Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confronted About DNC’s “Rigged” Process

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confronted About DNC’s “Rigged” Process

The return of fuzzy math.

Bernie Sanders supporters who were excited about his big win in New Hampshire were surprised to learn Sanders and Clinton would leave the Granite State with an equal number of delegates due to the DNC’s use of so-called Superdelegates.

Yesterday on CNN, Jake Tapper confronted DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on this topic.

Josh Feldman of Mediaite has the details:

Tapper Confronts Wasserman Schultz on the Charge Dem Superdelegates ‘Rig’ the Process

One of the biggest controversies coming out of New Hampshire is the Democratic superdelegates helping boost Hillary Clinton from an over-20-point-loss to a tie. CNN’s Jake Tapper confronted DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz about this today, asking her what she would say to people who believe “it’s all rigged” against Sanders.

Wasserman Schultz explained how unpledged delegates are a completely separate category from pledged delegates, mentioning something about not wanting party delegates and elected officials running against grassroots activists. And something about competition.

Tapper noted, “I’m not sure that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter.”

Here’s a video of the exchange:

This whole Superdelegate issue smacks of the back-room shenanigans of which Democrats love to accuse Republicans.

Jim Geraghty makes the point well at National Review:

No Party With ‘Superdelegates’ Gets to Lecture Me About Disenfranchisement

Why Do Grassroots Democrats Let the Elites Run Their Party This Way?

Of course, all those Democrats voting in New Hampshire may not have had as much impact on the process as they thought they did. Let’s do something unusual and check in with Russ Belville over at the Huffington Post:

I wonder what kind of surprise awaits the Millennial voter the more he or she sees the results of their hard work canvassing for voters to Feel the Bern.

First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets… 29?

Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets… 15?

What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie?

The answer is the “superdelegates,” those high-ranking lawmakers who automatically get a vote to decide who the nominee that is equal to about 10,000 grassroots primary voters. “In New Hampshire, it took convincing 60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.”

Ultimately, Bernie Sanders has a point about the game being rigged…

by the Democratic Party.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

legacyrepublican | February 12, 2016 at 8:38 am

I’m surprised her hair didn’t catch on fire. Nice job burning the witch.

    Apparently she forgot to use the mayonnaise on her hair for this interview. She did use a charcoal briquette to line her eyes, though. It’s her new look!

Until the 70’s most delegates were appointed by the state party leaders. California was notable for having a primary, and it was winner take all. During the 70’s and 80’s, most states adopted primaries with delegates awarded in proportion to the votes won. Super delegates were added as a reform to the primary system to prevent fringe candidates from getting the nomination. So, the system is working as intended.

Actually, the old, brokered convention system we had produced much better Presidents than does our current system: FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, LBJ vs. Carter, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. The reality is that the state leaders backed well-know politicians with wide-ranging contacts and track records. Do you really, really want Sanders?

PS. The brokered conventions were enormously entertaining. I hope we get two.

    Valerie in reply to bob sykes. | February 12, 2016 at 10:28 am

    We were fortunate with both Clinton and Bush II.

    Bill Clinton was recognizable as an able politician and a policy wonk early on. It is no surprise to me that he won. I listened to all of his (yawn!) State of the Union speeches because they were dense and purposeful.

    George W. Bush was a surprise. I bought in to all the derision of him as being dumb and inarticulate, right up until I saw him criss-crossing this country, calming it down after 9/11, and getting no credit at all for it. The funny thing is, I think he surprised himself.

    I was able to see both Clinton and Bush grow in office. I was not aware enough to notice with Carter, but people older than me thought those two were remarkable for that trait.

    I can say for a fact that Obama has not grown in office. And, his political appointees are either radical fools or just plain fools. When the EPA and the IRS start pursuing people because of their political affiliations, you know you have a cluster**** sitting in the Oval Office, because any mildly competent person would let the agencies know that violation of the principle of equal protection under the laws is unacceptable.

Of course socialists aren’t honest about the vote, the process by which they select delegates, the process by which they run debates, and the process by which they choose their nominee.

They’re not honest about anything else, why would they be honest about elections?

Seriously, you’re expecting honesty from socialists — what next, charity from bankers?

Translation: “We don’t need no steekin’ voters”

Humphrey's Executor | February 12, 2016 at 9:32 am

We’re going to see a completely different kind of smoked filled room this time around.

Debbie Whatshername: “We as a party highlight inclusiveness and diversity…”

…amongst the little people; but they should bow down to their rich white superiors, and let us run the party.

It doesn’t take “fuzzy math” to determine that it doesn’t take very many “superdelegates” to render the voting grassroots meaningless.

“In New Hampshire, it took convincing 60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.”

George Orwell wrote, “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Apparently Dem party insiders are 10,000 times as “equal”.

I don’t give a rats patootie about the socialist Sanders or the criminal Clinton, but what I do care about is the people, and they got shafted by the autocracy in this. They SHOULD be outraged because they are being disenfranchised. The reason Trump is doing so well is that voters are outraged. They are over the business as usual politics of the “ruling class.”

    Valerie in reply to Twanger. | February 12, 2016 at 10:39 am

    “disenfranchised”

    Bingo. And now you know why both Sanders and Trump are getting so many votes: the Democratic Party has persistently disenfranchised both the Republican Party and its own voters.

    I don’t think Sanders has any former Republican voters, but I do think Trump is supported by a lot of Democrats. He gets that support because, even though the Republicans increased their numbers year by year in the House and the Senate, they never were able to get a veto-proof majority, or get co-operation from either the Democrats at the national level or the White House. Bill Clinton had enough sense to recognize that compromise was both good and necessary. Obama does not. Neither does Reid, neither does Pelosi.

      SeniorD in reply to Valerie. | February 12, 2016 at 12:43 pm

      The Uniparty (aka Demublicans and Repcrats) have been disenfranchising voters since the G.W.H. Bush era. The Fat Cats are ‘large and in charge’ and don’t care about the proletariat.

A pattern is developing here…

There are the “pledged delegates” and there are back room delegates.

There a secure servers and there are back room servers.

There are donations that fund foundations which care for others and there back door donations which secure future benefits for donors and campaigns.

Remember at the last DNC when the voters (subjects) reacted clearly and harshly against recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an open outcry vote? Then the party bosses stepped in and went the other way because they knew it would threaten their power to do what their (stupid) voters wanted. Exactly the same thing here. The Democrats are Soviet wannabes.

If Bernie gets 60% or so of the primary votes and Hillary continues down the road to conviction in her email scandal, she might just get a nasty surprise. Suppose that the high-ups in the Democrat party quietly and behind the scenes decide to dump Hillary during the convention and start to spread rumors such as “Hilary is contemplating stepping aside for the good of the country” and “Due to health issues…”

Once the tipping point is reached, the stampede will start, because the rats know when to get off the sinking ship.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend