2016 Democratic Convention

Sanders Supporters Push to End Superdelegates, Closed Primaries, Make it Easier for a Trump to Win on the Democratic Side

Sanders supporters pushed for reform, got a committee that will set new rules by 2018 looking to open up primaries and limit superdelegates.

|

Reason TV

Bernie Sanders supporters participating in the Democratic National Convention's rules-making process were interested in abolishing superdelegates and opening up Democratic party primaries to independent and unaffiliated voters. They extracted from the rules committee a proposal for a "unity commission" that would work to create a process to bind superdelegates who are not members of Congress, governors, and former presidents to their state contests' results, as well as to open up the Democratic presidential primaries to independent, unaffiliated, and new voters willing to sign up for the Democratic party, the Washington Post reports. The effort "End Superdelegates," meanwhile believes that because a vote on abolishing superdelegates received more than 25 percent in the rules committee, the proposal will receive a minority report and a vote on the floor of the convention.

Either way, it's a far way from what Sanders voters wanted, but the creation of a commission also allows them to keep pushing more reforms. Sanders supporters argue that the superdelegate system created the impression that Bernie Sanders could not win, while closed primaries (New York required party registration several months in advance disenfranchised voters). But even in the absence of superdelegates Hillary Clinton received millions of votes more than Bernie Sanders. And disengagement by independent voters in local primaries in one-party jurisdictions, as I wrote this spring, contributes to the production of politically dysfunctional and corrupt political office holders like Philly's Chaka Fattah. Supporters of candidates like Bernie Sanders and even Ron Paul would have more influence working within a major or minor party than remaining unaffiliated and disengaged outside of presidential primary cycles with insurgent candidates, and would be less prone to the kinds of demagogues offering quick solutions but no substance.

The weekend after witnessing the nomination of Donald Trump by the Republican party seems like an odd time to for the other major party in the country to dismantle the internal checks and balances meant to prevent the party from being hijacked by cheap demagogues. If Donald Trump loses and the Republican party shakes itself loose of him, it ought to consider adopting superdelegates at the least, and even closing primaries. Instead, Democrats have made it easier for someone to try the Trump playbook out on them.

Many of Trump's voters were unaffiliated and independent, such voters in a fully open primary system could for a Trump clone on the Democratic side. Superdelegates, meanwhile, offer party leaders some control over the direction of their party. Republican leaders struggled throughout the year to mount an offensive against Trump, in part handicapped by the idea that they should not interfere with the primary process. Yet a party, even a major one, "belongs" to members of the party, not the general public. Certainly, the major parties themselves have contributed to this misunderstanding by taking public money where they can and embedding themselves into the electoral political process by winning privileges from the government that not coincidentally also serve to thwart the growth of minor parties.

But it is important not to treat political parties like public accommodations, especially how easy we have seen it to be for a would-be strongman to run a party's tables. Democrats tend to believe such a thing could not happen today, because they mistake the tone Trump takes, and not his wanton disregard for constitutional processes (largely because its shared by many Democrats), as the essential danger of a Trump presidency. But Trump has merely expressed a bipartisan disregard for the Constitution and belief in unilateral executive action without the usual obfuscation. That's earned him as many supporters as anything else, and makes maintaining, and for Republicans constructing, the kinds of checks and balances on a party-level that can stop such demagogues before they become too popular.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

199 responses to “Sanders Supporters Push to End Superdelegates, Closed Primaries, Make it Easier for a Trump to Win on the Democratic Side

  1. Listen, you can’t expect Democrats to be this concerned about democracy. I mean, come on.

    1. It’s kind of easy to talk about how much limited government is awesome when you’re the governor of a state that gets over half its money from the federal government.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory

        1. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico and received gobs of federal money without which his state would have looked more like Mexico than New Mexico so that makes him a little bit of a hypocrite, you know.

          1. Los Alamos is run by the university of California.

            I am unaware that it paves streets in Albuquerque.

          2. Los Alamos is on DOE-owned property.

            Exactly how much authority does the governor have to dictate the ownership of DOE owned property?

            1. Hey Brian,

              This is kinda what I was getting at…

              States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
              1. New Mexico: $2.63
              2. West Virginia: $2.57
              3. Mississippi: $2.47
              4. District of Colombia: $2.41
              5. Hawaii: $2.38
              6. Alabama: $2.03
              7. Alaska: $1.93
              8. Montana: $1.92
              9. South Carolina: $1.92
              10. Maine: $1.78

              Gayjay is kind of like a old libertarian who bitches about the government while cashing his social security check.

              1. So the American Socialist is objecting to Socialism?

                1. He seems to be objecting to people who were forced to pay into social security their entire lives actually trying to get some benefit back out of it in return. Because reasons, I guess.

              2. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

              3. And how much control does the governor of New Mexico have in shutting off the Social Security and Medicare benefits of New Mexico citizens, while kicking military bases and research labs off of federally owned and controlled property that’s in New Mexico?

                What’s he suppose to do? “Build a wall” so that Los Alamos employees can’t buy groceries? Ban stores from accepting SS, and doctors from accepting Medicare? Would that even be constitutional?

                Give federal employees a New Mexico tax cut? I hear he worked to give everyone in New Mexico tax cuts, so I assume that’s covered.

                Listen, you can just come out and admit you didn’t research your own talking point very well. As it stands, you look dumber than an Asian nail salon worker using correct English.

          3. Yeah, and I bet Johnson commutes from home to his office on ROADZ!!!!

          4. There’s probably a social security office there too. And a post office. A FUCKING POST OFFICE!!!!! Clearly Gary Johnson is behind all of this.

            1. He mails his letters and wrings his hands with glee at the stupid libertarians that buy his shtick.

              1. I bet both his marriage and divorce were thru the
                state!

          5. New Mexico GDP: ~$76 billion
            Los Alamos budget: ~$2 billion

            God, you’re stupid.

            1. Brian, for pete’s sake, you’re dealing with a “socialist”; the man’s a self-defined ignoramus. What do you expect?

          6. And don’t forget White Sands Missile Range “making the sand glow since 1945!”

            1. 100 kiloton nuclear weapons. Capable of killing millions of people.

              This is something that markets just can’t do.

              You know what we call that?

              MARKET FAILURE.

      1. Yeah, I’m sure that if Gary had told the folks at Los Alamos to pack their bags and go, they’d have been gone by sundown.

        Aside from the fact that the Los Alamos National Laboratory has nowhere near the economic impact on the state that you ascribe to it its existence there has absolutely nothing to do with New Mexico state policy. But I gave up expecting anything but this kind of irrelevant nonsense from you long ago.

  2. Bernie bends over. The fool made himself irrelevant when he licked Hildog’s …. whatever.

  3. The Dems are having their convention, a major scandal has broken and Reason is going to cover it as all about that racist authoritarian fascist demagogue Trump.

  4. Make it Easier for a Trump to Win on the Democratic Side

    If that destroys the Democrat Party as effectively as Trump has destroyed the Republicans, I say that’s a fucking GREAT idea.

    1. I’m hoping for it. My fear being they really do want a true communist.

  5. They can try to work on the Democratic party all they want. But the Democrats are authoritarians who do not tolerate dissent.

    1. And their party officials apparently write like slightly slow 13 year olds. I understand maybe the guy was in a hurry, but you still give the damn email a once-over before hitting send. I don’t really know why they put the sic in the first sentence. That seems somewhat discriminatory considering that one or two belonged in every sentence of that email.

      If I’d written that silly thing, I’d be more embarrassed about the public learning that I have the writing style of a ghetto high school student than I would about being caught conspiring to put a politician on the hot seat over religion.

      1. Yeah, that’s pretty sad. But I think we all know that the Democrats were going to nominate Hillary no matter what. They go on about democracy all of the time, but care not at all for it. I honestly think Bernie could have beaten Hillary if it would have been on fair terms.

        1. I think she still won the most delegates, even if you ignore superdelegates. But adding the superdelegates to the reported totals throughout primary might have changed some voters’ minds. Bernie really screwed up by handling Hillary with kid gloves until the last minute. He was trying to come across as an honorable, nice guy. That never works. He should’ve asked Romney if that was a good idea first.

          1. I think that Bernie wanted the VP slot, in case he lost. I think Obama was pretty nice to her also in 2008. Now she has to face the raging bull and no one can protect her. Seems most people thinks she’ll handle Trump with kid gloves, but I wonder. When has she ever been in a situation like this?

            1. she was in a situation like this in ’08 – the coronation awaited but this guy named Barack showed up and the left swooned. She was right that Obama was an empty suit but that does more to show how little enthusiasm she generates.

  6. In a post about Bernie Sanders’ delegates at the Democratic National Convention there are 6 references to “Sanders”, 9 for “democrat”(including “democratic”) and 10 for “Trump”.

    1. The point is super-delegates and closed primaries make it harder for demagogues like Trump to win so that’s not surprising?

      1. It didn’t stop Clinton, so we’re damned if we do…

      2. super-delegates and closed primaries make it harder for demagogues like Trump to win

        AND NO ONE ELSE.

        JUST THE ONES LIKE TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. TRUMP. it is too relevant

        1. Considering the imminent libertarian insurgence never manifested but instead a populist protectionism revival is paving Trump’s way, it’s not much of a stretch to say populist demagogues are the only ones worth discussing.

          1. Well…what’s Bernie?

              1. Absolutely.

          2. it’s not much of a stretch to say populist demagogues are the only ones worth discussing.

            I think the fact that trump is mentioned at all in the piece is apex-retarded.

            its like they have some kind of mandate to tie every !()*#@ story – no matter what its about – back to the Trump.

            The fucking story is about making political parties more competitive. But Ed’s gotta ensure he load at least a few truckfuls of diapers about Trump, because HITLER

            I mean – look at the opening paragraphs of the article about the DNC Wikileaks dump.

            Last night in Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech….

            ITS TOTALLY FUCKING RELEVANT MAN.

            1. Why else would you even bring up something as esoteric and meaningless for most peoples’ everyday purposes as party delegate systems except to make a point about insurgents, namely Trump and Sanders?

              1. its not really all that esoteric and meaningless

                the role of superdelegates goes back to 1968 and has long been a contentious issue about Democratic party control over its often ‘messy’ constituency-mix of kooks and establishmentarians

                they’re inherently ‘undemocratic’, which i suppose is an irony because the Dems love to posture themselves as the “people’s party”. But their existence is acknowledgement is that ‘democracy is messy’.

                and while people with the memory of hamster-goldfish might think the only possible relevance of Superdelegates is to “freaky insurgent candidates”, they play an equal role when you have 2 establishment candidates vying for party nominations as they do when you have some crazy-populist candidate with a non-party outsider-constituency. Superdelegates last decided the nomination contest between Walter Mondale and Gary Heart – hardly a clash of Insiders vs. Outsiders. Superdelegates are by no means simply about “demagogues” , regardless of Ed’s fantasies.

                If you can’t write a blog post about Democrats and their complex-relationship with their own party processes without dragging TRUMP – someone who 1) handily won his own party’s nomination without even the hint of a convention challenge, and 2) isn’t even a @$*&+%$*( democrat….

                …well, you’re going to have to try harder to explain the relevance to me.

                1. …as I understand it, the Republicans once had a system similar to the Democrats’, with greater party control over the nomination process. They then liberalized their primaries and have what they have now. Meanwhile, the Dems have pretty much total command of their primary. And it’s paid off: they buried the interloper and now have their preferred nominee. The GOP rules committee has got to be looking at the electoral betrayal and thinking very hard. Is it crazy to think there’s a very obvious parallel here?

                  1. The GOP rules committee has got to be looking at the electoral betrayal and thinking very hard. Is it crazy to think there’s a very obvious parallel here?

                    If this post had made a single mention of the GOP’s own historical rules-commitee shenanigans, or if Trump hadn’t won the nomination without challenge, i might see your point.

                    this specifically =

                    The weekend after witnessing the nomination of Donald Trump by the Republican party seems like an odd time to for the other major party in the country to dismantle the internal checks and balances meant to prevent the party from being hijacked by cheap demagogues.

                    1 – that’s not the sole purpose of ‘superdelegates’, and they aren’t really ‘checks and balances’ so much as a devolution of power to insiders.

                    2 – Trump, unlike sanders, wasn’t “hijacking” shit. The expected frontrunner, Jeb! – shit the bed completely. it was a open field contest between lots of also-rans, and the “next closest” to Trump was not any insider either, but Ted Cruz – someone the most insidery-of-insiders actually *despise*

                    what you refer to as “obvious parallels” strike me as more “shoving a round peg through a square hole” because why? Because apparently you can’t even talk about purely DNC issues without making it about Trump.

                    1. I don’t mean “you” as in you, but the …uh, classical, royal “you”. I mean Ed.

        2. I inferred from that statement that the writer thought it somewhat contradictory that Democrats would be pushing for rules that aided Trump.

          1. Yeah, why would Berne Sanders’ supporters want to change the rules to make it possible for candidate like Berne Sanders to win the nomination?

            1. There is that, of course.

              But then, I think that points out the fact that Bernie is not, in fact, a Democrat, but an insurgent trying to changed the Democratic party.

              Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who argue that the Donald is not actually a Republican either. 🙂

    2. “”I don’t care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right.”

      George M Cohan

  7. Sound good to me. You guys?

    Jill Stein: “This is why Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never [did] and it never will.” We have to bring that demand up into the highest headliner as possible.

    Why give them a pass to conduct these wars? Hillary Clinton cannot challenge Donald Trump, because she agrees with him on too many things. Like these outrageous wars, like nuclear weapons, like devoting half of our budget and more to militarism. Half of your income tax is going to militarism ? $75,000 per American household has been spent when you include the health costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. … These wars on terror that have done what? Created more terror, have created failed states, have created mass refugee migrations.”

    1. Sounds good. Now let’s hear her economic platform. I mean, she seems upset that so much is spent on the military. So would she be in favor of just letting Americans keep part of that money, or has she already spent it, and more, on something else? Does she believe that energy prices should ‘necessarily skyrocket’ so that we can play with windmill and solar toys and feel all smug and holier than thou? I’m just asking, she’s your candidate.

      So give us her economic platform.

      1. I feel a Jill Stein moment coming on, good and hard.

        1. I’m not feeling it, but I’m here waiting…

    2. Defense costs are excessive, but nowhere near half of all tax revenue. And a socialist purporting to be upset about government overspending is pretty rich.

      1. No, not THAT kind of socialist, man

      2. The “defense is half the budget” line you hear from the left is a calculation they reach by not counting entitlement spending, which of course dwarfs military spending.

        1. “Government Deception
          The pie chart is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and most of the past military spending is not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large graph.”
          https://www.warresisters.org plus some stuff

          These folks have a YUGGE broom and a YUGGE rug under which to sweep facts

          1. Couldn’t find the graph on the site, do you have a better link?

            I did appreciate the top quote on the main page, though, which seems to imply that wars exist because of racism and sexism.

            “News flash: Russia invades Ukraine over concerns that women make only 77 cents to a man’s dollar”

            1. nationalpriorities.org has some pie charts. I’d post the specific link but U’m too damned lazy to figure out how to do that here.

              This is from a nonprofit but it seems reliable. Basically AmSoc was ignoring “mandatory” spending, which is about 2/3 of all spending, from his “statistic.”

      3. MarkLastname|7.24.16 @ 6:33PM|#
        “Defense costs are excessive, but nowhere near half of all tax revenue.”

        Last I did the sums, eliminating the DoD entirely wouldn’t cover the deficit.

    3. Hillary is unequivocally more of a war hawk than Trump. Saying she ‘agrees’ on that is moronic soft-peddling.

  8. Never lose your sense of outrage

    Is that a specific statement about how the primaries went down, or is it actually that girl’s motto? Knowing Bern Victims, I’ll take the latter. I bet she’s a hit at parties.

    And the dude next to her uses his poster to quote a 10 year old Verizon commercial. The future of America.

    1. I think it means keep being a rebellious teenager your entire life, don’t accept any responsibility and blame everything that goes wrong on someone else.

      1. It’s also a recipe for a brain aneurysm by age 40.

      2. Sounds like most of my clients.

  9. Doom’s vacation update.

    The drive went smoothly, I only saw two political bumper stickers of presidential candidates.
    One Ron Paul 2012, the other a new Gary Johnson.
    Kansas and Ohio plates, respectively.

    1. Ron Paul 2012 doesn’t have a MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN sticker so his ride won’t get keyed by the #NeverTrump cucks or progressive SJWs.

      1. So you’re not making fun of people who say “cuck” when you say “cuck”, right? You’re saying “cuck” seriously?

        1. No I’m trolling humorless literal-minded assholes like you

          1. So wait. Am I a cuckold or not?

            1. Are you looking to SIV for validation? He/She/Xhe/It will never respect your pronouns…

            2. How many cucks would a warty-cuck cuck if…. no, it really doesn’t work, does it.

            3. Ask your wife, cuck.

        2. In case you stick around on this thread, Warty: what do you think of intermittent fasting?

          1. Some people swear by it, but I don’t know anything really about it. It supposedly is good for your metabolism.

            I’ll sometimes forget to eat all day, but I don’t think that counts.

          2. I go through periods of IF every 6 months or so. If i could somehow manage to gain strength instead of just maintaining I would probably IF most of the time. Depends on your goals though. If you are trying to drop some body fat relatively quickly then keto+IF will get it done. Just plain old IF will work too. Just don’t be the asshole that thinks drinking a 5,000 calorie bulletproof coffee for breakfast then waiting until 8pm to eat supper counts as fasting.

            1. Just skipping one meal a day can help, provided you are also exercising.

          3. I read that as intermittent fisting.

    2. I did see a trump billboard in St Louis.

      Not a single hillary sticker.

  10. “Unity commission” is just just a a little Orwellian. Just a little.

    1. “You disagree?” (presses button under desk to call the Peace Brigade)

      1. His children already turned him in.

        1. I’m sure he will learn the error of his ways in the Re-Education Gymnasium

          1. Nice pic of Warty’s basement.

  11. Anti-Trump protest were the work of DNC officials.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07…..-protests/

    1. DNC officials signed off and acknowledged the existence of two anti-Donald Trump protests in South Bend, IN and Billings, MT.

      i have no doubt Team Stupid will undermine the actual value of this particular email-dump by overemphasizing stupid shit that was of no consequence whatsoever.

      i mean really? “acknowledged the existence”? Say it aint so.

      I don’t think anything in those DNC communications were actually shady aside from the fact that they were trying to sabotage sanders. Anything about trying to fuck with the GOP? that’s what they’re *supposed* to do.

      1. What they did was fuck with Dem voters.

        What lets me sleep at night is that it is almost always the Dems who get most screwed by Dem policies.

        1. “What lets me sleep at night is that it is almost always the Dems who get most screwed by Dem policies.”

          That’s beautiful.

          Also, without abortion progressives would have a huge majority.

      2. I remember having a number of arguments with leftists elsewhere that the protests against Trump were being contrived by outside sources. It was some wild conspiracy theory according to the same people who now claim that Trump and Putin cut a deal for these emails.

        If Trump cut a deal with Putin, he already did more than Clinton in four years as Secretary of State.

        1. Like.. a reset button?

      3. It wasn’t just acknowledgement. They deployed some of their interns to staff the protests.

          1. There was heinous fuckery. Heinous fuckery most foul.

              1. One of the best films about making phone calls.

                1. That’s funny.

                  Someone did an edit of “The Departed” which pointed out that like 70% of the movie is basically “guys making cell-phone calls”

                  1. 83% of All the President’s Men is Redford or Hoffman dialing a rotary phone or scribbling gibberish with a phone nestled under their jaw.

                    1. Well, to be fair, during a 2 hr movie you could probably make about ten calls on a rotary phone.

          2. That’s not enough?

            The protests whose effects they were blaming on Trump were actually staffed by their own people?

            The protests that blocked access to public roads to prevent supporters of a (terrible) candidate from peaceably assembling?

            1. God, check out the trump-fanatic over here. get a grip, trumpaloompa.

  12. Timothy Sandefur shits pants, endorses Hitlery

    GayJay’s gonna lose the all-unimportant cosmotarian academic douchebag demographic.

    1. “Hillary’s a known criminal, but Trump’s a dumb yokel.”

      I feel like I’ve heard this one before.

      1. Yokel shaming has always been fashionable, but lately.. it’s all the rage..

      2. The ignorant can always learn; the criminal are what they are.

      3. I wish Trump were as intelligent as a yokel.

    2. I neither know nor care who Timothy Sandefur is. He’s probably mostly known by Cultural Justice Warriors forever trying to unearth the secret proggietarian conspiracy to discredit the Republican party.

      1. Timothy Sandefur is a well known libertarian lawyer/scholar. He’s a Reason contributor and I used to read his stuff in Liberty back in the 90s. I lost all respect for him over the Ron Paul newsletter flap (and a bunch of core ideological principle shit) but he’s done some first class work over the years. I wouldn’t brag about not knowing who he is.

        I didn’t realize he lost his bother in the San Bernadino terror attack. If he stumbles over this comment I offer my condolences.

        1. “There’s a difference between those who break the law?or who, like the Clintons, do so but come up with clever arguments for why their behavior is legal?and those who openly defy the authority or normative force of law itself, and appeal solely to a politics of power and personal command. The latter is the path of barbarism, as so much horrible history shows. It’s the path of personal rule, as opposed to the rule of law. They say hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.”

          So tough talk is worse than actual evil actions.

          Sorry, Sandefur is a moron.

  13. The weekend after witnessing the nomination of Donald Trump by the Republican party seems like an odd time to for the other major party in the country to dismantle the internal checks and balances meant to prevent the party from being hijacked by cheap demagogues.

    I’m not sure why it’s odd, since that is exactly the outcome that Sanders supporters were hoping for.

  14. Hillary Clinton claims she is going to to take the Jeb Bush route against Trump and play it clean. I’m sure that will go well. Trump would lose to any other Democrat. And Hillary would lose to any other Republican. It really is a comical shit show. I’m more and more leaning towards putting money on Trump beating the hack who has all the charisma of a potato in a pantsuit.

    CBS phrases question on the DNC leaks by saying it appears to be by people who want her to lose the election. Might as well just call it a phony scandal. Guess they are going to wait until tomorrow for that.

    1. I wonder if anyone is going to notice the obvious about the leaks and about Assange’s role in them: maybe that home brew server Hills used wasn’t such a good idea after all, and that we really have no idea just how many foreign govts hacked her account and those of her colleagues, and what they might want to do with such data. And this doesn’t even touch the donations to the family crime foundation.

      1. and yes, I realize the DNC leaks were not on Herself’s server but I suspect the Wiki people tapped into that, too.

    2. “There is no room in this house for cowards,” Hillary Clinton recalls her mother saying when Clinton was a young girl facing some neighborhood bullies. Her mother’s advice: “You have to go back out there and figure out how to deal with this.”

      Which is why, Clinton tells Scott Pelley in this unaired 60 Minutes clip, she knows how to manage bullies, both those “around the world” and those “here at home,” including the Republican nominee.

      When did she manage a bully around the world?

      If her mother said something like that in 2016, she would have been locked up for child neglect and aiding and abetting bullying.

      1. When did she manage a bully around the world?

        She totally pwnd the rooskies

  15. But even in the absence of superdelegates Hillary Clinton received millions of votes more than Bernie Sanders

    To be fair, Bernie’s supporters do suck at math.

  16. LOL. Turns out that Donna Brazile was also involved in some of the email chains in the DNC email leak, and wasn’t very unbiased about Sanders there either.

    I’m just wondering why she was in DNC strategy discussions while working as a CNN commentator?

    1. Clinton News Network.
      There are some big things in the emails

      1. There are some big things in the emails

        Why is most of what i’ve seen chickenshit so far?

        again – i think the most damaging stuff would be the “Blue on Blue” back-biting. Because (as Bubba notes about) its ‘screwing their own people’.

        conspiracies among dems & media insiders to spread pro-hillary propaganda…. i do not think is ‘news’ to anyone. For christs sake = SHE BOUGHT THE ONION, MAN

        1. It’s not a huge deal breaker. Not criminal. But for people who were die hard Sanders supporters, I think they might break away entirely over it.

          I haven’t gone through enough of the emails to make any real claim. I need to read more.

        2. Party apparatchiks upset that an avowed independent was running in the primary while bitching about the party central committee? YOU DON’T SAY?

    2. How is her response in the first email not a story? Is that some sort of “off the record” malarky?

  17. Has it yet been brought up that DWS has a job lined up working for Clinton after the steps down this week?

    1. “You scratch my… whatever, and I’ll scratch yours.”

      1. I’d scratch anything Deb wants. Rawr.

    2. Where’s that surprised face? I just had it.
      *wanders off searching*

  18. Also, new conspiracy theory. Hillary picking Kaine for the VP slot was part of her deal with Obama to avoid indictment. She barely knows the guy, he has close ties with Obama (Kaine jokes they are practically the same person), Obama apparently gave Hillary ‘advice’ on who to pick, and no one in the American public cares about him, either.

    If Obama’s goal is to ensure he has control and influence in the next administration, it makes perfect sense that this would be one of the terms of any agreement not to indict.

    1. thats the most boring conspiracy ever.

      1. Part II has reptilians and sexy Russian female spies seducing both Trump and Hillary.

        1. I will hold off judgement until the full trilogy of films is released.

          1. The third film sucks. We don’t even acknowledge it exists.

      2. Boring, but plausible. I just see it as a corrupt machine politician picking a corrupt machine VP.

    2. If Kaine had a black stepfather, he would look like Obama.

  19. If I had 130 dollars a month to burn I would be tempted to join a Crossfit gym just because of this: Reebok CrossFit stores in Manhattan overrun with protesters angry about Glock gun giveaway

    I was around horrible people who were talking about this, and goodness were they outraged. Don’t fret, fellow Reasoners, I outraged the outraged with my outrageous views.

    I am a real American. Fight for the rights of every man. I am a real American. Fight for what’s right. Fight for your life.

    1. Did you rip your shirt off to intimidate them with your moobs?

      1. Excuse me, they are chesticles. Please apologize. Thank you.

    2. Gonna rise up, kick a little ass
      Gon’ Kick a little ass for the USA.

    3. “Glocks should not be glamorized,” Public Advocate Letitia James said at the protest. “Glocks should not be given away as a prize.”

      Public Advocate Letitia James ought to be ashamed of herself for abusing her do-nothing stepping-stone-to-mayor office in this manner.

      1. You have to admit this is exactly what Obama was talking about. They’re not giving away any books.

        1. I am quite certain nobody in NYC is getting a gun in this manner. Maybe they should demonstrate somewhere more relevant.

    4. I’ve come back around to liking the cultfit bigwigs. They have exactly the amount of contempt for their marks that they ought to.

      1. Warty, help!

        Dr. Girlfriend has taken up Crossfit and I don’t know how many more workout descriptions I can listen to over dinner!

        1. When she talks about “double-unders” think about the top urbandictionary definition. It is slightly less classier.

    5. “It is an outrage that an organization like CrossFit Reebok, who purport to be about health and fitness, are giving away a weapon of death and destruction as a prize,” said New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett.

      Never lose your sense of outrage!

      Reebok should announce that they’re giving away pressure cookers and rental trucks instead.

  20. So, the”fart in” is working then?

    1. I think “fail” is a bit harsh.

      1. He failed the crucial “homicide bomber” part. Fox News wins one.

  21. Open primaries mean more power for the duopoly.

    1. All primaries should be open. If the parties want to have closed primaries hold them on private property with 100% private funding.

  22. Bernie must feel like such an ass right now.

    Kissing the ring and endorsing Hillary, knowing shit was rotten in the DNC, but too much of a coward to press the issue.

    Now Wikileaks comes out with their dump, and the Berntards are, what? Farting their protests?

    What a fucking clown show.

    1. “Kissing the ring and endorsing Hillary, knowing shit was rotten in the DNC, but too much of a coward to press the issue.”

      He also managed to get through the entire campaign without making any sort of meaningful comment regarding her destruction of evidence and running the SoS com system from the garage closet in her house.
      Nor was there a single question regarding shilling for the ‘foundation’ while holding the SoS portfolio.
      His vote may not be for sale for currency, but it’s damn cheap when it comes to not having to find a job.

      1. Oh yeah, he knows what pays the bills.

    2. He’s going to be a good boy now and keep his mouth shut, hoping to hop on another primary in 2020 or 2024.

      That’s much better than the alternative: biting the hand that feeds him and running as an independent.

      He doesn’t want to end up Jill Stein.

  23. Bernie must feel like such an ass right now.

    Kissing the ring and endorsing Hillary, knowing shit was rotten in the DNC, but too much of a coward to press the issue.

    Now Wikileaks comes out with their dump, and the Berntards are, what? Farting their protests?

    What a fucking clown show.

    1. It seems like just yesterday Wasserman Shultz and others were mocking the GOP for having a chaotic convention….

  24. The alt text is wrong. There’s a difference. A politician will often express outrage and channel the outrage of followers. It’s pretty standard for any ideology. But “Never lose your sense of outrage” is an essentially leftist sentiment. You can’t really have modern leftism without it. They will find increasingly minor or even imaginary things to be outraged about, because they need outrage for activism and power.

    On the other hand, while populists or conservatives or libertarians may be outraged about various topics, there isn’t the same glorification of perpetual outrage. General they want a problem solved, or just to be left alone. There isn’t the same hunger for outrage.

  25. This has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. They’ll soon catch the teabaggers who did this.

    Suicide bomber at German wine bar

    Why the fuck have the Germans not hung Merkel in public yet?

    1. The reuters reporting suggested that the nearby open-air concert was the intended target. Dude had a premature boomification.

      oh, your article also suggests that’s where he was headed.

      i’m sure there’s a very good “definitely nothing islamic terrorist-ish” explanation. being hatched. asap.

      1. He may have even been turned away from the festival.

        1. that’s what this twitter account (which the Express.uk cited) says

          Why anyone cites twitter accounts describing themselves as “”@L0gg0l Spiritual revolution, natural phenomena, space events””, remains unknown

        2. Or maybe he wanted to taste alcohol just once in his lifetime.

      2. “Dude had a premature boomification.”

        He needs to watch sports on TV; they have a med for that.

    2. Ban Germans?

  26. Are those the girl’s legs, or does she have an extra pair of arms poking out from beneath that sign?

  27. Sanders supporters pushed for reform, got a committee that will set new rules by 2018 looking to open up primaries and limit superdelegates.

    haw haw haw

    Dream on, Bernie Bros. Aint never gonna happen.

    The Left believes in power by any and all means necessary. That’s what Progressivism means – Rule by governing elites. You think they include *you* in that elite?

    That’s so cute. So adorable. So childishly trusting. Sad, too, to see people so foolishly trusting the predator class.

    1. Also wonderful: Sanders supporter reacts poorly to his endorsement of Clinton
      http://www.theamericanmirror.c…..ambulance/

    2. Yep, really solid argument there:
      ‘The people voting for Trump are sick people!’
      I’m convinced!

  28. OT: I’ve had just about my fill of summer. That is all.

  29. “Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary’s orchestrated collusion cheated thousands of honest Americans, who have invested enormous amounts of money and personal time for real change,” said one of the marchers, Dan Haggerty, 54, an electrician from California.

    Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, tried to shift blame for the email hack away from DNC officials and onto “Russian state actors” who, he said, may have breached DNC computers “for the purpose of helping Donald Trump,” the Republican presidential nominee.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..405713.php

    Of course, the Bear didn’t hack Shrill’s server, since it was mucch more secure than the DNC system.

    1. Come on, Clinton”s campaign manager cannot really be named “Mook”, can he?!

      That is a bit too on the nose.

  30. I thought Dan Haggerty was Grizzly Adams?
    He should know a lot about the Bear.

    1. Fact: the most libertarian television sitcom theme is BJ And the Bear.

      1. As a child, i assumed there was some very important thematic tie between BJ & the Bear and Starsky & Hutch

        I assumed it would become clearer when i grew up.

        It has not. But i’m still pretty sure there’s something there

    2. “He should know a lot about the Bear.”

      There was a Finn posting here some time back (pre Obo) whingeing about the US ‘cowboys’. I agreed in a post and suggested the US remove all military from Europe.
      He wasn’t sure that was included in ‘cowboys’. I was and am. If the Finns are gonna man-up to the Bear, good on ’em!

      1. To be fair, the Finns also gave the world Simo H?yh?, one of history’s greatest badasses.

  31. Serious question: How/why can the FEC & states support & fund non-binding straw polls of (polical) “clubs” like the Republican & Democratic clubs? i.e. Primary voters on the Democratic side were overruled by Superdelegates in many cases.

    1. How/why can the FEC & states support & fund non-binding straw polls of (polical) “clubs” like the Republican & Democratic clubs? i.e. Primary voters on the Democratic side were overruled by Superdelegates in many cases.

      The answer to your question is really, really, really boring.

      it involves the constitution, state control of election commissions, and national-party wonkery about rule-changes every few decades when something gets ‘too messy’.

      Its sort of like “who decides the bowl games in the NCAA”. I still don’t know, and don’t really want to know. It involves back rooms, fat men, and processes more arcane than masonic initiation.

    2. “…the FEC & states support & fund…”
      I think you mean “me and you”?
      I’d be interested to know about that also.

  32. My reaction when former Sanders supporters start quoting Libertarian, Free market Anarchism at me. =D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9eYyDaQwQY

    1. It’s fucking Beautiful Fruity.
      So So beautiful. =D

    2. Javier Ruiz, 20, listed the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks, her use of personal email and her refusal to unconditionally condemn hydraulic fracturing as reasons she should be imprisoned.

      i believe the children are the future.

      1. Two out of three?
        Naah.

      1. That woman is an exuberant mess. I hope Trump wins and anoints her ambassador to the U.N.

    1. Mental Damage !!! Brain Damage !!!!
      HAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!
      YEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Wait, is there pics of Scottie Nell Hughes in a girdle out there? She’s so fucking hot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.