DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists

Michael Wolfe · Feb 12, 2016

blacbird said:
The major action the RNC has taken, for several electoral cycles now, is to permit (encourage, perhaps?) winner-take-all-delegate primaries, "winner" being defined as whoever finishes with the highest percentage of votes. Nothing could be more conducive to eliminating "minority" candidates than that.

Agree, winner take all systems are undemocratic, imo. (The electoral college uses this system as well, unfortunately.)

It's far worse than the "superdelegate" issue for the DNC (which I don't condone or agree with).

caw

Is it really far worse, though? The winner take all system could actually benefit Cruz and/or Trump, assuming they win in the states who have adopted the system (something that strikes me as quite possible and even likely). Whereas it's hard to see how superdelegates or allowing lobbyists and corporations to donate money would possibly benefit anyone but Clinton.

rugcat · Feb 12, 2016

Michael Wolfe said:
Right, I understood you the first time. And again, Team Clinton has to offer more than "you're juvenile and idiotic if you won't support Clinton." Because if they can't (or won't), many Sanders supporters aren't going to vote at all.

Yes I'm sure you understood, which makes it doubly annoying that you phrased it in a completely different way to fit your narrative, to make it seem like I was saying that unless you're Hillary a supporter you 're juvenile and idiotic.

I'm sure that is a pragmatic politician, Hillary will do her best to win over the juvenile and idiotic. Sanders, luckily for him, does not have that problem. Hillary supporters are not going to hand over the election to Trump or Cruz simply because she lost to a candidate they think is inferior.

I'm open to this being true. Do we know that to be the case? Persuade me.

It's important to have money. If you don't have any, you can't win. But having a pot full of money doesn't guarantee a win – look at Jeb Bush. His huge war chest hasn't helped him any.

It's not like Bernie Sanders is eking out his campaign on a shoestring. He has a pot-load of money himself. If you think that the person who ends up with the most money is going to be the winner, you haven't been following politics very closely.

Exactly. Bad news for Hillary. But some don't want to make the connection, it seems.

I'm sure she makes the connection. But I am not working on the campaign. I see some Sanders supporters saying "Hillary better play fair and be nice to us, or we'll take our ball and go home and then Trump will be president and you'll be sorry."

Hillary obviously can't say well, screw you, but whatever I say has no effect whatsoever on the election so even if I don't say it, I can certainly think it.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 12, 2016

rugcat said:
Yes I'm sure you understood, which makes it doubly annoying that you phrased it in a completely different way to fit your narrative, to make it seem like I was saying that unless you're Hillary a supporter you 're juvenile and idiotic.

I suppose I thought my meaning was clearer than it was, given that I was talking about Clinton alienating Sanders supporters and making them not want to vote at all. Obviously that's only a factor that comes into play in the general election. Apologies for not being clearer, I had no intention to distort you.

So let me re-phrase, so there can be no confusion. Clinton and her supporters need to offer more than just "you're idiotic and juvenile if you won't support Clinton in the general election." In particular, she needs to avoid creating the impression that she won unfairly (assuming she does in fact win). I think a lot of Sanders supporters will see it that way, fair or not. Clinton should not be so deaf to this prospect, imo.

I'm sure that is a pragmatic politician, Hillary will do her best to win over the juvenile and idiotic.

Of course. Just noting that she isn't doing herself any favors with this kind of thing, if that's one of her priorities.

It's important to have money. If you don't have any, you can't win. But having a pot full of money doesn't guarantee a win – look at Jeb Bush. His huge war chest hasn't helped him any.

I agree. I'm not saying money=guaranteed victory. But knocking down that notion doesn't validate your thesis. You said these contributions aren't going to decide anything (I take that to mean they aren't going to decide the election.) I think that could be true. But I don't think we can assume it to be true, and certainly we can't assume it to be true because of Jeb Bush. If we take seriously what the DNC is saying, they seem to believe this money could in fact be a different maker in the general. If that is the case, then why not in the primaries as well?

It's not like Bernie Sanders is eking out his campaign on a shoestring. He has a pot-load of money himself. If you think that the person who ends up with the most money is going to be the winner, you haven't been following politics very closely.

Again, no. I'm not sure why money=victory is what you're reading here.

Underdawg47 · Feb 12, 2016

rugcat said:
I'm not brushing anything off. Just pointing out that it's a system that's been in place long before this campaign season.

But I do think think it's amusing that people are so bothered that the DNC has a bias toward Hillary Clinton, a long time party stalwart and supporter (one of the very things that Sanders supporters don't like about her) instead of a man who has never been a part of the Democratic Party and has spent much of his life criticizing them, as well as Republicans.

Not to mention that despite what Bernie's supporters believe, the DNC clearly believes that were he to gain the nomination he would be crushed in the general. Something I also believe. It's the same reason the RNC is so afraid of Trump or Cruz gaining their nomination. Both parties want to win the presidency, and tend to support whoever they think has the best chance.

I don't see anyone criticizing the RNC for their even more obvious dislike of both Trump and Cruz, both of them are actual Republicans, although Trump is a recent convert to the fold.

As for changing the rules, I think the DNC is a lot more concerned with the ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, to raise enough money to combat the billion dollars or so that the GOP is going to come up with to defeat them.

I think people are bothered because the two parties have set the rules so that it is extremely difficult for people in third parties to get elected. I think it is not only right, but important that a person like Bernie use the democratic party to get elected. It is way too long that we as a nation have to suffer with a person hand picked by the party elites instead of who the majority of liberals want to be their leader.

I think that the DNC's lifting Obama's ban on contributions from federal lobbyists will do the DNC and Hillary more harm and prove Bernie right in the eyes of many potential Bernie voters.

nighttimer · Feb 12, 2016

William Haskins said:
three cheers for situational ethics.

And a handclap for situational outrage. :Clap:

Michael Wolfe said:
So let me re-phrase, so there can be no confusion. Clinton and her supporters need to offer more than just "you're idiotic and juvenile if you won't support Clinton in the general election." In particular, she needs to avoid creating the impression that she won unfairly (assuming she does in fact win). I think a lot of Sanders supporters will see it that way, fair or not. Clinton should not be so deaf to this prospect, imo.

I would add that Sanders and his supporters need to offer more than just "you're not a real progressive and a Clinton hack if you won't support Sanders in the general election and get behind the Socialist Democrat who only added "Democrat" to his title since May." I haven't chosen a side, but I can say I am already very tired of having my judgment and good sense called into question because I haven't yet signed on to the Sanders "Revolution."

Newsflash: Not Feeling the Bern doesn't mean I'm Ready For Hillary. But I do know who's giving me more crap for not having made a commitment. Don't get in my face, Sanders supporters. The hard sell is no-sell for me.

It's not only Clinton who should worry about her opponent's supporters sitting on the sidelines come November. Sanders should share the same concern and probably more so.

RichardGarfinkle · Feb 13, 2016

Underdawg47 said:
I think people are bothered because the two parties have set the rules so that it is extremely difficult for people in third parties to get elected. I think it is not only right, but important that a person like Bernie use the democratic party to get elected. It is way too long that we as a nation have to suffer with a person hand picked by the party elites instead of who the majority of liberals want to be their leader.

I think that the DNC's lifting Obama's ban on contributions from federal lobbyists will do the DNC and Hillary more harm and prove Bernie right in the eyes of many potential Bernie voters.

The Democratic and Republican parties didn't create the rules that push out third parties. The Supreme Court did that. All attempts to remove the role of money in elections were scuttled by the Court. Most politicians don't like begging for cash and walking near the quid pro quo line.

The Court institutionalized bribery as a fundamental part of elections by equating speech with money. No politician gets into high office in the US without doing this. No one has clean hands here. The only way to reform the system is by changing those rulings which would involve appointing appropriate justices.

The major sins committed by the elected politicians lie in gerrymandering and in lying to the people. But the people bear much of the responsibility for the latter by not learning how their own government works and by demanding the comforting lie that there are simple magical solutions to complex real world problems.

The widespread ignorance of how American government works can be seen in the differences in turnout between presidential year and off year elections.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ways-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

Too many voters believe in magical presidents who will act like fairy tale kings bringing about change by waving magic wands. Those same voters can't be bothered to show up two years later to elect the Congress people who will actually vote on the bills that might bring that President's agenda forward or block it. They also don't pay attention to the State legislators who create the district maps that gerrymander their states.

The US system is complex which necessessitates that its citizens to learn, pay attention and take part, not just vote once in four years then spend the rest of the time griping about the corruption of politicians.

Don · Feb 13, 2016

Is it just my old memory failing me, or is there a huge disconnect in some people's positions on this issue and Citizens United?

Haggis said:
You're absolutely right. So given that. Why should anyone bother to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries?

Because the vast majority of voters have no knowledge of the man behind the curtain, and have heard the propaganda that "your vote matters" and "it's important to vote" since they were wee tykes. When you're raised immersed in a religion, it's hard to see it from a secular viewpoint.

Bartholomew · Feb 13, 2016

rugcat said:
I'd still vote for him over anyone on the Republican side. Politics is a tough game and always has been.

I'm glad Sanders is a big enough threat now that the HRC supporters are the ones being cornered into saying, "Yeah, I'll hold my nose and vote party lines if my candidate loses the primary." I've been supporting Sanders since he launched his campaign, and god damn, I am tired of DNC old guard trying to pry this phrase out of me.

Bartholomew · Feb 13, 2016

nighttimer said:
I would add that Sanders and his supporters need to offer more than just "you're not a real progressive and a Clinton hack if you won't support Sanders in the general election and get behind the Socialist Democrat who only added "Democrat" to his title since May." I haven't chosen a side, but I can say I am already very tired of having my judgment and good sense called into question because I haven't yet signed on to the Sanders "Revolution."

Newsflash: Not Feeling the Bern doesn't mean I'm Ready For Hillary. But I do know who's giving me more crap for not having made a commitment. Don't get in my face, Sanders supporters. The hard sell is no-sell for me.

I am very hopeful that we will see Sanders run a campaign of specifics this week and next in South Carolina.

For what it's worth, I'd like to apologize if you've been getting a lot of undue pressure to back Sanders. There are a lot of young people bringing high levels of, er, undirected energy into the campaign.

rugcat · Feb 13, 2016

Bartholomew said:
I'm glad Sanders is a big enough threat now that the HRC supporters are the ones being cornered into saying, "Yeah, I'll hold my nose and vote party lines if my candidate loses the primary

I don't recall saying anything about holding my nose. I think Hillary has a better chance to win the general and I think she'd make a better president. I think Sanders, obviously, would make infinitely better president than anyone on the Republican side -- especially Trump or Cruz, who are truly frightening possibilities.

It's actually possible to prefer one democratic candidate over another without getting angry about who is supporting whom or denigrating the other person's choice.

DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

Underdawg47

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Don

All Living is Local

Bartholomew

Comic guy

Bartholomew

Comic guy

rugcat

Lost in the Fog