NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders

Lunar Wolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
14,514
Los Angeles
Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, hear constant warnings from allies about congressional losses in November if the party nominates Bernie Sanders for president. Democratic House members share their Sanders fears on text-messaging chains. Bill Clinton, in calls with old friends, vents about the party getting wiped out in the general election.
And officials in the national and state parties are increasingly anxious about splintered primaries on Super Tuesday and beyond, where the liberal Mr. Sanders edges out moderate candidates who collectively win more votes.

Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders’s candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance. Since Mr. Sanders’s victory in Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, The Times has interviewed 93 party officials — all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention — and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.
Such a situation may result in a brokered convention, a messy political battle the likes of which Democrats have not seen since 1952, when the nominee was Adlai Stevenson.

Jay Jacobs, the New York State Democratic Party chairman and a superdelegate, echoing many others interviewed, said that superdelegates should choose a nominee they believed had the best chance of defeating Mr. Trump if no candidate wins a majority of delegates during the primaries. Mr. Sanders argued that he should become the nominee at the convention with a plurality of delegates, to reflect the will of voters, and that denying him the nomination would enrage his supporters and split the party for years to come.
“Bernie wants to redefine the rules and just say he just needs a plurality,” Mr. Jacobs said. “I don’t think we buy that. I don’t think the mainstream of the Democratic Party buys that. If he doesn’t have a majority, it stands to reason that he may not become the nominee.”

This article is based on interviews with the 93 superdelegates, out of 771 total, as well as party strategists and aides to senior Democrats about the thinking of party leaders. A vast majority of those superdelegates — whose ranks include federal elected officials, former presidents and vice presidents and D.N.C. members — predicted that no candidate would clinch the nomination during the primaries, and that there would be a brokered convention fight in July to choose a nominee.
In a reflection of the establishment’s wariness about Mr. Sanders, only nine of the 93 superdelegates interviewed said that Mr. Sanders should become the nominee purely on the basis of arriving at the convention with a plurality, if he was short of a majority.

While there is no widespread public effort underway to undercut Mr. Sanders, arresting his rise has emerged as the dominant topic in many Democratic circles. Some are trying to act well before the convention: Since Mr. Sanders won Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, four donors have approached former Representative Steve Israel of New York to ask if he can suggest someone to run a super PAC aimed at blocking Mr. Sanders. He declined their offer.
“People are worried,” said former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who in October endorsed former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “How you can spend four or five months hoping you don’t have to put a bumper sticker from that guy on your car.”

That anxiety has led even superdelegates to suggest ideas that sound ripped from the pages of a political drama.

In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.

Others are urging former President Barack Obama to get involved to broker a truce — either among the four moderate candidates or between the Sanders and establishment wings, according to three people familiar with those conversations.


William Owen, a D.N.C. member from Tennessee, suggested that if Mr. Obama was unwilling, his wife, Michelle, could be nominated as vice president, giving the party a figure they could rally behind.

“She’s the only person I can think of who can unify the party and help us win,” he said. “This election is about saving the American experiment as a republic. It’s also about saving the world. This is not an ordinary election.”

People close to Mr. Obama say he has no intention of getting involved in the primary contest, seeing his role as less of a kingmaker than as a unifying figure to help heal party divisions once Democrats settle on a nominee. He also believed that the Democratic Party shouldn’t engage in smoke-filled-room politics, arguing that those kinds of deals would have prevented him from capturing the nomination when he ran against Hillary Clinton in 2008.
“If Bernie gets a plurality and nobody else is even close and the superdelegates weigh in and say, ‘We know better than the voters,’ I think that will be a big problem,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, a Sanders supporter who is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Others in the party view Mr. Sanders as such an existential threat that they see stopping him from winning the nomination as less risky than a public convention fight. Many feared that putting Mr. Sanders on the top of the ticket could cost Democrats the political gains of the Trump era, a period when the party won control of the House, took governor’s mansions in deep red states and flipped statehouses across the country.

“Bernie seems to have declared war on the Democratic Party — and it’s caused panic in the House ranks,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, a supporter of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. Private polling of Mr. Gottheimer’s northern New Jersey district, for example, shows a double-digit gap in the approval ratings of Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders.

Should Mr. Sanders win big in the 16 states and territories holding primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday next week, he could be on a path to the 1,991 pledged delegates needed to capture the nomination on the first ballot at the party’s convention. But if the Super Tuesday vote is sharply divided among Mr. Sanders and two or more other rivals, the Vermont senator could find himself with more delegates than the competition but not enough to win the nomination outright.

Under the current rules, the convention would then go to a second ballot. On that vote, all 3,979 pledged delegates and 771 superdelegates would be free to vote for any candidate they chose.
A number of superdelegates dream of a savior candidate who is not now in the race, perhaps Mr. Brown, or maybe someone who already dropped out the race, like Senator Kamala Harris of California.

 

Spoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,562
Yeah, establishment dems are willing to lose to keep Bernie out. This isn't news.
 

Sendero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
649
For those that claim that the establishment members have been acting in good faith, all these years.

Others are urging former President Barack Obama to get involved to broker a truce — either among the four moderate candidates or between the Sanders
Obama did nothing when the connection of Trump with Russia was found at top level. And that was a complete failure of his sworn duty as President.

Hope he is wise enough to not intervene now. That would finish to destroy his legacy.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
When Bernie beats Trump then it is the final nail in the coffin of 2016 and signals the past 4 years could have been avoided.
 

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
For those that claim that the establishment members have been acting in good faith, all these years.

Obama did nothing when the connection of Trump with Russia was found at top level. Hope he is wise enough to not intervene now. That would finish to destroy his legacy.
Obama wanted to release that information in a bipartisan fashion precisely because he didn't want to bias the 2016 election, and McConnell said no.

His decision on that matter should inform people that he's more likely to stay out of this election as well, at least publically.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,915
Oh boy, I can't image the party is dumb enough to not give it to Bernie if he only has plurarity. Like that would be far more damaging than any scenario they think will happen if it's him vs Trump.
 

iAMr229

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,299
This would bite them in the ass terribly but I'm not much of a Bernie guy anyway so eh.
 

Deleted member 7373

Guest
If Bernie wins (gets the most) and the party gives it to someone else, I absolutely will not vote for whoever they pick and I guarantee a lot of others won’t either. It would be a massacre.
 

Foffy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,613
If there is tampering from "above," regardless of the candidate, it will only give the impression the entire thing is corrupt and this will negatively impact voter turnout.

I know a swath of people, potentially myself included, that will refrain from voting it seems the people in states wanted one person and the elite at the top want to prop up someone like Bloomberg. At that point it's a battle between elites and different forms of fascism we're told to choose between.
 

Kinsei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,124
Well that's a good way to ensure at least another 8-12 years of conservative rule.
 
Aug 12, 2019
3,055
I don't see this calculus. If the Democratic party wants to continue to exist, denying Bernie the nomination with a strong plurality in his favor is just literally giving up on the Presidential election and probably going to cost them any chance at the Senate and possibly kill their chances at retaining a House majority. There's no tactical advantage for them moving forward to do such a thing, so it's literally just political suicide.

Let's hope the collective Democratic party is not this dumb.
 
Oct 26, 2017
11,291
Sorry Dems, if you actually worked on behalf of the working class maybe your party wouldn't be trying to get some fresh blood
 

Foffy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,613
Donald Trump thanks you for your support.
Donald Trump isn't a member of the Dems who hold power and already oppose Sanders if he has a majority but not a definitive majority. You should be asking yourself why they not only refuse to support the frontrunner in principle, but a specific frontrunner. They would be intentionally stepping on the throats of all of his supporters and momentum: why would they continue to act with "civility?"

Interference of this kind tells generations of the youth that better things aren't possible and all that can be done is what those at the top allow. The problem, of course, is that the top needs to be eradicated from power in every political party in this country. These are the same elite that will talk about Russia hysteria and interference but at the same time talk a good game of interference to "stop Bernie" at all costs.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,061
They're concerned that every Democratic candidate will become targeted as an extreme "socialist" who loves Fidel Castro just like Bernie or some shit like that. Bernie helps almost no one down ballot in most states. Personally, I think he's a terrible candidate because he promises the moon, but knows he can't deliver because the Dems in congress won't just abandon their beliefs and blindly follow him. Still, I don't think they should take the nom from him if he legitimately wins it. If he doesn't, then all bets are off.
 

Richietto

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,871
North Carolina
Its crazy they are ready and willing to destroy their party and cause irreparable damage in future elections. This is how you tell every young person looking to vote that none of it matters.
 

Xaszatm

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,945
Donald Trump thanks you for your support.
DNC shifting the vote away from the front-runner would destroy the "every vote matters" idea. There's no recovering from that. That would justify those who don't vote for their lives. "Why should I vote? They'll just change it to someone else."

How? If superdelegates had overridden the popular vote and nominated Bernie Sanders? lol
The idea that a moderate was/is necessary to win the election is what's being challenged.
 

uncelestial

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,060
San Francisco, CA, USA
Careful now. People said stuff like this before Trump became POTUS.
Yeah well it's hard to leave the country but after the Supreme Court seat theft, voting to not allow witnesses or evidence in the impeachment trial, and voter suppression being openly called for, I'm just about at my limit.

American democracy is clearly on the ropes. Frankly I already have an active inquiry into transferring into Canada at work and the wife and I are visiting Toronto in April to check out where to live. Then we gotta line up visas. So, it's hard, but yeah.

This is a failed state at the point where both parties choose to subvert democracy to this degree and the immune system of law, checks, and balances does nothing to stop it.
 

Foffy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,613
They're concerned that every Democratic candidate will become targeted as an extreme "socialist" who loves Fidel Castro just like Bernie or some shit like that. Bernie helps almost no one down ballot in most states. Personally, I think he's a terrible candidate because he promises the moon, but knows he can't deliver because the Dems in congress won't just abandon their beliefs and blindly follow him. Still, I don't think they should take the nom from him if he legitimately wins it. If he doesn't, then all bets are off.
The problem with the bolded is that this is literally what the GOP already does. To everyone. Even before Bernie. Barack Obama has been called a socialist. Mayo Pete has been called a socialist. They define centrists as "far-left" because the party as a whole became far-right.

People who think this stops if someone other than Bernie has the nomination is a damn dweeb. Their answer is to paint everyone who isn't a Republican as a far-left extremist socialist. Going for the Radical Centrist isn't going to change this. Anyone proposing healthcare reform is already a socialist in big bold letters, even if their plans keep the for-profit parasites.
 

Strike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,881
I willing to take that bet. They're not insane. They'll fall in line if it comes to that because they're wont be a party if they don't.
 

Crayolan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,539
Pissing off the largest group of democratic voters (assuming Bernie does win with a plurality) seems like a good way to guarantee 4 more years of Trump.
 
Mar 27, 2019
371
Anyone who thought the Dnc was going lie down and take a Sanders nomination was sorely mistaken. The dems are between a rock and a hard place. Bernie arguably has harder path to winning than other others but if they steal it they risk splitting the vote perhaps irreparably so. Not a good position to be in.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,116
I think they call this "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".

My votes won't be changed by anything they do but damn, they trying hard to make it pointless