Ah yes, the “Democratic” Party is embroiled in an internal conflict over how they conduct their own form of democracy within the primary. As it turns out, Party elites are given incredible power towards deciding who gets to be the Party’s standard-bearer come November 2016. This influence is far larger than any individual voter’s influence in the primaries or caucuses. And as we pointed out on this site back in the Fall of last year, it gives Hillary Clinton a massive advantage.
But it also reveals something deeper about how the higher ups in the so-called “Democratic” Party run their elections. As an example, Harry Reid went on Andrea Mitchell’s show to discuss the topic, where he defended superdelegates on the grounds that Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t “diverse” enough:
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: “There are a lot of concerns among people about the role of the super delegates. Here you’ve got Hillary Clinton getting clobbered in New Hampshire, 22-point landslide by Bernie Sanders, and yet, they divided the delegates 15-15 because she had so many super delegates, so many members of Congress and Senators and the governor of course. Is that a fair process?
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): Well, the process was totally unfair before — eight years ago. Eight years ago, I looked at this and I thought, how in the world could we have the future of this country be dependent on Iowa, which is 93% white, and we have New Hampshire which is 97% white, no diversity, no diversity in Iowa. And have the final decision made as to who is going to be the president of the United States based on those two states, it was wrong. We now have Nevada and South Carolina before we get into the rest of the country as to who’s chosen where.
This is better, so much better than it was before. So, think what it would be if this campaign didn’t go to Nevada and South Carolina. It was just determined by what happened in Iowa, she won, and you just indicated that even though he won the election by a big margin in New Hampshire, the delegates came out even. It was not a good system. It’s getting better.”
If you think this logic is dumb and flawed you’re 100% right. Superdelegates still exist in more diverse states. It isn’t restricted to “white” areas. Furthermore, the gall of saying that party elites need to correct for the population’s will if said population doesn’t meet their racial quotas. Sounds an awful lot like what they’ve been claiming the GOP is doing with “voter suppression.”
In the end, the Democratic Party is run by people who pay lip service to the will of the people, the importance of elections, and more, but are too nervous to entrust the full power of picking a nominee to their voter base. You tell me if that’s right.