanders and Trump as threats to the party establishments the images they want to uphold.

[chrisberb]

Superdelegates are appointed by the DNC..DNC is the Democratic National Committee...DNC supports Democrat candidates.
Bernie = Independent
Hillary = Democrat
It's a little easy to understand why the superdelegates would support Hillary. I still doubt though that if Bernie does great up until the convention, winning more primaries and such than Hillary, that those superdelegates would still all go with Hillary.

[Silverlock]

Really just comes down to who wants to be know as the person crushed by trump.

[Damajin]

Superdelegates are appointed by the DNC..DNC is the Democratic National Committee...DNC supports Democrat candidates.
Bernie = Independent
Hillary = Democrat
It's a little easy to understand why the superdelegates would support Hillary. I still doubt though that if Bernie does great up until the convention, winning more primaries and such than Hillary, that those superdelegates would still all go with Hillary.

And Hillary is paying the DNC through her Hillary Victory Fund, ergo any other place than an interparty organization it'd be flat out bribery. Those people and those state branches want to get paid, and she's doing it. Whether or not the party allows it seeing it for what it is and calling it so is valuable to shining sunlight on her and the DNC in general.