The Supers Are Back: DNC Members Planning Move To Block Sanders . . . Again

In 2016, many of us objected to the concerted effect of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic National Committee to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton. Later it was revealed that the Clintons have largely taken over the DNC by taking over its debt and the DNC openly harassed and hampered Sanders at every stage. Despite this effort, Sanders came close to beating Clinton, who has never forgiven him for contesting a primary that she literally bought and paid for with the DNC. The simmering rage was still evident recently in Clinton’s attack on Sanders and suggestion that she might not support him if he were the nominee (a suggestion that she later took back). She continued her attacks this week and it has served to remind voters, particularly younger voters, of the DNC interference with the primary election. After the scandal, the DNC pledged to reform itself and reduce the power of establishment figures and superdelegates at the convention. Now, however, Politico is reporting that DNC members are again discussing changing the rules to stop Sanders. This follows the selection of Clinton allies to control the convention and a shocking level of anti-Sanders bias shown by CNN at the last debate. In the meantime, the DNC has been criticized for clearing the way for Michael Bloomberg by changing its rules to help him make the debates.

Reportedly, a group of Democratic National Committee members are discussing ways to undermine Sanders and allow for a convention stop on his candidacy. The plan centers around the superdelegates to reverse reforms and allow them to vote on the first ballot. In other words, the supers would be brought back in to keep Sanders out.

William Owen, a Tennessee DNC member, acknowledged the discussion and said that he does not support the effort. He noted that they agreed it could be “tough.” One would hope so. The plan would make a mockery of all of the prior statements of regret and reform after the rigged primary for Clinton. It would confirm in the mind of critics that the DNC is only interested in creating the appearance of democratic choice and only to the extent that the voters do what the establishment expects.

In fairness to the DNC, the report only refers to a small group and it is unlikely to succeed. However, the fact that it is being discussed is alarming after the Clinton attack and the selection of Clinton allies to head the convention. The fear is that Sanders could win Iowa and come to the convention with the most votes. It would challenge the view that Biden is the unassailable nominee — just as he challenged the same view with Clinton.

These moves are likely to only strengthen the resolve of the surging Sanders supporters. Sanders is receiving the most support among young voters — an extraordinary accomplishment given his age and mainstream opposition. The Democratic Party is clearly not willing to move beyond the control and fealty extended to the Clintons. That could easily force a final reckoning at the convention over who controls the Democratic party.

120 thoughts on “The Supers Are Back: DNC Members Planning Move To Block Sanders . . . Again”

  1. Speaking of corruption in the parties, how did the old white McCain win the nomination in 07 against a much younger black Obama, when at the time, not unlike today, old white men were and are anathema? Can you point to the corrupt in that one?

    1. “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

      David, your statements and explanations didn’t meet that definition.

  2. Sanders was trying to help Democrats win, not harm them. Sanders didn’t want a repeat of Ralph Nader. Nader ran as a third party which split the votes that would have likely gone to Democrats, causing the Democrats to lose. Sanders intentionally wanted to run in the Democratic Primary (instead of a third party) to help Democrats maximize votes in the general election. Sanders supported the Democrats and they punished him for it.
    Ironically, if the New York and California primaries had been open to all eligible voters, Sanders (and Democrats) would have almost certainly won the election.

  3. Bernie should take a good long look at who his friends are. The democrat establishment is hard at work fixing their primary’s.

  4. “Even Singapore”

    Firstly David, Wikipedia is a terrible resource for things that involve politics. They are frequently wrong or obscure the facts.

    You looked up the words “social democracy” which is different than socialism.

    The discussion of Singapore does not say that Singapore is socialist. You apparently don’t know the history of modern Singapore. That a party states it is socialist doesn’t make the country socialist.

    1. From
      we learn that Singapore is a nanny state, which many take as a sign of socialism. Also, the government is 22% of the economy, counting or not the many government owned corporations such as the Singapore airline.

      Some might call it a highly regulated mixed economy. Whatever, this nanny state is highly successful although not old-fashioned so-called free market economy.

      1. “which many take as a sign of socialism”

        May take as a sign is not a definition and can mean almost anything.

        You have indicated you are a professor. That should mean you have a firmer grasp on what you say than this hodgepodge of definitions that are meaningless.

  5. To paraphrase that Great American philosopher
    Gomer Pyle
    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice…I’m a Berniecrat.

  6. This is instructive. Mike Gravel is a Democrat so all the claims that the party isn’t obligated to Bernays Sanders do not hold water in Gravel’s case. It will instruct you about how there is intent to defraud voters and engage in primary rigging whether directed at Bernays or other primary candidates.

    “In July 2019, the Mike Gravel campaign contacted the DNC after receiving over 65,000 unique donors.

    On the call, a senior official swore that they would never change the debate rules for any candidate. Six months later, they did exactly that.”

    Check out @GravelInstitute for the tape recording.

    1. Ray, Bernays is no communist. It’s so strange that both his supporters and detractors believe he is not a capitalist. He is totally a capitalist and if the oligarchy wants him “elected” and he is “elected”, this fact will become overwhelming clarified!

      However, what you are saying is that you think Bernie is a communist so it is o.k. for the DP to defraud voters and get rid of him. This isn’t o.k. It’s a subversion of free and fair elections. Whether this gets rid of someone you don’t like is irrelevant to the much greater issue that we the people have rights which are being subverted by the DP (among others). Please don’t ever accept that.

  7. The many dams here in the Pacific Northwest are almost all owned by some government agency, some federal, some county organizations, some irrigation districts. I consider all to be means of production. Socialism at work, and very successfully so.

    1. You are having a “conversation” all by yourself over a couple of hours time frame past midnight. How is that “socialism” working for ya?

    2. Hydroelectric dams are natural monopolies. The utility sector as a whole is responsible for a whopping 2% of value-added in this country. Can you think of an example which isn’t fundamentally invalid?

    3. ” I consider all to be means of production. Socialism at work, and very successfully so.”

      David, again, you are creating your own definitions. Again be careful about confusing state governments with federal governments.

      Learn what public goods are.

    1. “Wonder why young people are favoring “socialism”?”

      The reason young people favor socialism is the same as yours. They don’t know what it is and don’t know the definitions of important words that they are using. You have no excuse. You are much older with more experience and I understand, a professor.

      That you taught in a university with such a poor understanding of socialism, capitalism, Nazism, etc. is probably why we so frequently get dumb answers from young supposedly educated people.

Comments are closed.