Does the Party discourage primaries and, if so, how realistic is populist reform?

[merrily]

I am far, far more of a replier than a thread starter. However, some of my replies can be OP's. So, I may be re-posting some them in this group, unless one or more hosts think that inappropriate.

Everything that follows in this OP follows is the body of a reply that I posted a few minutes ago in GD, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026508711#post33

Since McGovern, a faction within the Party sought to take the choice for a nominee out of the hands of primary voters. That was when Super Delegates were first proposed, but turned down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

When Carter lost, the meme became that Carter lost to Reagan because of a primary challenge by Kennedy. Although that is a ludicrous claim, apparently, it "took." So, when Mondale also lost to Reagan, the proponents of Super Delegates were able to get the Party to adopt that policy. But, think about the ramifications of actually holding a primary for about a year, then having Super Delegates override the vote. It would be far easier for the Party just to use choose the candidate and then use the primary for the benefit of the chosen one. (Maybe, eventually, they'll just do away with an expensive primary entirely?)

We had no primary in 2012, but there is no incumbent this time. They've simply been treating Hillary as though she were an incumbent.


A post of mine from almost a full year ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1223

All I will say at this early date is, I want a real primary, damn it.

First, the Democrats come up with Super Delegates, so that if primary voters choose a liberal, the party PTB can overrule all of primary season. Now, they've come up with the self fulfilling "foregone conclusion" propaganda, unanimously touting Hillary as the winner, with the help of all the party pundits and strategists on TV and radio and the MSNBC anchors.

I began noticing this in the early fall of 2012. I even saw all those "Tell Hillary you want her to run" things online that far back. (LOL, as if anyone had to persuade her?)

When that kind of coordination exists more than four years before a Presidential election, the workings of the Democratic Party certainly don't seem to me to be as democratic as I expect them to be. IMO, single candidate primaries are almost as bad as single candidate elections.

Just one example. Recently, Chris Matthews was giving Christie another well-deserved bashing. However, Matthews referred to Christie as the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble. Not the only one who could have given the next Democratic Presidential nominee any trouble, but the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble.

Who the fuck are Matthews and the rest of the propaganda team to spend three or more years brainwashing everyone to believe that Hillary is the inevitable nominee? Why are they the "deciders" now? And do they think no one notices those tactics?

I thought an advantage of registering as a Democrat was the privilege of choosing a nominee from a real field of qualified people. Not gesture of a vote, but a vote that actually means something.

When the democratic is back in the Democratic Party process, I'll get excited. For now, I want the brainwashing attempts to stop and my party to start acting democratic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1223

More recently, I posted about comments Senator Schumer, Governor Brown and Barney Frank saying no one should challenge Hillary in a primary and also a statement from Schumer saying that, when he took over the DSCC in 2005, he made avoiding primaries the official policy of that committee. Moreover, a number of people in a position to know what goes on with the Party have written urging a real primary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=401152

[marym625]

1. You should post ALL THE TIME!

This is a great post. Informative, thought provoking, and is on the money.

K&R!

[merrily]

4. THANKS,

but, did you notice my post count? I do post a lot of the time. Just mostly replies, so far, not OPs.

I feel an obligation to "parent" an OP if I post it and cannot always do that. When I am on the computer, for work, research, shopping, etc, I am in and out of DU. However I can't devote solid chunks of time to DU. And I am not always on the computer. So, I've been putting my energy into some of my replies. As to them, I don't feel a special duty.

However, if it is okay to re-post some of my longer replies here, I will.

[marym625]

5. I don't host but I will be happy if you do.

I love what you say.

I don't have the time either but I am addicted. I need a 12 step program to stop. I said I was signing off 2 hours ago and here I am

[merrily]

7. I know, right? I've never been tempted to do a GBCW post, but I have

told myself I am spending way too much time here and really should cut way back or stop. That lasts maybe a day or two, if I'm REALLY determined.

On the other hand, at times, I can't physically or mentally do much more than read or keyboard.

I rationalize that I am increasing knowledge that I need to be an informed voter, but, candidly, that was truer when I first joined.

Whatever. My inventory of things to beat myself up about overflows as it is. And it's not first in, first out, either. There is no out.

[marym625]

8. I completely understand

It's like you're in my head

[RiverLover]

23. I've been telling myself to cut back or stop as well.

And beating myself up for not doing so. I really need to cut back though. We'll see how that goes. lol

I'm very grateful for this group, and the EWG. But most of the time, it feels like I'm arguing with republicans here. Too much negative energy.

But here's some positive vibes from me to you & marym & all of you wonderful people in this group...

[Enthusiast]

28. Please don't stop or cut back.

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

[mylye2222]

2. I whomeheartly agree.

The fact thay in early 2012 we was already calls for Hillary to run support the hypothesis that this faction and Clinton people were determined to make sure the nomination would not escape to thzm. And yes, this stratégie perfectly served their goals.

[msongs]

3. voted write in for myself in a primary once. willing to do it again if you think it will help lol nt

[merrily]

6. I appreciate that msongs and your idea has great possiblities.

The goal would be to get a variety of candidates running to win in succeeding primaries.

If enough of us do that, maybe that will eventually work out to a varied field of primary candidates who are more than stalking horses or mostly hoping to get known nationally for a FUTURE primary that they really hope to win.

On the other hand, I've posted many times, I don't know that any politician or any party cares how tightly you have to hold your nose in the general, as long as your other hand is voting the way he, she or it wants.

On the third hand (what? you have only 2?), if many people do this several primaries in a row and media deigns to note it, it could get embarrassing.

This just might be a unifying issue for the 99%, too, given lots of Republicans, moderate and not, haven't been in love with their options, either.

THANKS!

[marym625]

10. Me too

[merrily]

12. This has promise as a movement for the 99%!

[marym625]

24. Love it!

I actually read the post wrong. Didn't catch the write in was for him/herself. I didn't write myself in. And I have been thinking that, if Hillary is the nominee, I will write in sanders.

[merrily]

25. msongs was talking about a write in for the primary.

I would not attempting a 99% movement for a write in for the general. If people want to do that, that is their right. But, IMO, it will not get as much agreement as a primary write in movement to protest the slate of primary candidates might. If you write in on a primary ballot, you will not help the other side win the general. you will just be telling your party you are not supporting the kind of candidates on the ballot.


That is my thought, anyway.

[marym625]

26. I think, if he doesn't run, a grassroots campaign to write him in

Would be great. He obviously wants to run. It is money and the "how dare anyone try to take this from HC, the only candidate that can win and that's the only thing that matters" fury is what is stopping him. He's obviously up for the fight. He just can't see the backing with the automatic shut down of discussion going on. Never saw anything like it in my life. Obviously, let the best person win means nothing anymore.

[merrily]

29. I never saw anything like this in my life either.

Yet they keep trying to convince us that it happened spontaneously and organically and is totally consistent with the Party's modern history.



In a way, I am glad I saw the quotes from Schumer, Frank and Brown that I saw. In a way, I am horrified. Let me explain.

I had been posting for a year that it looked as though we were not going to have a real primary, maybe none, maybe a dog and pony show.

From a few of the usual suspects who post like they know the inner workings of the Party (and all said workings are, of course, wonderful and/or necessary), came assertions that we were going to have a primary and a real one, too. Obviously, I yawned.

Then, I found and posted the Schumer quote about no primary challengers to Hillary, please. Of course, I had already seen a lot of posts here about Lamont/Lieberman, Lincoln/whatever her challenger's name was, Sestak/Spector, etc. So, people were seeing the facts on the ground about the Senate without needing any direct quotes from real Party insiders.

After posting that link, though, of course, I got another denial. It was "only" Schumer." (LMAO. Shortly after that, he became Senate Party Leader. What would he know?) I replied no matter how many quotes I posted, his reply would be the same.

Then I found Brown and Frank, too. So, I posted all three. Sure enough, since when are Schumer, Frank and Brown the Democratic Party? At that point, I could barely contain my laughter.

So, at first, I was glad to have found the quotes. BUT, obviously, the Party does not mind this info coming out in dribs and drabs, here and there, from highly placed Dems in the know. That makes me worry that they may be gradually making it the "new normal," convincing us bit by bit to abhor primaries because they supposedly are bad for the Party.

From the bizarre posts I've seen here, I would not be the least bit surprised if "the swarm" posted about that like they do about every other party policy:

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

"I love Big Brother."

So, stay tuned.

[marym625]

39. Did you post the Schumer Democracy Now interview?

I was going to post that this evening.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying and I feel your pain. It's unthinkable and frightening

[merrily]

38. I don't know if it's meant anything for a long time.

It used to be "smoke-filled rooms." Now, it's probably non-smoking rooms. Aside from that....everything's very fair.

[marym625]

40. +1000

[mylye2222]

9. Please... what is DSCC?

Is that Democratic Senate Campaign Comitee?

Thanks
!
( From the French Asshole Who Dares to Be Interested in US Politics, what an outrage!)

[merrily]

11. No worries. You can't even know from googling DSCC

It is in charge of recruiting candidates to run for Senate seats as Democrats and helping their picks get elected.

http://www.dscc.org/

And, sure, a candidate with money and rich friends/contacts can mount his or her own campaign, but the Party money, and probably money from PACs and organizations like EMILYs List, are going to go toward the pick of DSCC and the party stars are probably going to campaign against the Dem who decided to run on his or her own.

[mylye2222]

13. So tgis "skip primaries" was from 2005.

Oh yeah. So it might explain 2006 midterms when the Party supported Liberman...

[merrily]

14. Mmm. careful. Remember schumer is a politican. He knows how to say things.

He said he made avoiding primaries the (official) policy of the DSCC in 2005. That is not the same as saying the DSCC did not start avoiding primaries as a matter of practice prior to 2005

So, we don't know how long. If we know from publicly available info that people were pushing for this at the Presidential level at least as early as the 1960s, who knows when someone got the bright idea that avoiding other primaries would also be a "great" idea.

[mylye2222]

15. In this OP check DUer Karynnjs post not far from OP below in responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014806721#post12


Go to last paragraph when the poster talks about DNC.

[merrily]

16. Can we please not bring anything about Kerry here? I know you and karennj are great fans of his,

but I don't want to have to either comment on karennj's long post defending Kerry on another thread, or give the impression that I agree with everything in it. It's her view on another thread. Please, let's leave it at that.

Suffice it to say, the issue for this thread is about the Party machinery and intentions, as they seem to have developed and manifested over the years and many continue to develop and manifest. That is so much broader than Kerry. Let's just leave him out of it.

thanks.

[mylye2222]

17. OK I understand.

It was justvto bring the fact she as accurately as you poonted out DLC manoeuvers.
I am aware that a Kerry related topic can bring tension with some and I know we will not agree on this. That says be sure I appreciate you and the we have nontheless common views.

[merrily]

18. It's not my having an issue with Kerry. It's exactly what I said in Reply 16.

[mylye2222]

20. I know merrily.

[mylye2222]

19. I wholeheartedly agree on the Party machine

It seems that their true goal is pick candidates for voters, and if possible silent the more liberal ailses by putting in the mind that Corparatism is the only solution.

[mylye2222]

21. A reform is definitely needed

We all know here DLC type policies just brought the Dem party to become an almost Conservative-lite one

[merrily]

22. Thing is, they reform themselves toward less and less say by us.

So, it's really up to us.


I think writing in a vote in a primary could become a movement, if people are willing to put up a website or use an existing one for that purpose.

[aspirant]

36. Wouldn't writing in require a hand count

or do machines read write-ins?

[merrily]

37. Dunno. Boston uses paper ballots and allows write ins, though a machine somehow reads?

As far as writing in a name, I don't know what, if anything, the machine does with that. Perhaps they figure there will never be enough write ins to warrant a hand count. It happened once that a state candidate, Diane Wilkerson, blew the filing deadline and ran a write in campaign and won. Then the feds got her for unpaid income taxes and--wait for it--stuffing a cash bribe into her bra at a table that appears to be in a restaurant.

At that time, Boston was 100% machines. (We went paper for Kerry's presidential election.) If there are enough write ins, they'll have to find a way to deal with them. If not, it's not much of a protest anyway.

Thing is finding a way to spread the word that won't cost a fortune.

A website is a must.

I recently looked up (online) someone I went to school with K through 12. His mother once told me that, even before that, he and I shared a crib where she and my mother both worked! Anyway, turned out he has a webcast show. It's uber conservative. I think he may even have been on Fox a few times. He also has tons of contacts in the music industry. If a 99% movement is what we go for, he might help on the right/wrong side. Aside from him, I know only one other Republican! This is what comes from living in blue cities all my life.

[leveymg]

27. The point is to move the Democratic Party and the GOP both to the Right.

That will guarantee that America finally puts the vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society behind itself, and the dawning of a new Gilded Age when Wall Street and the City of London really rule the world.

With Hillary and Schumer, we are doing our part to carry out that mission.

[merrily]

31. Yes. That's why the Koch brothers funded both the DLC and the Tea Party.

For them, win win.

With Hillary and Schumer, we are doing our part to carry out that mission.

I've been trying to do what I can, but "the left of the left" s so incredibly difficult to unify and keep unified, to get funding for, etc.

[Cosmic Kitten]

33. +1 AND, Schumer will ascend with Reid's blessings!

[riqster]

30. The Ohio party has for some time frozen out most of us.

The vast majority of candidates were selected by Chris Redfern and his coterie. Now he's out and things are loosening a wee bit.

Maybe we'll have some primaries in 2016.

[merrily]

32. Glad things are loosening up. Make noise! I wish you well in getting

more primaries.

In your state, do you vote on who the state party will endorse in a primary?

I think the real issue is, should the party be neutral a primary? I think it should.

[riqster]

34. Nope. The party does as it pleases.

Still a lot of housekeeping to be done.

[merrily]

35. Guess it's still 1880. Too bad.