it's that the DNC has 400 superdelegates which Covenant think it is not entitled to.
On the contrary, it's the most fundamental principle of our country.
The democratic party is an organization. Because America is a free country, that organization is free to organize itself and make it's own rules. You and I could decide right here and now to make the "Sheb and mainiac cool kids party for the legalization of recreational nuclear fission." In the US, it's right there in the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So you and I are free to make the SaMckPftLRNF. If people dont like recreational nuclear fission, they aren't allowed to shut down the SaMckPftLRNF unless we start committing crimes. We can endorse laws and candidates peacefully to our hearts content. And we can chose not to make endorsements to our hearts content. And if we want to kick people out of our cool kids party, we are allowed to do that. We can declare ourselves party presidents for life. It's a free country. If they dont like it they can go make the Bernie Bros Club for Equitable Plutonium Use. But they cant come into our party and tell us they are in charge now. If they do that, they are taking away our constitutionally given right to create a peaceful assembly to petition the government. Your right to peaceful assembly isn't contingent on other people liking your message, it's inviolable.
Now the democratic party has a much broader and more complex constituency. The democratic party has a lot of people interested in their nominating process. It's very much in their interest to give those people a voice in the process because the democratic party rank and file has a pretty good idea of what the democratic party rank and file wants. Old school Tammy Hall style smoke filled rooms aren't going to give them the results they want. But the democratic party is completely, 100% free to decide on whatever process they want. They decided that 85% of the votes go to the broad electorate, 5% to elected representatives (mostly present, some past) and 10% to party organizers. That 10% exists to enact an agenda. They dont feel that Bernie Sanders is a good candidate for the job of advancing their agenda.
If you think they're wrong there is a very simple solution. Go start your Bernie Sanders with Blackjack and Hookers party. But you aren't allowed to say that democrats dont have a right to support their agenda. They made these rules, the rules are perfectly legal and it's the cornerstone of democratic society that they are allowed to do that.
And the really, hilariously silly thing about all this is that people are bitching about the DNC party leaders having votes when the DNC party leaders are the superdelegates most sympathetic to Sanders right now. Right now here is the breakdown of the votes:
Superdelegates5.3% democratic elected officials for Clinton
0.1% democratic elected officials for Sanders
1.2% democratic elected officials undecided
5.3% DNC delegates for Clinton
0.3% DNC delegates for Sanders
4.7% DNC delegates undecided
Pledged Delegates1.4% pledged delegates for Sanders
1.4% pledged delegates for Clinton
83.4% pledged delegates to be assigned in future contests
The DNC delegates are about 50/50 split between supporting Clinton and uncommitted. If Sanders were to prove his viability like Obama did, he would pick up a huge amount of support in that group. Where Sanders is in trouble is with the fact that 80% of the people democrats have elected to high office think that Clinton is the better nominee. That is where Sanders is at the disadvantage.
In banking, there's the concept of splitting up banks into investment banks and commercial banks - that's what Glass-Steagall was all about. Do you reckon that enforcing a similar split in the pharma industry - separating drug development and drug manufacturing, with the drug developers' sole source of income being the patents they sell - would be a good idea?
We've already split the process into two parts. One is called "the government" and they develop medicines which save lives in the US and around the world. The other is called "the pharma industry" and they collect profits on the work the government does.