Changes

The Mondale machine, supported by Chairman Jim Hunt and union bosses, more importantly wanted to do something about outsiders and [[New Left]] “extremists”<ref>Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process, Steven S. Smith & Melanie J. Springer, p.7, below.  www.brookings.edu</ref> they felt had taken over the party.<ref>[[Jane Fonda]] and [[Tom Hayden]] are interesting case studies; by 1980 Fonda was calling herself a "small 'd' democrat" advocating “industrial policy” and [http://www.janefonda.com/tag/campaign-for-economic-democracy/ “economic democracy”] while Hayden was entering the ranks of the “establishment” electoral process through the California Democratic machine. Fonda’s terminology [https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/volunteeractivityormeeting/4v4xs remarkably resembles views] espoused by [[Bernie Sanders]], who also began a career in electoral politics outside the Establishment Democratic Party in the early 1980s. Fonda and Hayden became involved in the ‘save the whales’ and [[Greenpeace]] movement. By 1979 after the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam, the [[Democide|Cambodian genocide]] in which 2 million persons were murdered was well under way, and a popular reaction against the “anti-establishment” New Left peace movement of the 1960s took hold in the United States. Bumper stickers with slogans such as “nuke the whales” became fashionable.</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/30/arts/jane-fonda-of-the-80-s-mellower-but-still-an-activist.html JANE FONDA OF THE 80'S MELLOWER BUT STILL AN ACTIVIST], By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, ''[[New York Times]]'', March 30, 1981.</ref><ref>See also ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=RbpdkYGh65kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=%22Russia+Iran+Disco+Suck%22&source=bl&ots=ARPrGgswYE&sig=YV0lNWWWR2nyPc4lwg7V4B-tRwo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZxMuXvMPMAhVR5WMKHcElCZcQ6AEINTAF#v=onepage&q=%22Russia%20Iran%20Disco%20Suck%22&f=false Russia Iran Disco Suck]'' for a summary of the popular mood in the late 1970s.</ref>  The Mondale and Kennedy machines agreed to do away with portions of the McGovern-Fraser Commission (known as the "reform movement") that had striped influence and power from elected government office holders in the nomination process<ref>[https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/01/15/Democratic-party-rule-makers-recommended.-today-that-delegates-to/3774379918800/ UPI Reporting on the Hunt Commission by ARNOLD SAWISLAK], Jan. 15, 1982.</ref> and paved the way for outsiders and an "insurgent candidate" . The rules the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted from Hunt Commission recommendations didn't just allow or encourage incumbents to return, it guaranteed them seats outside the regular [[Democracy|democratic]] selection process. The Kennedy faction wanted to cut the number from about 800 reserved seats in half,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/01/17/democrats-and-unintended-consequences/d4741a07-05a2-47b1-bd33-b04458338005/ Democrats and Unintended Consequences], By David S. Broder, ''[[Washington Post]]'', January 17, 1982.</ref> but over the years the base number of other delegates was expanded to meet the target of about 1-in-6 rather than the 1-in-3 originally proposed.  [https://www.foxnews.com/person/e/susan-estrich.html Susan Estrich], who was to manage Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign<ref>Estrich and Dukakis are ranking members in the Massachusetts Kennedy machine which tried to resurrect the 1960 alliance and victory with Texas Democrats on the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket.</ref> strenuously objected to the plan, and derisively coined the term "super-delegate", whom she claimed would disproportionately be white males.<ref>[https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party], Elaine Kamarck, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 2016.</ref> Nevertheless, the idea became rule, and the figure of about 800  positions has held,<ref>The number varies cycle to cycle based upon the number of Congressional seats, Governorships, and other offices the Democratic party  controls, and when vacancies occur during the 90 day window for selection or at the time the Credentials Committee convenes. Superdelegatges have been likened to the ruling ''[[Nomenklatura]]'' of the Soviet era.</ref> while the requirements for non-elected office holders chosen outside of the  primary and caucus system has only been expanded.<ref>Democratic party convention rule changes, academic.regis.edu , above.</ref> The "Old Democrats" had retaken power with a vengeance.

The Mondale machine, supported by Chairman Jim Hunt and union bosses, more importantly wanted to do something about outsiders and [[New Left]] “extremists”<ref>Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process, Steven S. Smith & Melanie J. Springer, p.7, below.  www.brookings.edu</ref> they felt had taken over the party.<ref>[[Jane Fonda]] and [[Tom Hayden]] are interesting case studies; by 1980 Fonda was calling herself a "small 'd' democrat" advocating “industrial policy” and [http://www.janefonda.com/tag/campaign-for-economic-democracy/ “economic democracy”] while Hayden was entering the ranks of the “establishment” electoral process through the California Democratic machine. Fonda’s terminology [https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/volunteeractivityormeeting/4v4xs remarkably resembles views] espoused by [[Bernie Sanders]], who also began a career in electoral politics outside the Establishment Democratic Party in the early 1980s. Fonda and Hayden became involved in the ‘save the whales’ and [[Greenpeace]] movement. By 1979 after the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam, the [[Democide|Cambodian genocide]] in which 2 million persons were murdered was well under way, and a popular reaction against the “anti-establishment” New Left peace movement of the 1960s took hold in the United States. Bumper stickers with slogans such as “nuke the whales” became fashionable.</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/30/arts/jane-fonda-of-the-80-s-mellower-but-still-an-activist.html JANE FONDA OF THE 80'S MELLOWER BUT STILL AN ACTIVIST], By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, ''[[New York Times]]'', March 30, 1981.</ref><ref>See also ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=RbpdkYGh65kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=%22Russia+Iran+Disco+Suck%22&source=bl&ots=ARPrGgswYE&sig=YV0lNWWWR2nyPc4lwg7V4B-tRwo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZxMuXvMPMAhVR5WMKHcElCZcQ6AEINTAF#v=onepage&q=%22Russia%20Iran%20Disco%20Suck%22&f=false Russia Iran Disco Suck]'' for a summary of the popular mood in the late 1970s.</ref>  The Mondale and Kennedy machines agreed to do away with portions of the McGovern-Fraser Commission (known as the "reform movement") that had striped influence and power from elected government office holders in the nomination process<ref>[https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/01/15/Democratic-party-rule-makers-recommended.-today-that-delegates-to/3774379918800/ UPI Reporting on the Hunt Commission by ARNOLD SAWISLAK], Jan. 15, 1982.</ref> and paved the way for outsiders and an "insurgent candidate" . The rules the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted from Hunt Commission recommendations didn't just allow or encourage incumbents to return, it guaranteed them seats outside the regular [[Democracy|democratic]] selection process. The Kennedy faction wanted to cut the number from about 800 reserved seats in half,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/01/17/democrats-and-unintended-consequences/d4741a07-05a2-47b1-bd33-b04458338005/ Democrats and Unintended Consequences], By David S. Broder, ''[[Washington Post]]'', January 17, 1982.</ref> but over the years the base number of other delegates was expanded to meet the target of about 1-in-6 rather than the 1-in-3 originally proposed.  [https://www.foxnews.com/person/e/susan-estrich.html Susan Estrich], who was to manage Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign<ref>Estrich and Dukakis are ranking members in the Massachusetts Kennedy machine which tried to resurrect the 1960 alliance and victory with Texas Democrats on the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket.</ref> strenuously objected to the plan, and derisively coined the term "super-delegate", whom she claimed would disproportionately be white males.<ref>[https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party], Elaine Kamarck, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 2016.</ref> Nevertheless, the idea became rule, and the figure of about 800  positions has held,<ref>The number varies cycle to cycle based upon the number of Congressional seats, Governorships, and other offices the Democratic party  controls, and when vacancies occur during the 90 day window for selection or at the time the Credentials Committee convenes. Superdelegatges have been likened to the ruling ''[[Nomenklatura]]'' of the Soviet era.</ref> while the requirements for non-elected office holders chosen outside of the  primary and caucus system has only been expanded.<ref>Democratic party convention rule changes, academic.regis.edu , above.</ref> The "Old Democrats" had retaken power with a vengeance.

The Hunt Commission (or "counter-reform movement") discarded the proportional allocation rules from the 1970s in favor of winner-take-all. Prior to proportional representation there was the “unit rule”, a delegation had to vote as a unit, now known as “winner-take-all”. McGovern-Fraser scraped the unit rule in favor of [[affirmative action]], or “proportional representation”, rather than actual votes cast. Today’s “unpledged” Superdelegates are party bosses whose cronies, the “pledged delegates”, earn their seats in state machines by working to elect Superdelegates in previous elections. Together they function as a unit, wherein the boss makes a deal to throw his weight behind a candidate—a re-creation of the 19th century political machine that [[Progressive]] reformers such as Bob La Follette fought to eliminate.<ref>La Follette wanted to do away with caucuses and conventions completely, which he said were [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lhbum&fileName=07510/lhbum07510.db&recNum=226&itemLink=r?ammem/lhbum:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28lhbum07510div10%29%29%23075100227&linkText=1 "prostituted to the service of corrupt organization"] and wanted to rely on the direct open primary so that  "nominations of the party will not be the result of 'compromise' or impulse, or evil design...[but rather] the candidates of the majority, honestly and fairly nominated." [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/lhbum:@field(DOCID+@lit(lhbum07510)):@@@$REF$ Robert La Follette's Autobiography], pp. 195-200.</ref>

The Hunt Commission (or "counter-reform movement") discarded the proportional allocation rules from the 1970s in favor of winner-take-all. Prior to proportional representation there was the “unit rule”, a delegation had to vote as a unit, now known as “winner-take-all”. McGovern-Fraser scraped the unit rule in favor of [[affirmative action]], or “proportional representation”, rather than actual votes cast. Today's “unpledged” Superdelegates are party bosses whose cronies, the “pledged delegates”, earn their seats in state machines by working to elect Superdelegates in previous elections. Together they function as a unit, wherein the boss makes a deal to throw his weight behind a candidate—a re-creation of the 19th century political machine that [[Progressive]] reformers such as Bob La Follette fought to eliminate.<ref>La Follette wanted to do away with caucuses and conventions completely, which he said were [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lhbum&fileName=07510/lhbum07510.db&recNum=226&itemLink=r?ammem/lhbum:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28lhbum07510div10%29%29%23075100227&linkText=1 "prostituted to the service of corrupt organization"] and wanted to rely on the direct open primary so that  "nominations of the party will not be the result of 'compromise' or impulse, or evil design...[but rather] the candidates of the majority, honestly and fairly nominated." [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/lhbum:@field(DOCID+@lit(lhbum07510)):@@@$REF$ Robert La Follette's Autobiography], pp. 195-200.</ref>

The winner-take-all rules had the embarrassing affect in 1984 of allowing an insurgent candidate to rack up big delegate wins in late primary states.<ref>Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process, Chapter 1 [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/1/1/reformingthepresidentialnominationprocess/reformingthepresidentialnominationprocess_chapter.pdf Choosing Presidential Candidates], Steven S. Smith & Melanie J. Springer, eds., Brookings Institute, 2009, pp. 4-8. www.brookings.edu . An excellent and timely synopsis.</ref> So after 1984 the party brought back "proportional allocation".<ref>This had the consequence in Democratically controlled states, after the [[Bush v. Gore|2000 Florida Recount]] and calls to abolish the [[Electoral College]], for party bosses to explain ''why'' winner-take-all is more beneficial to the state and that "proportional allocation" is a "feel-good" measure that has the effect of cancelling out votes within the same party and state.</ref>

The winner-take-all rules had the embarrassing affect in 1984 of allowing an insurgent candidate to rack up big delegate wins in late primary states.<ref>Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process, Chapter 1 [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/1/1/reformingthepresidentialnominationprocess/reformingthepresidentialnominationprocess_chapter.pdf Choosing Presidential Candidates], Steven S. Smith & Melanie J. Springer, eds., Brookings Institute, 2009, pp. 4-8. www.brookings.edu . An excellent and timely synopsis.</ref> So after 1984 the party brought back "proportional allocation".<ref>This had the consequence in Democratically controlled states, after the [[Bush v. Gore|2000 Florida Recount]] and calls to abolish the [[Electoral College]], for party bosses to explain ''why'' winner-take-all is more beneficial to the state and that "proportional allocation" is a "feel-good" measure that has the effect of cancelling out votes within the same party and state.</ref>

[[George Wallace]] was considered a particularly unwelcome insurgent, considering he had won [[United States presidential election, 1968#Results|more states and Electors in 1968]] than the  [[United States presidential election, 1972#Results|party's own nominee in 1972]]. Wallace had sown disruption and division within the party in the 1964, 1972, and 1976 election cycles which had conflicted with the party's outreach aims culminating in the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965 and the affirmative action quotas of the McGovern-Fraser and [[Mikulski Commission]]s. Many [[Conservative Democrat|Southern Democrat]]s by this time already viewed themselves as ''persona non grata'' and moved to the Republicans, such as Texas Governor and presidential aspirant [[John Connally]], and others.

[[George Wallace]] was considered a particularly unwelcome insurgent, considering he had won [[United States presidential election, 1968#Results|more states and Electors in 1968]] than the  [[United States presidential election, 1972#Results|party's own nominee in 1972]]. Wallace had sown disruption and division within the party in the 1964, 1972, and 1976 election cycles which had conflicted with the party's outreach aims culminating in the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965 and the affirmative action quotas of the McGovern-Fraser and [[Mikulski Commission]]s. Many [[Conservative Democrat|Southern Democrat]]s by this time already viewed themselves as ''persona non grata'' and moved to the Republicans, such as Texas Governor and presidential aspirant [[John Connally]], and others.

Another “insurgent” was Mondale’s old boss, [[Jimmy Carter]], who was first to recognize the new system of manipulating free television air time (and not [[Ronald Reagan]] as some believe) with early primary and caucus wins to pile up rapid delegate leads and soak up donor contributions to gain momentum. Carter had scarce contacts with old party bosses and soon buried competitors working under the old system.

Another “insurgent” was Mondale's old boss, [[Jimmy Carter]], who was first to recognize the new system of manipulating free television air time (and not [[Ronald Reagan]] as some believe) with early primary and caucus wins to pile up rapid delegate leads and soak up donor contributions to gain momentum. Carter had scarce contacts with old party bosses and soon buried competitors working under the old system.

It further should be noted, [[Lyndon LaRouche]] was considered by some as a viable candidate in 1980 & '84. While his ability to fundraise was impressive if not frightening to some, he never garnered more than 2% in any primary, won no delegates, nor had his name placed in nomination. LaRouche however would also fit the generic term "insurgent candidate" at that time, although his bluster never amounted to any real threat of hijacking the party.

It further should be noted, [[Lyndon LaRouche]] was considered by some as a viable candidate in 1980 & '84. While his ability to fundraise was impressive if not frightening to some, he never garnered more than 2% in any primary, won no delegates, nor had his name placed in nomination. LaRouche however would also fit the generic term "insurgent candidate" at that time, although his bluster never amounted to any real threat of hijacking the party.