Big Bernie Win: DNC to Reduce "Super Delegates" by 60%

It's so funny to see what some dems have become.

The Populism of the FDR Era
By David GreenbergWednesday, June 24, 2009
moa_foreign_tout_0706.jpg

Thomas D. Mcavoy / Time & Life Pictures / Getty

Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt making a Fireside Chat speech on radio during WWII.



Populist impulses — emotional demands for systemic change, waged in the name of the common man, demonizing Washington or Wall Street elites — are always rattling our politics. It's a tendency with roots in Andrew Jackson's swaggering mass-democratic appeals and attacks on the Bank of the United States; it crested with the currency-obsessed, debt-strapped farmers of the late 19th Century People's Party. Its standard-bearers today occupy no clear ideological home — self-styled leaders of recent vintage range from Jim Webb to Arnold Schwarzenegger to Pat Buchanan.

For decades, liberals and conservatives have championed dueling populisms: the left beating the drum for economic fairness, the right targeting the power of the federal bureaucracy and the cultural elite. The surge of populism induced by last fall's economic collapse, though, looks closer to that of the 1930s, when anti-government, anti-finance, anti-elite sentiment burst the boundaries of party and region.

During the Depression, citizens of all stripes joined in an inchoate but potent critique of society — raising fears that capitalism and democracy might be moribund. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was worried. Elected overwhelmingly in 1932 on the strength of the public discontent, FDR found himself jarred into action by recurring waves of dissent. Like Roosevelt after his triumphant hundred days, Barack Obama seems for now to have tamed the populist outbursts of his early presidential days. But like FDR, he also must remain vigilant, lest he find himself on the receiving end of the demand for change.

Roosevelt's challenge wasn't the number of populists unreconciled to his leadership but their intensity and variety. He had to act boldly and effectively enough to satisfy the outrage. Yet he also had to establish himself as the cooler alternative to demagogues who often generated among the populace as much fear as hope.

The most troublesome nemesis was the ruthless Huey Long of Louisiana, since immortalized as Willie Stark by Robert Penn Warren in All the King's Men. With his wild curly hair, fleshy face, garish dress, and constant sense of motion, Long looked very much the rabble-rouser — though he also had a record of hard achievement that gave him credibility with the dispossessed. Having helped Roosevelt secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 1932, Long soon raised the opposition banner. In 1934 he took to the airwaves to tout his "Share Our Wealth" plan-a naive, untheoretical plan to radically redistribute wealth and income, presented in terms as accessible as they were unworkable. "Share Our Wealth" Clubs sprang up around the country, demanding sweeping change.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1906802_1906838_1908686,00.html
Don't spam me with long articles in response to cogent points. That's rude.
 
I'm not saying that this is the end of the republic or anything. Just a small step in a bad direction.
It might not even have a noticeable effect on outcomes, considering how primaries are done on the blue side to begin with, but the response I'm seeing to this has the canary coughing a little...
 
Oh, you were serious.......

Yeah, if you want to draw on the article to help support your position, I always appreciate that. But I made a good- or at least sincere- post and your response was spam. My own opinion about superdelegates has jumped around a bit over the years (though as my education improves, I inch toward being in favor of those kinds of institutional controls). I can handle a disagreement, but it's on you to make good arguments.
 
This is a step in the right direction for the dnc
 
Yeah, if you want to draw on the article to help support your position, I always appreciate that. But I made a good- or at least sincere- post and your response was spam. My own opinion about superdelegates has jumped around a bit over the years (though as my education improves, I inch toward being in favor of those kinds of institutional controls). I can handle a disagreement, but it's on you to make good arguments.

Considering the crux of your argument is that populism is dangerous, I didn't think it needed further explanation.

The article shows how the new deal, the backbone of the Democratic party, was created through populism.
 
Considering the crux of your argument is that populism is dangerous, I didn't think it needed further explanation.

The article shows how the new deal, the backbone of the Democratic party, was created through populism.
Okay, but that's kind of the intellectual approach people take when you warn about religion and their response is that atheists killed 100 million people...I've never heard people say that popular movements can't produce good, or even great outcomes.
 
Okay, but that's kind of the intellectual approach people take when you warn about religion and their response is that atheists killed 100 million people...I've never heard people say that popular movements can't produce good, or even great outcomes.

Authoritarianism killed a 100 million people, not athiests.

If you want to preach of the dangers of authoritarian populism, I am good with that, but not differentiating between decentralized populism, and authoritarian populism , seems disengenuous.
 
Authoritarianism killed a 100 million people, not athiests.

If you want to preach of the dangers of authoritarian populism, I am good with that, but not differentiating between decentralized populism, and authoritarian populism , seems disengenuous.
No that wasn't my point at all. Let's just not do this.
 
So, 54% of democratic voters thought it was fair.

But, im not asking of the fairness -- i want to see numbers of people who didnt vote for Sanders because of SD's, "favorable polling" for Clinton, etc.

C'mon, Viva -- you're telling me you dont want to see the actual hard data to your claim?
Do you know of a source of reliable data, broken down according to semi-tangible psychological factors like that? I don’t. I think you are asking for something that doesn’t exist.
 
Do you know of a source of reliable data, broken down according to semi-tangible psychological factors like that? I don’t. I think you are asking for something that doesn’t exist.

Same way you figure out if people were suppressed with voter ID law -- set up a questionnaire and ask people.

Did you avoid voting because of super delegates? Did you avoid voting due to polling?

The only variable against people voting for Bernie that I consider viable was idiots didn't know you had to Register / rules of closed primaries. But, that's on them -- not Hillary.
 
Do you know of a source of reliable data, broken down according to semi-tangible psychological factors like that? I don’t. I think you are asking for something that doesn’t exist.

I think you're right here, but I also highly doubt that superdelegate counts affected anyone's vote. I think endorsements did, though, but I see rounding up endorsements as part of campaigning rather than something nefarious.
 
I think you're right here, but I also highly doubt that superdelegate counts affected anyone's vote. I think endorsements did, though, but I see rounding up endorsements as part of campaigning rather than something nefarious.

I don't really think superdelegates changed votes, as much as kept potential Sanders voters, from showing up.

And to be clear, there was no one action the DNC and Clinton camp took, that Bernie couldn't overcome. It was a cumulative effect.

Remember these campaigns are ran by bean counters. They specialize in shaving off a little support here, a little there.
 
Back
Top