Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

That has been the goal of the Democratic Party's right wing for a very long time, well before McGovern. However, McGovern's dramatic loss was used as an excuse to shift the party rightward again.

McGovern made the DNC more Democratic. After he lost to Nixon--and no, that loss was not attributable to McGovern's policies---the right wing of the Party got his party reforms repealed. It also tried to institute Super Delegates, to ensure that the Party could overrule a primary if primary voters chose anyone the right wing of the Party considered too liberal. That failed but only temporarily.

After Mondale's 1984 loss to Reagan, the right wing of the Party seized the moment again. This time, it succeeded in instituting Super Delegates--something even the GOP did not even try until much later. The DLC incorporated in 1985. In 1992, DLCer Bill Clinton ran against Poppy and won, helped by Ross Perot's third party candidacy. In 1996, Clinton ran again and won, helped by both Ross Perot and the advantage that all incumbent Presidents enjoy.

A mythology that Third Wayers were the only electable Democrats, at least at the national level, grew and persists to this day, despite some horrific national elections for Democrats.

In 2012, we saw an incumbent go primary-less, even as the story was being circulated and repeated that there would be no primary contest if Hillary chose to run.

Yes, the Super Delegates are always there to overrule the primary vote, but that would also create a huge p.r. problem and possibly, at last, a revolt. Hence, trying to get away without a primary is far preferable from the standpoint of the Third Wayers who have controlled the Party since the Clinton administration.

painful as it may be, its nice to see where the pieces lay.

In reality, every election is a story unto itself, and a complex story at that.

But, if you sell the story that McGovern lost because he was a liberal; Carter lost because Kennedy challenged him; and Clinton's two elections proved Third Wayers--and only Third Wayers-- are electible--BAM! You've got yourself a very undemocratic Democratic Party narrative that serves many purposes.

should be an op

Bingo.

In 2008 those nefarious absolute undemocratic dictators called superdelegates (who pledged or otherwise are free to vote for whom they wish) cast 824 votes.

Grassroots constituency delegates cast 3410. My god what could those poor schlubs possibly have done to fight the DLC fix against the real "preferred by the people" candidate? It's just obvious those 824 could overrule them......somehow....

what did these "superdelegates" have to do with Mitch McConnell's happy spot?

I just know superdelegates are not even close to being able to "override" primary voters as they are approx 20% of the nominating votes.

If the purpose of super delegates is not to "failsafe" the choice of primary voters, why were Super Delegates instituted at all?

Why not just leave it to primary voters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/delegates.explainer/

So it's bloody stupid to they they can "override" a damn thing.

Why do they exist? Because, as anybody sane would accept in any other field, people who do something for a living may have a bit more informed opinions on a subject than cat-ladies from Boise and garbagemen from Poughkeepsie.

When did superdelegates ever change the result of primary voters?

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

So it's bloody stupid to they they can "override" a damn thing.

Why do they exist? Because, as anybody sane would accept in any other field, people who do something for a living may have a bit more informed opinions on a subject than cat-ladies from Boise and garbagemen from Poughkeepsie.

When did superdelegates ever change the result of primary voters?

I'm not going to convince you to give up your stereotypes...

...so for the rest of the group, let me say (based on my contacts with DSCC), that the Party could care less about the ideology of the candidate, as long as they're electable and they can acquire the resources. Primaries aren't popular because they use up resources that might be needed for the General election, but the Party won't stop them; however, the candidates will still need to find the financial support (surprise: the Party doesn't provide any support before the Primary is held, unless it's obvious that there's only fringe opposition).

the head of the party as support.
We had a primary in our state in 2010 for the Senate. The POTUS
came and favored with his speech and support one candidate.
In my opinion that is interference from the Washington party
apparatus. And of course, Obama's favorite won!

And then funds. They don't necessarily come from the party, but from those who take advice from the party.

They are the parties own worst enemy. Would rather NOT compromise with the left and just watch us lose out of pure stubbornness. Then when they lose because of their own policies...it is 'blame the left' time.

Thankfully they are exposed as being the power hungry, 'don't give two shits about people or principles' type of people that they are. That's also why it is so easy to ignore them on DU...they are just a shade away from being a conservative in all but a few social issues.

want the clearest distinctions between the nations' two important political parties to be cultural issues. Hence, the Koch brothers donations to Third Way were neither delusional nor self-defeating.

If anyone's been delusional for the last few decades, it may have been the trusting left.

they are delusional or I hope they are and we are not at that point yet. The left has never been delusional about it's own party, just hopeful that it will change and it never does. It always slides to the right and we know it but keep voting anyway. So yes, we are very much self-defeating expecting change from people more aligned with neoliberals and less with progressives.

VERY important post

I don't want to post it as an OP, but you should feel free to do that, if you want to.

as an OP at the top of the page.

Thank you!

When I am thread parent, I feel obliged to reply to almost every post. I know every poster does not feel the same, but I do. It's one of the reasons that I post so few OPs. Usually, I like to be free to do other things, even leave the net entirely, whenever I want. And sometimes, I really have to be free to do that.

I may post another OP I've been thinking about soon, but that won't be it. And I am kind of OP'd out for a bit from my 500+reply OP about the connection between Hillary and the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute.

However, if you want to copy and paste that post of mine into an Op, please be my guest. If you wish, you cab add my other post about a narrative for each election having helped to reduce primary contests.

When was the last time a Democrat run for an open presidential position without opposition? I can't remember a time. It's not the Party's fault that people aren't running.

define "the Party"

"why dont Democratic Party power players like a primary?"

how could you?
show me.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about.

that just flew by?

I don't think there is miscommunication on that. You mean power players in the party (the Terry McAuliffe's, Howard Dean's, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's of the world) and I agree.

I don't agree that the "Party" was the source of Judd's troubles, but I do agree in other cases.

I don't remember this being a problem in terms of Democratic Presidential Primaries. Candidates might have had financial or organizational challenges, but that's more easily attributed to the candidates than the party.

You know that.

because

woo me with science has done at least two OPs in which he or she claims that the object is not to convince people but to disrupt the discussion.

I wish I'd saved the link.

Im pretty sure thats what the OP is about, particularly in kentucky where we STILL have McConnell in the game.

I interpreted your post as just the power players. Obviously the party interfered in some of the cases we discussed earlier. I guess my question could be considered a diversion, but I have the presidential elections on my mind.

Voters always want choices and I think generally embrace primaries that are worthwile. Occasionally some crank runs because they can. Most people will ignore those primaries.

BTW, I volunteered for Lamont and went to CT to knock on doors in Stamford. I was as disappointed as anyone with how it turned out.

this thread

but, in truth, that is always the case.

better to disrupt than to further, ya know.

encourages them to run or lets them know that they can expect opposition if they do run.

You may want to ask Lamont (v. Lieberman), Meek (v Rubio and Crist) and the guy from Rhode Island who ran against Chaffee the first time. Sestak, too.

The Party's job is to seek out candidates, encourage them to run, and inform them that there is opposition.

"Because the Party never seeks out people and encourages them to run or lets them know that they can expect opposition if they do run."

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

feels like so much wasted breath, but the responses say so much (that they may not intend to reveal)

But, threads that they find innocuous tend not to draw them in.

If you had agreed with it as I said it, you would not have had a need to reword it.

Seems obvious.

or they would have left the party and retained the endorsements.

sorry you missed that one
Not sure I can link that, but it is how I recall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

"days before the selection, when McCain had decided that picking Lieberman would alienate the conservative base of the Republican Party.[73][74] Lieberman had been mentioned as a possible Secretary of State under a McCain administration.[75]
Many Democrats wanted Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs due to his support for John McCain which went against the party's wishes.[76] Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached out to Lieberman, asking him to caucus with the Republicans.[77] Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted 42 to 13 to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship (although he did lose his membership for the Environment and Public Works Committee). Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats.[8] Lieberman credited President-elect Barack Obama for helping him keep his chairmanship. Obama had privately urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not to remove Lieberman from his position. Reid stated that Lieberman's criticism of Obama during the election angered him, but that "if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'Boy did we get even'?" Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also credited the Democrats' decision on Lieberman to Obama's support, stating that "If Barack can move on, so can we."[78][79]
Some members of the Democratic caucus were reportedly angry at the decision not to punish Lieberman more severely. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is also an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) stated that he voted to punish Lieberman "because while millions of people worked hard for Obama, Lieberman actively worked for four more years of President Bush's policies."[79]
Lieberman's embrace of certain conservative policies and in particular his endorsement of John McCain have been cited as factors for his high approval rating among Republicans in Connecticut with 66% of Republicans approving of him along with 52% of independents also approving of his job performance, this however is also cited for his mediocre approval rating among Democrats: 44% approving and 46% disapproving.[80] As of October 2011, 51% of voters were approving of his performance along with 40% disapproving.[80]
Criticism[edit]
While he officially considers himself a member of the Democratic party, Lieberman has been accused of being more conservative than many Republicans. In February 2007, Lieberman spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of the confirmation of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. Fox, a prominent Republican businessman and political donor, was a contributor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004.[81] Fox is also reported to have donated to Lieberman's 2006 Senate campaign.[82]
Lieberman was a supporter of the Iraq War and has urged action against Iran. In July 2008, Lieberman spoke at the annual conference of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) then later, in July 2009, accepted from John Hagee CUFI's "Defender of Israel Award".[83] Pastor Hagee, CUFI's founder and leader, has made a number of controversial remarks, including a statement that the Catholic Church is "the great whore" and a suggestion that God sent Adolf Hitler to bring the Jews to Israel.[84]

The people who got the Party star endorsements in the primary contests that I mentioned were:

Lieberman (who went on to run as an Indie and win the election over Democratic primary winner Lamont and then also went on to campaign for McCain Palin against Obama),

Republican turned Indie Crist (who then went on to lose the election to Republican Rubio and become a Democrat) and

Spector who became a Democrat again because he knew he would lose the Republican primary, and who then went on to lose the election to Republican Toomey

not confused at all.
I was referencing Lieberman primarily, but all of your examples were spot on.
that party loyalty demand sure is a one way street.

I never donated to the DNC intended my money to help candidates like Crist, Chafee, Spector, etc.

Chafee is a nice guy and and old school Republican, but a Republican nonetheless. Spector and Crist switched parties back and forth, depending on what they thought would best further their personal ambition at that moment. I have no use for that or for Republicans of any kind.

which, of course, they would prefer to do, regardless.

I don't want to lose any more of Du's left! Too many have been banned, alert stalked, or self-deported in disgust. Or, to be fair, just lost interest.

If you want a public office you will never get it by sitting home waiting for a major party to call you can beg you to run.

but dont let that deter Democracy!

Does the one who spent the most money always win? Then that is the problem. Find a better way, I guess.

We have to get people more involved, so they don't respond to superficiality.

but until people unite under their own common interests, it is a lot easier to intimidate and exclude with that big money waving around. Its not like we need real debates or any of the other things we were brought up expecting.
things are much better now.

or youre my write in.

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

No one knows who I am or what I stand for, except a few DUers in GD.

It's the same tired childlike bullshit answer about Congress - just wait, we will one day get the prefect one and everything will be fixed.

Was scares me more, is that I am beginning to believe it is not an act and is a serious answer.

rather than playing the victim.

hiring a staff and traveling around the country to see what major donors say. Can I count on your large donation?

Pretending that anyone can just up and run for national office is either beyond silly or beyond dishonest.

FYi, don't get it twisted. Posting about politics on a politics board is not playing victim. I've not blamed anything in my life on anyone else, although I have expressed gratitude to people in my life for many things that others might say I earned all on my own.

However, I'm not here to play a mindless member of the sheeple herd or the cheering squad, either, trying to silence the opinions of anyone who is not simply singing the praises of the status quo. I'm here to express my views honestly and within the rules of the board. If that doesn't fit your agenda, too bad. Keep your name calling to yourself. Either rebut what I post, or sit on it.

Meek was a VERY weak candidate. He did a poor job getting his message out there. His campaign wasn't viable statewide. The Repubs spent a LOT of money dragging Crist through the mud, so almost all the ads you saw around that time mentioned Charlie Crist or Marco Rubio. Very rarely did you see a Meeks ad.

Besides, whose fault is it again that Meek was the Democratic candidate?

They said the same thing about Coakley in the Coakley v. Brown contest. We had 4 candidates in the Coakely primary. Clinton campaigned for Coakley in the primary.

has used the word "coronation." But "selections not elections" may be the most accurate.

feel lucky if you have a (D) choice. we get shorted pretty regularly around here.

And that is their purpose too.

Who chooses to run in the primary is a much bigger question, and many candidates run for other reasons than any expectation of winning; and we seem to have a lot who approach it as a money making racket these days.

Also the issue of the thread topic.

The OP question is why party hacks prefer back room deals to pick candidates, to primaries, and I answered that one quite correctly.

The OP was about primaries. You responded to the OP and I responded to you, using the word "primary," so my post not only should have been clear, but was clear to other posters.

It's their pony or the highway.

never comes down in history or civics books.

Although, I do recall a meme about "smoke-filled rooms."

primaries

Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland ...

Or even Congressional elections, for that matter.

Seems like the smaller the constituency and the closer the office, the relatively greater chance your voice will be heard.

they do just that.