DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Jack and Jill Politics

A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
Jump to original thread »
Author

Sign An Open Letter To Democratic Leaders Demanding They Not Overturn The Will Of Voters

Started by baratunde aka jack turner · 11 months ago

This is it. Something to do. We know what the problem is. ColorOfChange is motivating. Let’s get behind this.

Here’s an excerpt:

Some leaders in the Democratic Party are playing with fire. They think that they can betray the will of millions of voters and choose Hillary Clinton as the nominee, regardless of whether or not ... Continue reading »

22 comments

  • Chenna

    1 year ago

    The problem I have with this whiole "will of the people issue" is Michigan and Florida, i.e. we're not counting those votes & all those folks are certainly part of the people. And if people want to say well those states knew the rules & chose not to follow, I can make the same argument with respect to the superdelegates. The superdelegate concept was not designed for superdelegates to follow lockstep the popular vote. Otherwise, there would be no need for them. Neither candidate will reach the required number of delegates based on the primaries alone. EACH candidate needs the votes of the superdelegates to reach the magic number. Sooo I don't know that we can really say that if enough superdelegates line up behind Clinton & she wins, then somehow the will of the people has been overturned. Kinda bogus argument to me.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    @ chenna


    What about the people who didn't vote because all the candidates and the DNC agreed there would be no election? To count the votes cast as-is would be tantamount to fraud.



    Clearly, by supporting Hillary the superdelegates are not following the delegate count in making their decision. As a matter of fact, many of them endorsed Hillary before a single vote was cast and long before they knew what kind of candidate she would be.



    I think FL and MI will be seated, but not in a way where they'll be rewarded for breaking the rules. The party needs to preserve it's authority to enforce rules.



    The actions of superdelegates were not intended to be detrimental to the party...if they overturn the delegate count, it will be highly damaging.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    ...you know what, regarding my comment above. I'm a little irritated that stuff like this even needs to be said. This is not rocket science, this is BASIC FAIRNESS! This is the stuff we tell our kids every day.


    Why has this primary caused normal, reasonable people to lose their basic sense of fairness? Why are they willing to be unjust in these circumstances?...I don't get it.
    reply
  • Ronnie B

    1 year ago

    I signed the letter.


    @truthseeker:



    You have the right to be irritated. Basic fairness isn't complicated. The only people who want to make it complex are those who can't survive on said fairness.
    reply
  • Gloria

    1 year ago

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd... important that you read the above! If the article above is read by more people this election could be over by now!
    reply
  • Gloria

    1 year ago

    The New Republic
    Race Man by Sean Wilentz



    Sorry about the link, it's too long...

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.

    html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304





    you can piece it together.



    DO READ IT!
    reply
  • RyanB

    1 year ago

    I signed it and included an excerpt from a post I wrote for my blog a few days ago, "Aint I A Voter?" --


    On February 12, many of my family members voted

    In the Potomac Primaries,

    Where Obama received about 89% of the African-American vote.



    On April 22, I voted

    In Pennsylvania,

    A state where Clinton only won 9% of the African-American vote.



    9%.



    But no one’s talking about that.



    Instead,

    Everyone’s focused on Obama’s “problem” with working class whites.

    How can he win come November without them?



    Well here’s another question, of equal importance:

    How can Clinton win without the Black vote?

    Which she has shrewdly

    And handily

    Lost.



    The answer?

    She can’t.



    Well now that there

    Is an “electability” problem

    If I ever saw one.



    So let’s talk about that

    Too

    Because our votes

    Matter.
    reply
  • Ronnie B

    1 year ago

    Ryan, you're right. And a strong argument to the superdelegates is that Obama did absolutely nothing to "lose" the blue collar white vote. Clinton, however, has done almost everything possible to shoo away what's left of her Black support. What's more, she's actively courting those very white voters who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstance.
    reply
  • stubbysfears

    1 year ago

    Actually, chenna, the purpose of the Super Delegates is not to make an independent judgment. As you note, neither candidate will have enough delegates to win this when primaries are over. The purpose of the Super Delegates is, was, and has always been


    1) To allow elected Dems, key activists, and former Presidents a seat at the convention (which they did not automatically have before SDs were created) &



    2) In the event all candidates fall shy of the magic # at the end of the primaries, to put the candidate LEADING in pledged delegates over the top...thus ensuring that there would be no floor fights or backroom deals at the convention.
    reply
  • RyanB

    1 year ago

    @ronnie b -
    And then, once she won the "working class white" (ie, racist) vote, she used this talking point as the REASON that Obama cannot win in November. Because he cannot win the racist vote, one that she's got in the bag. Bravo, Hillary.



    Makes me sick.
    reply
  • Anonymous

    1 year ago

    Whites are not the only racists.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    ronnie b,


    the irony is that those same white voters who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances, will not vote for her against McCain. Racists tend to also be sexist.
    reply
  • Ronnie B

    1 year ago

    I've been wondering why the Clintons would throw away the Black vote for nothing in return. They have to know that they can't pick up the additional votes elsewhere.


    Now, has Harold Ford, Jr. endorsed either Obama or Clinton? Isn't he the chair of the DLC (to which Bill Clinton belonged)? Aren't his politics in line with H. Clinton's?



    I'm wondering if Clinton thinks that she can use us to win the nomination, and then woo us back by naming Ford as her running mate?
    reply
  • tree

    1 year ago

    Harold Ford will be Hillary's running mate.
    reply
  • A.Non.Ymous

    1 year ago

    Truth of the matter is either candidate can win without the superdelegates. If Obama was that far ahead of Clinton then the superdelegates wouldn't matter.


    There is literally a fraction between Obama and Hillary in the popular vote (less than 2%). It would be stupid for the superdelegates to decide anything before June.



    It's basically a tie.



    Finally, Dean said last night on The Daily Show that the delegates from MI and FL will be seated.



    The fair thing is to wait until the last vote is counted.
    reply
  • Anonymous

    1 year ago

    The whole thing is that HRC now is the candidate and the DNC won't do anything to stop it or the threats and behind the doors lies she and her man have been spreading, and, so, let McCain in as Hillary wants.


    As for Florida, who cares, they broke the rules and will be for McCain anyway's. Michigan? Another one who broke he rules and will go with McCain, so, since their party leaders could not follow he rules, their votes are invalid, rules are made to be followed, not just when its expedient for HRC who thought she would win the nomination without them.
    reply
  • Craig Hickman

    1 year ago

    John McCain has just told the truth:


    "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."



    Well, well.
    reply
  • Anonymous

    1 year ago

    Gloria - the article was the most egregious piece of crap I have read in a long time. I now understand why Shrillary appeals to the ignorant and uneducated crowd. Wow just wow.
    reply
  • TruthSeeker

    1 year ago

    Craig,


    that is a stunning admission. I hope Obama jumps on this!
    reply
  • B-Serious

    1 year ago

    @ a.non.ymous (1:20pm)


    you said"There is literally a fraction between Obama and Hillary in the popular vote (less than 2%)"



    I respectfully disagree with your premise.



    The "popular vote" is not the metric used to choose a nominee. Delegates are. Both Obama AND Hillary Clinton are on record for saying as much.



    There is no such thing as a national popular vote in Democratic primaries. If there were, we'd have a . . . NATIONAL PRIMARY. Yes, one day. Everyone in every state votes and then we're done with it. But that's not the case. If it were, candidates would spend all of their time trying to run up the score in states like NY and CA. Those states would have a strangle-hold on the nominating process which would hurt the Dems in the Fall.



    Plus there's a serious question as to whether or not the "popular vote" even counts caucus results. In fact, there are a few caucus states that never released their final tallies.



    We have a metric to determine the will of the people. That metric is DELEGATES. That's the way it was when Hillary was "inevitable." And that's the way it is now. The rules don't change just because Hillary's gonna lose.



    Yes. Super delegates are allowed to reverse the will of the people. Notice I said "reverse."



    Supers would "reverse" the will of the people if they gave the nomination to a candidate who had less delegates.



    However, supers would "ratify" the will of the people if they gave the nomination to the person who EARNED the most elected delegates. Reverse v. Ratify. That's what it comes down to.



    Supers can "reverse" the will of the people if they want to. But there will be serious consequences that the party will have to live with.



    Say goodbye to the black vote. Say goodbye to a generation of would-be Democratic voters (ages 18-30). Say goodbye to most of your activist base of support. Say goodbye to blue cities that are blue because of black votes. Say goodbye to PA if you can't rack up enough popular votes in Philadelphia.



    Supers know this. They're not willing to sacrifice the future of the Democratic Party just to make Hillary happy.



    you also said,"The fair thing is to wait until the last vote is counted."



    Hillary Clinton is on record as saying that she expected to have the nomination wrapped up by February 5.



    She wasn't worried about letting everyone vote back then. Why the change of heart now? Of course, we all know why. . . she's loosing.



    We weren't worried about letting everyone vote when people asked John Edwards to drop out? Why is that.



    Fact is. People drop out all of the time. They do it for the good of the party.



    If Obama lost 12 straight by an average of 33% like Hillary did, he would have been forced out of the race a long time ago.



    Finally, the idea, "let everyone vote," is misleading. Everyone will vote. But we'll have our nominee. Happens all of the time. People are still voting in the Republican contests as well. It's just that the Republicans have the opportunity to rally behind their nominee and strengthen him for the Fall.



    Most supers want that as well. Which is why they keep coming out for Obama. He's picked up 16 supers to Clinton's 10 since his loss in PA. That's with all of the problems he's had.



    Obama's camp says the super delegate race (elected supers) is already over. They say they've won. Hillary's camp hasn't really challenged that assertion. All they say is "hold on," "give us more time."



    Hillary's the one in the hole. If Hillary had the support, she'd be showing it by now. But she's not. That speaks volumes.
    reply
  • rikyrah

    1 year ago

    Wilentz is a well known Clinton STOOGE.
    reply
  • Ronnie B

    1 year ago

    Pay no attention to a.non.ymous. He/she is the resident Clinton shill, hoping for the errant 70-year-old McGoo to stumble into JJP and be convinced that Clinton really is winning.


    Pay him/her no mind.
    reply
Please login to comment.
Returning? Login