They should have no problem now.

President Obama acquired more elected delegates and they really had no choice.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

People are using social media & talking to each other - there is a movement.

People are paying attention. And those that want to play a game are on notice - we will not be silenced.

Right on time.

... have known what he was up against ...

It's some of his supporters that seem confused.

You can bet the Democrats would lose in November. He is doing the party a big favor by agreeing to endorse Hillary if she beats him in the primary.

never win the primaries even if he did.

Bernie's camp learned this lesson well after blaming the data breach on the DNC.

SD's are bullshit. Period. Nobody's vote should be worth more anybody else's. It's completely undemocratic.

1. Everyone already knows about SDs from last election. People are pretending like this is something new being drummed up to screw Bernie.

2. It's disingenuous to suggest that SDs are going to be used to take the nomination from Bernie. As much as the SDs are in the tank for Clinton, they care about the future of the party, and by extension their own political futures, much more. There is no way in hell the SDs give the election to Hillary if Bernie wins more delegates. I doubt even Hillary would ask them to do this. It would guarantee that Hillary loses, and tear the party apart in the process. All of the progress that the party is making with younger folks would be wiped out. There is absolutely no upside to such a scenario, so just stop pretending like Democratic politicians would commit political mass suicide for no reason at all.

which excludes first time voters.

The future of the party is doomed if Hillary is the nominee because she is NOT growing the party at all. Bernie is.
Think about it.

The Dem party has been bleeding voters. Only Bernie has brought a counter action with bringing in people who are not Dems to vote for him. People like me who are Green leaning indy voters who switched to caucus for and vote for Bernie. We don't vote for the party, we vote for Bernie. You want us to stay under the umbrella to counter act the bleeding? Then start by being what your ideals were meant to be under FDR.

The DNC takes this into account when apportioning delegates. If you live in a red state that has not supported the D presdential candidate in the last three elections, your state receives fewer delegates than does a reliably blue state like CA.

Why would it be different? The Democratic Party is a political party that exists to elect Democrats. Why should they give states that vote against Ds equal standing with states that support Ds?

That some votes are worth more than others?
Tell us more.
Meanwhile I am screencapping you saying that because I need to put that on my blog and tweeting that shit.

NO it is NOT ok that some votes are worth more others and it's completely outrageous. You just literally advocated for a non democratic system.

They could pick their candidate without having primaries if they want.

You don't change the rules of the game mid-contest. Caucuses and primaries have already been decided. Are the super delegates who are supporting Hillary in NH - and who are supporting her based on the rules - now to go back and change their support to Bernie based on the majority vote in one primary? And in a primary where the D vote was actually a tie (BS won NH based on the Independent vote)?

The time to make changes was before the election cycle started. The only reason people are calling for a rule change now is because the current rules give Hillary an advantage over BS. SO WHAT? Imagine that: a political party sets up rules that give an advantage to long-time party members over usurper candidates who only become Ds to take advantage of the party warchest and infrastructure. Now, why would a political party do such a thing?

BS knew the rules going in. Don't blame the DNC because his supporters are blissfully ignorant of the way party politics work (I admit that I'm surprised at the depth of ignorance of party politics that's on display at DU on a daily basis...and this from people who are supposedly Democrats).

I would remind everyone that the Democratic Party is a political party whose job it is to elect Democrats. Not conservtives or moderates or progressives or liberals. Democrats. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties are private enterprises that have tons of leeway in deciding how the run themselves. The idea that a bunch of non-Democratic Party organizations should have any say in how the DNC conducts its affairs is laughable.

If you don't like the rules, either join the party and make change from within, or form your own political party with its own rules. If the DNC rules drive people away from voting for D candidates, so be it.

If you really hate the DNC rules and want to revolt, then don't vote in their primaries. Don't feed the beast. You can always vote for BS in the general as a write-in candidate.

not during the midst of the primary season.

In addition - again, read the article - once the changes were made, both Hillary and Bernie set up fund-raising entities within the DNC *last year* TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE CHANGES.

Your point?

Are you kidding me?

I'm a D, and I heard about these rule changes months ago. In fact, I was surprised at the time that BS went ahead and formed a $-raising joint venture with the DNC.

Just because many BS supporters are low information types who don't have a clue as to what has been happening in politics prior to last October doesn't mean things didn't happen. They did.

Besides, the only thing that matters is whether the candidates knew about the changes. And of course they did, and that included Bernie. Your point would only be valid if these rule changes were happening NOW while the primary season has already started, or if Bernie wasn't told about the rule changes when they were made.

These rule changes were made LAST SUMMER. How is that changing the rules in the middle of the primary season?

Why do you think it's being reported by so many news sources starting a few days ago.
/head desk

Yes so many BS supporters are low info types. Sure. Meanwhile you give your candidate a pass on everything imaginable under the sun, from selling fracking to Iraq to Honduras to Clinton donations from FIFA.

Wake up.

That included Martin O'Malley, who like Hillary is a long-time D. It broke for anybody who entertained thoughts of entering the D primaries under party rules.

You portray this as some kind of midstream, anti-Bernie ploy by the DNC. If anything, it was a counter-the-wishes-of-Obama decision. It had nothing to do with aiding any specific candidate. It was and is about removing a restriction on funding sources that had been imposed on the party by Obama. The DNC realizes that they do not have the advantage of incumbancy to run on in 2016, so they lifted a restriction in 2015 in recognition of the challenges they will face in 2016.

Bernie chose to run as a D with full knowledge of the rule changes. He could either take advantage of the changes or refuse to do the same. He elected to take advantage of the rule changes, just like every other D candidate.

this broke a few days ago. Perhaps you're getting it mixed up with something else.

the 7-8 months the rule has been in effect doesn't mean it didn't happen last summer.

Are we seriously having a conversation about this? What's your point? That the media is as uninformed as BS supporters? If so, I'll stipulate to that. Again, your point?

They continuously lie and engage in dirty tricks.

What little trust Bernie supporters may still have had in the establishment is now gone, after Capehart's failed adventure in swiftboating.

The whole world is watching.

Tad Devine who is credited as the person who came up with and pushed the super delegate concept for the DNC?