Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 25, 2018

The Democratic National Committee dramatically reduced the power and influence of "superdelegates" in selecting the party's presidential nominee at their summer meeting in Chicago on Saturday, ahead of what's expected to be a wide-open Democratic field in 2020. DNC members voted on a proposal to take away the role of elected officials and other party dignitaries in selecting a nominee at the Democratic convention -- leaving it up to delegates selected in primaries and caucuses only -- unless the process becomes deadlocked.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose supporters pushed for reforms after the contentious 2016 primary, expressed approval of the vote. "Today's decision by the DNC is an important step forward in making the Democratic Party more open, democratic and responsive to the input of ordinary Americans," Sanders said in a statement. "This has been a long and arduous process, and I want to thank Tom Perez and all of those who made it happen."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


It took them long enough...

The superdelegates should have never existed.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The fact that so many of them supported Billary should be reason enough all by itself to limit their power.

#2 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-08-25 03:36 PM | Reply

"Drain the swamp."
MAGA

#3 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2018-08-25 06:23 PM | Reply

Lamplighter, no offense, but you aren't even a Democrat. Why is your opinion relevant to how the Democratic Party chooses our candidates? If you want to be involved in how the Democratic Party operate then....become a Democrat. Support Democratic nominees even when they aren't your first choice. Because it's better for America. When Democrats win so does America. When Independents take votes away from Democrats, Republicans win.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-25 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


@#4 ... Lamplighter, no offense, but you aren't even a Democrat. Why is your opinion relevant to how the Democratic Party chooses our candidates? ...

I only proffer my opinion on this matter in the following context:

I am an independent voter. Sometimes I vote for a Democrat, sometimes not. If the Democrats want me to take their candidates more seriously, then it is my opinion that they should not use superdelegates. As you point out, what they do is up to them.

... Support Democratic nominees even when they aren't your first choice. Because it's better for America. ...

If those candidates got the nomination because of some backroom democracy-ignoring superdelegate procedure, then I remain to be convinced that the candidate would indeed be better for America when the process that nominated them is so tainted.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Independents have no right to criticize how we run the Democratic Party. You're welcome to join and have a voice but otherwise you're entirely irrelevant.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-25 06:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 2

Just so you understand, Independents have assisted Republican during 3 Bush terms and then again helped Trump win. I will admit though, Independents also helped Bill Clinton defeat Bush Sr. Independents are spoilers who are too lazy to get involved in party policies and then just pretend it's ok to vote for irrelevant candidates like Jill Stein who never had a chance of winning but did have the power to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning. Donald Trump thanks all of you, he loves you but then he loves the poorly educated.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-25 06:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

So much for "big tent" Democrats. They are more about purging their ranks of heretics and alienating potential allies with purity tests.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-25 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#6 ... Independents have no right to criticize how we run the Democratic Party. ...

I can criticize whatever I want to criticize.

Whether or not the Democratic Party is open to listening to such critique is up to them. But I also remind the Democratic Party that they do knock on my door from time to time looking for my support of their candidate(s).

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Independents have no right to criticize how we run the Democratic Party. You're welcome to join and have a voice but otherwise you're entirely irrelevant.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-08-25 06:46 PM | REPLY | FUNNY: 1:Yet you badly need their votes in the elections. Maybe the have no 'rights', but one would think that you would want the DNC to run it in a way that would attract their votes. Case in point: The superdelegates in the pocket of Hillary screwing over Bernie lost the dems votes that could have elected HRC.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-08-25 07:13 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement


@#7 ... Independents are spoilers who are too lazy to get involved in party policies ...

On the contrary I do get involved in the party policies of at least two parties, since I am interested in all candidates.

Additionally, maybe the independents actually have to do more work to determine who they want to vote for because they do not just vote the party line each election.

But back to the point of this thread, what do you think of the elimination (mostly) of the superdelegates by the Democratic Party?

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The superdelegates in the pocket of Hillary screwing over Bernie lost the dems votes that could have elected HRC." - #10 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-08-25 07:13 PM

Both Clinton and Sanders have access to the delegate rules and both knew about super-delegates when they decided to run. Both adopted a strategy to recruit super-delegates to their side. Both are very experienced politicians and both know how the nomination process works.

Source (posted March 5, 2016): www.tallahassee.com

Oops.

#12 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 07:23 PM | Reply

"The superdelegates should have never existed." - #1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 02:25 PM

Democratic governors, Democratic US Senators, Democratic Congressmen, former Democratic presidents, and the chairs of the 50 state Democratic Executive Committees shouldn't have a say in what happens in the Democratic Party?

Here's a newsflash: The Republicans have the exact same thing.

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 07:39 PM | Reply

So much for "big tent" Democrats. They are more about purging their ranks of heretics and alienating potential allies with purity tests.
#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-25 06:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

As if you give a ----.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If those candidates got the nomination because of some backroom democracy-ignoring superdelegate procedure..." - #5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 06:42 PM

That was not the case:

Over 30,000,000 voters participated in Democratic primaries and caucuses in 2016, indicating their preference. And the successful candidate won 55% of their votes.

At the Democratic convention, more than 4,000 pledged delegates participated, and the successful candidate won 55% of those pledged delegates, mirroring the choice of the 30,000,000 voters who participated in Democratic primaries and caucuses (this does NOT include the votes of the superdelegates).

How is that "some backroom democracy-ignoring superdelegate procedure"?

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 07:58 PM | Reply

Hans, hear me out on this.

I won't claim the superdelegate process circumvented democracy. But I will say it clouded it. And its departure is welcome, even though I'd prefer to see more reform.

Throughout the primary process, many media outlets consistently reported aggregate vote totals between Clinton and Sanders and included pledged superdelegates in the totals. The psychology of political momentum and bandwagon behavior is well-documented. My opinion is that these principles, coupled with media coverage that made it appear that (with superdelegates) Bernie was not within reach of Clinton in the later primaries (like California), clouded the democratic process in the 2016 primary.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"...coupled with media coverage that made it appear that (with superdelegates) Bernie was not within reach of Clinton in the later primaries (like California)..." - #16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:09 PM

All the media coverage I saw included delegate totals that reflected both pledged delegate totals and totals including the superdelegates who had pledged.

But are you advocating an "ignorance is bliss" approach, that the media should have completely ignored the pledges of the superdelegates ahead of the convention?

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:18 PM | Reply


@#13 ... Democratic governors, Democratic US Senators, Democratic Congressmen, former Democratic presidents, and the chairs of the 50 state Democratic Executive Committees shouldn't have a say in what happens in the Democratic Party? ...

I didn't say they should not have a say in the Democratic Party.

I did say that I think they should not have a delegate vote at the convention (unless, of course, the Democratic voters specifically selected them as the convention delegates in primaries and caucuses).

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 08:19 PM | Reply

"I did say that I think they should not have a delegate vote at the convention..." - #18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 08:19 PM

But you're okay with the Republicans having that very same thing?

And not having a vote at the convention is not having a voice at the convention.

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:23 PM | Reply

But are you advocating an "ignorance is bliss" approach, that the media should have completely ignored the pledges of the superdelegates ahead of the convention?

No. My position is that superdelegates shouldn't exist at all. Let the people choose the nominee. And that includes all the "governors, senators, congressmen, former presidents" - they all have a vote just like you and me.

But if superdelegates are going to exist, the least the media can do is not "call the election" for Clinton before the California primary has concluded, which call could only have been made by including superdelegate totals.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"...the least the media can do is not "call the election" for Clinton before the California primary has concluded..." - #20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:30PM

So you're advocating an "ignorance is bliss" approach.

I don't remember "the media" calling the election for anyone; I distinctly remember reports on delegate totals: pledged delegate totals, and totals adding in the pledges of the superdelegates.

And, yes, these always included the fact of the number of votes needed to secure the nomination.

"...which call could only have been made by including superdelegate totals."

Actually, without the pledged superdelegate votes no candidate went into the 2016 DNC convention with enough pledged delegate votes to secure the nomination.

So at what point is it okay to face facts?

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:43 PM | Reply

"My position is that superdelegates shouldn't exist at all." - #20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:30 PM

Both major political parties recognize the value of having the people most invested in the party itself - elected officials - having a voice - and a vote - at their national convention.

For Democrats, this was made crystal clear following the 1972 convention and subsequent election.

Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:46 PM | Reply

Actually, without the pledged superdelegate votes no candidate went into the 2016 DNC convention with enough pledged delegate votes to secure the nomination. So at what point is it okay to face facts?

There's a difference between calling the election using superdelegate totals when the primaries have concluded, and doing so when elections haven't concluded, again, due to the factors of political momentum and bandwagon behavior.

ignorance is bliss

Your ignorance of human psychology is noted.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:48 PM | Reply

Both major political parties recognize the value of having the people most invested in the party itself - elected officials - having a voice - and a vote - at their national convention.

So? That doesn't mean I have to agree with the practice. I'm glad you're ok with how Republicans do things. I'm not.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:49 PM | Reply


@#19 ... But you're okay with the Republicans having that very same thing? ...

Once again, that's your strawman, not something I said.

#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 08:49 PM | Reply

"...not something I said." - #25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-25 08:49 PM

Did I miss where you condemned the Republicans for having the exact same thing?

Or is it only Democrats who should be hog-tied in this regard?

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:51 PM | Reply

"I'm glad you're ok with how Republicans do things. I'm not." - #24 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:49 PM

So only Democrats who should be hog-tied in this regard.

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:52 PM | Reply

"There's a difference between calling the election using superdelegate totals..." - #23 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:48 PM

Who called the election?

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:54 PM | Reply

"That doesn't mean I have to agree with the practice." - #24 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 08:49 PM

The "practice," as you call it, has been in effect in the Democratic Party for over 40 years.

Are you just now in disagreement with the "practice"?

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 08:56 PM | Reply

Did I miss where you condemned the Republicans for having the exact same thing?

I don't vote on their primary. Why would i care?

So only Democrats who should be hog-tied in this regard.

Why is it "hog tying" to only let voters decide a primary?

Who called the election?

The AP, followed my many other major outlets who used the AP story.

Are you just now in disagreement with the "practice"?

The length of time a person has objected to something has zero impact on the practice itself. That only relates to me, and we aren't talking about me, as much as you'd apparently like to.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 09:03 PM | Reply

"Why is it "hog tying" to only let voters decide a primary?" - #30 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 09:03 PM

As I detailed in my #15, the voters did.

"The AP, followed my many other major outlets who used the AP story."

"Clinton has 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses," the AP reports. "She also has the support of 571 superdelegates, according to an Associated Press count. ... While superdelegates can change their minds, those counted in Clinton's tally have unequivocally told the AP they will support her at the party's summer convention. Since the start of the AP's survey in late 2015, no superdelegates have switched from supporting Clinton to backing Sanders.
Exactly as I stated in my #17, and reiterated in my #21 ("So at what point is it okay to face facts?").

"The length of time a person has objected to something has zero impact on the practice itself."

A point on which we'll have to disagree.

#31 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-25 09:14 PM | Reply

As I detailed in my #15, the voters did.

The post where you conveniently ignore voter psychology? That's cute.

While superdelegates can change their minds

That's not the AP story i'm referring to.

apnews.com

And that's not to mention their all-caps tweet on the matter, which also contained no disclaimer regarding superdelegates.

Whatever. You support the superdelegate process. I absoutely don't. Have a nice night.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-25 09:27 PM | Reply

I think the relevant point about party politics is that the Democratic Party did listen to its members and is eliminating Superdelegates. That is what happens when people work from within the party to change the things about the party they don't like. Building a strong party is the best way for any voter to maximize the importance of his/her vote. Voting for third party candidates who have zero chance of winning is the way to minimize the importance of your vote. Your vote then actually serves the party you most disagree with, votes for Jill Stein helped Donald Trump but I do not thing those voters preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-26 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

votes for Jill Stein helped Donald Trump but I do not thing those voters preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-08-26 11:01 AM | REPLY

Keep spewing that nonsense. It's all your partisan hacks have left. You can't even admit Hillary was a horrible candidate.

#34 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-26 11:36 AM | Reply

I think the relevant point about party politics is that the Democratic Party did listen to its members and is eliminating Superdelegates.

#33 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-08-26 11:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

and all it took was losing to Donald Trump.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-08-26 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"and all it took was losing to Donald Trump." - #35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-08-26 12:21 PM

And all it took for the Democratic Party to implement superdelegates in the first place was losing to Richard Nixon by a 23% margin in the 4th largest popular vote landslide in history.

At least Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

#36 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-26 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34 - it's not nonsense. I agree that most of those voting for Stein would have preferred Clinton over trump. You have clearly said that you preferred trump over Clinton. That's your prerogative, and you get to live with your choice. But it is perfectly reasonable to assume you are in the minority of Stein voters.

#37 | Posted by Snowfake at 2018-08-26 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There are some bitter anti-democracy partisan democrats in this thread. Pathetic and unAmerican.

#38 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-26 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-08-26 12:29 PM | REPLY

I'm meeting you halfway, you stupid hippies!

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-08-26 01:24 PM | Reply

Independents have no right to criticize how we run the Democratic Party. You're welcome to join and have a voice but otherwise you're entirely irrelevant.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI

God you're funny when you get all self righteous.

Here's a hint, danni. You need independent voters more than they need you.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Independents are spoilers who are too lazy to get involved in party policies and then just pretend it's ok to vote for irrelevant candidates like Jill Stein who blah blah blah

Shut your ignorant cake hole.

God your self righteous, ignorant anger get tiresome.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 02:56 PM | Reply

Your ignorance of human psychology is noted.

#23 | POSTED BY JOE

He's not ignorant.

He's just a party groupy.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 03:00 PM | Reply

So-called Super Delegates have been the Establishment Elite's way of controlling the Party for decades. Good riddance. This change was long overdue. It gives this Democratic voter hope that the next Democratic candidate for POTUS actually is fairly and democratically chosen.

#43 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-08-26 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Superdelegates, in my opinion, were undemocratic.

I'm glad they're gone. They were one of the biggest blunders of the 2016 primaries.

Good job democrats

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-26 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did I miss where you condemned the Republicans for having the exact same thing?
Or is it only Democrats who should be hog-tied in this regard?

#26 | POSTED BY HANS

Why does anybody have to condemn both?

I vote Dem far more often than I vote Repub. As such, I'm more interested in what and how the Dem party runs, mostly because the GOP is so horrible I will pull the lever for a D and want it to be the best candidate possible (not Hillary).

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do Republicans have superdelegates?

Wouldn't blocking Trump been the perfect time to use them?

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-26 03:17 PM | Reply

"So-called Super Delegates have been the Establishment Elite's way of controlling the Party for decades." - #43 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-08-26 03:09 PM

When in the 40+ years the Democratic Party has had superdelegates have those people prevented the winner of the Democratic primaries/caucuses from gaining the nomination?

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-26 07:12 PM | Reply

"Do Republicans have superdelegates?" - #46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-26 03:17 PM

Yes they do.

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-26 07:12 PM | Reply

Yes they do.

#48 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-08-26 07:12 PM

Correct, but they are not untethered, like the DNC's were.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-26 07:24 PM | Reply

"At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention who are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong"

en.wikipedia.org

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-26 07:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Correct, but they are not untethered, like the DNC's were." - #49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-26 07:24 PM

And, still, no one has been able to point out when, in their 40 year existence, Democratic superdelegates prevented the candidate going into the convention with the most pledged delegates from getting the nomination.

Didn't happen in 2016.

Never happened before.

#51 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-26 07:41 PM | Reply

Hillary Clinton did not have enough pledged delegates going into the convention to secure the nomination on the first ballot.

She did, however, have 92% of the total delegate votes needed to secure the nomination in pledged delegates (Sanders had 77% in pledged delegated).

So here's the ultimate irony: the votes of the superdelegates ensured that the candidate with the most pledged delegates actually received the nomination.

It seems like those who are arguing most vigorously against superdelegates because it is so "undemocratic" completely overlook this fact: the votes of the superdelegates ensured that the will of the 30,000,000 voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses was heard.

#52 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-26 08:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Don't forget to stretch after this Hans.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 10:31 PM | Reply

Do Republicans have superdelegates?

Wouldn't blocking Trump been the perfect time to use them?

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-26 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag

Hello? hello? um.....Trump won for the Republicans. It is amazing when people get so entrenched in their "party" that they can't see past the idea of millions of other people don't see and agree with them. It appears one should get off the high horse and start actually looking around.

#54 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-08-26 11:23 PM | Reply

Democratic party members are great at winning primaries, but elections not so much. Both parties need independents to win. Democrats are generally condescending to independents, and worse to fellow democrats who 'fall out of favor'. The DNC made a step in the right direction and will gain independent votes as a result. And of course party members don't like it, they are losing influence. Its all a give and take.

#55 | Posted by horstngraben at 2018-08-27 12:12 AM | Reply

"Don't forget to stretch after this Hans." - #53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-26 10:31 PM

So, no retort to my #51 and #52.

#56 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-27 06:20 AM | Reply

And all it took for the Democratic Party to implement superdelegates in the first place was losing to Richard Nixon by a 23% margin in the 4th largest popular vote landslide in history.
At least Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

#36 | POSTED BY HANS

I think this ended up being the worst strategic response the Democrats could have made. When Goldwater got his clock cleaned in 1964, the "conservatives" didn't dismiss his platform, they doubled down on it. They set out to capture the news media, create a bunch of "think tanks" to create "positions" for them, hired semanticists to capture the language, and put together tons of campaign $. The "Texas oil billionaires" (and others) who Ike said were "few" and "stupid" ended up taking over the party.

The Dems "purged" the "left" after the McGovern loss. Big mistake. Now, the Democrats are trying to be the "centrist" party, because they allowed the right to get away with demonizing the New Deal Democrats. So now there is no "left" party to counterbalance the crazy right. "The only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos" --Jim Hightower.

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-08-27 11:50 AM | Reply

--The Dems "purged" the "left" after the McGovern loss. Big mistake

Well it gave us President Mondale and President Hillary Clinton. Getting rid of superdelegates will pave the way for "democratic socialists".

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-27 11:54 AM | Reply

"When Goldwater got his clock cleaned in 1964, the "conservatives" didn't dismiss his platform, they doubled down on it. They set out to capture the news media, create a bunch of "think tanks" to create "positions" for them, hired semanticists to capture the language, and put together tons of campaign $." - #57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-08-27 11:50 AM

Your history is off by 6-7 years.

What you're describing here is the result of the Lewis Powell memorandum:

Though Powell's memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration's "hands-off business" philosophy.
It was published on August 23, 1971, 2 months before his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by Richard Nixon.

"The "Texas oil billionaires" (and others) who Ike said were "few" and "stupid" ended up taking over the party."

"The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

#59 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-27 12:02 PM | Reply

- pave the way for "democratic socialists".

"The Red Scare! ANTIFA! Be afraid, be very afraid!"

lmao... what a joke you've become.

People who whined about SDs, whose one job was to keep a Trump-like candidate from skewing the results or even winning, still find something to whine about when they are diminished.

I agree with Bernie and Tom Perez, this was the right thing to do, if only to get rid of the claim of "unfairness" which wasn't true anyway in the last primary as SD votes were not needed on the final ballot.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2018-08-27 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--I agree with Bernie and Tom Perez

So do I. Dems should definitely move to the far left. Too bad O'Crazyio Cortez is too young to run for the nomination. She would be a sure winner.

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-27 12:44 PM | Reply

- Dems should definitely move to the far left.

Which is not what they agree upon, well, unless one is ignorant enough to consider Bernie the "far left", which is pretty funny stuff.

But hey, I guess when someone like you goes all rwing xenophobe jingoist, Red-baiting is all you really have, Joe McFidian.

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2018-08-27 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort