HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sanders-backed DNC plan s...

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:46 PM

Sanders-backed DNC plan sparks superdelegate revolt

The CBC and other groups of super delegates will be fighting this idiotic rule change https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/bernie-sanders-dnc-superdelegates-710818

A band of Democratic National Committee superdelegates is staging a revolt against a Bernie Sanders-endorsed plan to reduce their influence in the presidential nominating process, mounting a longshot bid to block the measure when the DNC meets in Chicago next month.

The proposal, a priority of Sanders’ supporters since the Vermont senator‘s defeat in a bitterly contested 2016 primary, would prohibit superdelegates — who made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention — from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at a contested national convention.

But even as the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee moved forward with the proposal Wednesday, superdelegates outside of Washington were beginning to organize opposition ahead of the August vote by the full DNC in Chicago.

I prefer to have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus over the support of the persons pushing this rule. It is a long shot but I hope that this rule is defeated

I agree with this super delegate

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who accused Perez of flinching in the face of criticism of the superdelegate process, called the proposal a “craven capitulation to what [Perez] describes as a perception of elitism.”

Connolly, like other opponents of the plan, argued that “disenfranchising the elected leadership of the party” would disconnect elected leaders from the party’s presidential ticket, ultimately weakening its prospects in 2020.

“I also believe the timing is wretched,” Connolly said. “We’re in the midst of the battle of our lives to win back the majority of our House, and to schedule this vote with this recommendation that came out of nowhere … is to me just wretched timing and political malpractice.”

221 replies, 4340 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 221 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sanders-backed DNC plan sparks superdelegate revolt (Original post)
Gothmog Wednesday OP
Hekate Wednesday #1
Sophia4 Wednesday #2
joshcryer Wednesday #4
Sophia4 Wednesday #7
Demsrule86 Wednesday #16
Sophia4 Thursday #92
Gothmog Thursday #150
kstewart33 Thursday #196
Gothmog Thursday #197
Demsrule86 Thursday #159
Demsrule86 Wednesday #20
Eko Wednesday #23
Gothmog Wednesday #71
Kentonio Thursday #141
Gothmog Thursday #148
R B Garr Thursday #183
Gothmog Thursday #195
joshcryer Thursday #132
still_one Wednesday #12
mythology Wednesday #8
lunamagica Wednesday #10
Sophia4 Wednesday #17
Blue_true Wednesday #35
Gothmog Thursday #151
pnwmom Wednesday #45
InAbLuEsTaTe Wednesday #58
Gothmog Wednesday #73
Sophia4 Thursday #89
Garrett78 Thursday #94
Sophia4 Thursday #96
Garrett78 Thursday #128
Gothmog Thursday #152
JCanete Thursday #131
Garrett78 Thursday #133
JCanete Thursday #134
Garrett78 Thursday #136
JCanete Thursday #147
Garrett78 Thursday #158
JCanete Thursday #164
Garrett78 Thursday #166
JCanete Thursday #187
Garrett78 Thursday #192
JCanete Thursday #198
Garrett78 Thursday #199
JCanete Thursday #201
Garrett78 Thursday #202
JCanete Thursday #204
R B Garr Thursday #98
Sophia4 Thursday #100
R B Garr Thursday #106
Sophia4 Thursday #108
R B Garr Thursday #110
Sophia4 Thursday #113
R B Garr Thursday #117
Sophia4 Thursday #119
R B Garr Thursday #123
Blue_true Thursday #165
Sophia4 Thursday #168
Blue_true Thursday #169
stopbush Thursday #121
Gothmog Thursday #149
still_one Thursday #83
Sophia4 Thursday #85
still_one Thursday #90
Sophia4 Thursday #95
still_one Thursday #102
Sophia4 Thursday #105
still_one Thursday #114
Sophia4 Thursday #116
still_one Thursday #120
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Thursday #162
Garrett78 Thursday #86
Sophia4 Thursday #99
Garrett78 Thursday #129
stevenleser Thursday #173
Sophia4 Thursday #179
stevenleser Thursday #188
Sophia4 Thursday #191
Kentonio Thursday #142
Garrett78 Thursday #156
radius777 Thursday #185
NewJeffCT Thursday #160
Sophia4 Thursday #163
Demsrule86 Wednesday #11
Sophia4 Wednesday #18
rgbecker Wednesday #21
sheshe2 Wednesday #41
Meowmee Thursday #125
R B Garr Wednesday #51
Sophia4 Thursday #111
R B Garr Thursday #115
Sophia4 Thursday #118
R B Garr Thursday #122
stevenleser Thursday #172
InAbLuEsTaTe Wednesday #59
Garrett78 Thursday #177
Gothmog Wednesday #74
Sophia4 Thursday #103
R B Garr Thursday #109
Gothmog Thursday #153
Garrett78 Thursday #88
Sophia4 Thursday #101
Garrett78 Thursday #124
sheshe2 Thursday #182
Sophia4 Thursday #186
sheshe2 Thursday #189
Gothmog 16 hrs ago #215
R B Garr 15 hrs ago #216
Gothmog 8 hrs ago #217
R B Garr Wednesday #38
sheshe2 Wednesday #43
R B Garr Wednesday #46
sheshe2 Wednesday #65
stevenleser Wednesday #47
DURHAM D Wednesday #48
aikoaiko Wednesday #69
Gothmog Wednesday #70
radius777 Thursday #79
Sophia4 Thursday #91
radius777 Thursday #104
Sophia4 Thursday #107
radius777 Thursday #112
Garrett78 Thursday #200
radius777 Thursday #206
Gothmog Thursday #154
NurseJackie Thursday #205
DemocratSinceBirth Wednesday #3
joshcryer Wednesday #5
Sophia4 Wednesday #9
still_one Wednesday #15
Sophia4 Wednesday #19
still_one Wednesday #24
Sophia4 Wednesday #27
still_one Wednesday #36
radius777 Thursday #82
still_one Thursday #84
OilemFirchen Wednesday #25
Sophia4 Wednesday #28
OilemFirchen Wednesday #31
sheshe2 Wednesday #39
msongs Wednesday #33
Blue_true Wednesday #37
lapucelle Wednesday #56
Blue_true Wednesday #66
lapucelle Wednesday #68
Gothmog Wednesday #72
Gothmog Thursday #75
Skidmore Thursday #155
uponit7771 Wednesday #13
lunamagica Wednesday #14
joshcryer Wednesday #6
mcar Wednesday #22
Gothmog Thursday #77
RandySF Wednesday #26
LisaM Wednesday #30
Garrett78 Wednesday #53
R B Garr Wednesday #40
RandySF Wednesday #42
R B Garr Wednesday #44
DURHAM D Wednesday #49
RandySF Wednesday #50
DURHAM D Wednesday #52
FSogol Wednesday #29
panader0 Wednesday #32
k8conant Thursday #87
Garrett78 Thursday #93
msongs Wednesday #34
Garrett78 Wednesday #54
EndGOPPropaganda Wednesday #55
Cha Wednesday #57
ucrdem Wednesday #60
Cha Wednesday #61
ucrdem Wednesday #62
Gothmog Thursday #81
ucrdem Thursday #127
Midwestern Democrat Wednesday #63
ucrdem Wednesday #64
aikoaiko Wednesday #67
Gothmog Thursday #76
Algernon Moncrieff Thursday #78
KitSileya Thursday #80
Kentonio Thursday #143
budkin Thursday #97
CentralMass Thursday #126
JCanete Thursday #130
Mike Nelson Thursday #135
Garrett78 Thursday #137
Mike Nelson Thursday #138
Garrett78 Thursday #140
Kentonio Thursday #144
Garrett78 Thursday #157
Voltaire2 Thursday #139
Kentonio Thursday #145
dansolo Thursday #146
NewJeffCT Thursday #161
Hortensis Thursday #167
Vinca Thursday #170
Garrett78 Thursday #174
Vinca Thursday #175
Garrett78 Thursday #176
Vinca Thursday #180
Garrett78 Thursday #184
Vinca Thursday #193
Garrett78 Thursday #194
Vinca Friday #207
Blue_Tires Thursday #171
R B Garr Thursday #181
JCanete Thursday #190
Gothmog Friday #209
JCanete Friday #212
Gothmog 16 hrs ago #214
JCanete 2 hrs ago #218
Gothmog 2 hrs ago #219
JCanete 2 hrs ago #220
Gothmog 1 hr ago #221
Gothmog Friday #208
Gothmog Friday #210
bucolic_frolic Thursday #178
tirebiter Thursday #203
Devil Child Friday #211
Gothmog 16 hrs ago #213

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:49 PM

1. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:57 PM

2. The super-delegate system is not winning elections for Democrats.

I think it should go the way of Tammany Hall and disappear forever.

Let ordinary Democrats decide the direction and pick the leadership of the Democrataic Party.

That old, aged, creaky, losing bureaucracy in the Democratic Party needs to go.

If they were winning majorities in Congress and in statehouses across the country, if they had the vitality to do that, I wouldn't feel as I do.

But the Democratic Party should be winning more elections than we do. Our Party's creaky upper crust is part of the problem.

It isn't that as individuals the leaders are bad people. It is that they are just too concerned about holding on to their own power and not concerned enough about making sure that the Party wins elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:01 PM

4. The superdelegates have not in any way affected the outcome of any primaries.

They are requested by minority groups because they give them representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:04 PM

7. It's one person one vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender

preference, profession, religion, etc.

One person/one vote.

That is how it should be. But then I am in Los Angeles where most politicians would be considered members of minorities anywhere else in the country. Not all politicians, but most are members of minorities.

I realize that is not the case elsewhere, but super-delegates are a problem, not a solution. Let's keep our party truly democratic. One person/one vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:08 PM

16. Super Delegates did nothing wrong...the oh the email voters didn't vote for the Democratic nominee..

and supers had nothing to do with Clinton's candidacy...she won millions more votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:45 AM

92. No matter. If the appearance of something shady is there, voters who are sad or

troubled or bitter because their candidate did not win, will not vote.

The process not only has to be utterly above board and honest, it also has to appear that way. That is what makes a democracy work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #92)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:19 AM

150. The only people pushing this measure are sanders supporters

I am sorry that sanders and his supporters had their feelings hurt but these hurt feelings are not a good reason to change the system

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #150)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:03 PM

196. So here we go again.

Sanders maneuvering to change the party that he refuses to join.

So hoping the supers kill this rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #196)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:09 PM

197. The DNC just adopted a rule that I approve of

See Post 76 https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210856702#post76

candidates would have to join the party and become members of the party to run in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #92)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:05 PM

159. ONLY 'shady' one election year...never an issue any other year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:25 PM

20. Super delegates have nothing to do with one vote etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:55 PM

23. How are superdelegates a problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:49 PM

71. Again you are wrong as to everything as to how delegates are elected in the real world

Delegates are not selected by the vote of the voters but at conventions by other delegates. I went through this process and it is not based on one person one vote but on the support of county party chairs and other officials. Go to a state convention and run to be a delegate. It takes a ton of work and some money to campaign for this position.

Super delegates are members of Congress and other elected officials who were voted on. So the vote of the voters who elected these officials do not count in your world?

Again, why do you hate the members of the Congressional Black Caucus? I know that these party leaders did not support sanders but that does not mean that they need to be punished. The leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus are far more important to the party compared to the people pushing this ignorant rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 05:48 AM

141. Despicable post, you should be ashamed of yourself

Accusing the poster of ‘hating’ the CBC just because they don’t agree on this one issue is the kind of divisive shit that has no place here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #141)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:11 AM

148. Sophia4 has called all members of the CBC corrupt

On a different thread, this poster called all members of the CBC and all super delegates corrupt https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2010311 or https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142010022#post55
Super delegates are not corrupt and the only people pushing this change are sanders supporters whose feelings were hurt because he was not popular with the leadership of the party.

I was a delegate to Philadelphia and I know a number of members of the CBC. I think that this proposal is stupid and oppose it.
the only good thing is that the quid pro quo for this idiotic proposal is a requirement that will require all candidates announcing to run for POTUS to state that they are actually Democrats and that they be members of the Democratic Party see https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10857741

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #148)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:34 PM

183. Those constant distortions and inferences that primaries aren't "honest"

is the hallmark of the third party types. This is a perfect example of the abuse Democrats have endured. No proof is ever given of any wrongdoing, just never-ending insinuations of corruption. This poster calling Democrats corrupt is patently dishonest, but it's been done before...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #183)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:59 PM

195. I agree-there are some who are interested in hurting the party

Attacking members of the Congressional Black Caucus and calling super delegates corrupt is a great way of hurting the party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:54 AM

132. They've already lost their first vote power.

Getting rid of them completely is asinine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:06 PM

12. That is the reality, while some want to push the false assertion that is what happened in 2016, and

THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:04 PM

8. I blame super delegates for Obama losing.

Oh wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:06 PM

10. What are you talking about? Which election has been affected by superdelegates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:12 PM

17. 2016 for one.

Superdelegates give to all voters the impression that the Democratic Party is not big on democracy. Regardless of the reality, regardless how fair superdelegates really are, their existence sends the message that fairness is not the priority and that even if you don't bother to get out and vote, you will be represented by superdelegates.

If as you seem to suggest with your questions, they aren't affecting the outcomes of elections, then why have them?

We don't need them.

Let the voters decide. Let those who care enough to go to the polls and vote decide who is nominated for public office.

That is the way to do it. If voters have the decisionmaking power, then the results seem fair.

Whether true or not, the existence of superdelegates causes some Democrats to think the system is somehow rigged. We do not need and should not have superdelegates.

As for voters who identify as some sort of minority, whether religious or racial or gender or gender-preference or regional no matter, if they come out and vote in large enough numbers, then they will determine the outcome. Same for any group.

We do not need superdelegates. No to superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:20 PM

35. Wow.

Must have taken some spinning to come up with that. I trully doubt that the average primary voter CAN RVEN identify who the super delegates for their state are. Super delegates have had ZERO impact on primary results. They jump on the bandwagon once primary voters have decided the party nominee, it was that way in 1976 (when they first came about in their current form) through 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:21 AM

151. Sanders supporters feelings were hurt because super delegates refuse to support sanders

The only people pushing this proposal are sanders supporters who want to punish super delegates for not supporting sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:51 PM

45. CAUSUSES give all voters the impression the Democratic party is not big on democracy.

We had the 2nd highest attendance in history at our 2016 caucuses in WA, where you have to spend half a Saturday to vote, and then some people have to go on to state and national events and spend even more time.

Guess how many people participated in our caucuses? Five (5) %. 230,000 Who won? Bernie.
We also had a primary. Guess how many participated? 803,000 Who won? Hillary.
Who got 100% of WA delegates? Bernie.

This is not re-fighting the election. This is to show that caucuses are non-diverse and non-representative and they should go if superdelegates do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:48 PM

58. I'm with you... let democracy work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:53 PM

73. Again you are totally and completely wrong

Facts matter. Super delegates did not decide the 2016 election. A large percentage of sanders delegates were from caucuses which were not democratic at all

Super delegates had no real effect on the 2016. The candidate who won the most votes and pledged delegates won. Super delegates votes did not change this.

Please try to stick to the facts.

As to your question as to why have them, Super delegates are people like members of Congress including the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of the CBC are far more important to the party compared to the persons pushing this idiotic rule

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:34 AM

89. You are probably right that nothing is really "fixed."

But what actually happened is not the issue.

What could have happened, what could happen, is the problem.

The losers will almost certainly believe that superdelegates do make a difference, that they do fix the outcome. And then they won't support the winner because they feel cheated.

I appreciate your reasoning, and I know that the super delegates are mostly good people and they generally vote for the winner.

But the fact is that super delegates make the primary, nomination process appear crooked to vulnerable voters, new voters, voters who are sad because their candidate lost the primary. The key word there is appear.

Whether the nomination was crooked or fixed is important to you and me but not to those who want to believe that the process is fixed. And those are the voters we need to think of. Those are the voters who may not vote if they think the process is fixed.

Thus, the existence of super delegates depresses the Democratic vote. It turns off voters who think they the process including the superdelegates unfair.

We need to show and back up the fact that the process of nominating our Democratic candidates is fair and above board. We need to make sure it is fair and make a big deal out of our fairness. I repeat: The process of nominating candidates has to be unquestionably honest and fair. Superdelegates invite suspicion that it isn't. Their existence and role in picking candidates hurts our party.

We need to make a big deal of the fact that our nominating process is fair and honest and not fixed in any way. That will bring back a lot of lost voters -- making sure that we are inwardly and outwardly above board and honest and don't fix the outcome at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #89)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:51 AM

94. I don't recall there being much concern over superdelegates prior to 2016.

It seems they suddenly became a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #94)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:52 AM

96. I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #96)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:28 AM

128. Examples? Links to articles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #128)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:22 AM

152. Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #94)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:51 AM

131. And? Some of us had no idea how they worked. They blow. Taht doesn't make me a fan of


caucus's as they stand, but why does it matter when people realized this was a problem? Why, in your opinion isn't it entirely undemocratic to have a single voter nullify 10,000 votes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #131)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:02 AM

133. Well, they've been around for a long time. So, why the contrived outrage starting in 2016?

Where was this outrage in 2008? Or 2004? Or 2000? Or 1992? And so on.

No nullification has taken place. Superdelegates are an insurance policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #133)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:05 AM

134. again, not contrived.. I had no idea the shit worked that way and it pisses me off. Why doesn't it

piss you off?


And dude, its an insurance policy against the will of the voter. WTF is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #134)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:16 AM

136. But many others have known about superdelegates and their purpose. They aren't remotely new.

And only in 2016 did they suddenly become a problem, even though they had no impact on the 2016 result.

While I don't feel as strongly in support of superdelegates as some others do (I'd feel even less strongly about having superdelegates if we were to do away with caucuses), the reason I'm not pissed off about their existence is summed up in this exchange between Marcetic and Kamarck from the link in my last comment:

Marcetic: Was there a sense that the primary system encouraged nominees who represented the party’s extremes?

Kamarck: Yeah, I mean what we’ve known for many years now is that primary electorates are not representative of the whole party. Republican primaries skew right and the Democrat primaries skew left. That’s really dawning on people after 1972, when you had a real increase in the number of primaries. There was a concern that we were going to be nominating unelectable candidates like George McGovern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #136)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:41 AM

147. well what the hell would be the point of voting then, if somebody else was going to decide for us


anyway. That makes it, frankly, an illusion then that we are the ones making the decision. So long as its within the acceptable range, we can feel good about our vote mattering, if that's what we want to tell ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #147)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:13 AM

158. What's the point in having insurance if you're healthy or a good driver?

Only in a very close contest in which the one with the most pledged delegates is viewed as unelectable (especially if that person hasn't reached the delegate threshold) would superdelegates possibly be the deciding factor. It's not as though they're going to deny someone who dominates in pledged delegates.

Do away with caucuses and we're even less likely to ever see this happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #158)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:41 PM

164. viewed by who as unelectable? Surely not the electorate, since their votes..."would have" spoken.


They can sway a vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't superdelegates each 10,000 votes? Apparently there are 712 of them. That accounts for over 7 million votes. Hillary Clinton won the GE popular vote by 3 million votes, and Supers have or had no obligation to vote with their states or anything as far as I'm aware. How is this just deciding on the margins? What if Sanders had won? Would he have been considered too fringe and just invalidated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #164)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:00 PM

166. A superdelegate only gets one vote. 712 supers, 712 votes.

And 2382 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates don't play any role in the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #166)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:42 PM

187. a circumstance that makes each vote roughly equivalent to 10,000 regular votes. What exactly happens


if the voters go one way and the Superdelegates go the other then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #187)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:50 PM

192. There are 4763 delegates (4051 pledged) sent to the convention. One must reach 2382...

...in order to secure the nomination.

If a candidate reaches 2382 without superdelegates, then it's a moot point.

If no candidate reaches 2382 (without counting superdelegates) but one candidate has far more pledged delegates than the other candidate(s), only in extreme circumstances would those superdelegates not support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

It is possible that one candidate could have, say, 2380 pledged delegates and still not be nominated, but that is so unlikely that I'm willing to just say "let's cross the bridge if we ever come to it."

In other words, this is all much ado about nothing. Get rid of caucuses and that will be even more true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #192)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:11 PM

198. first, define "only in extreme circumstances". If the electorate votes one way, then clearly


the electorate doesn't think that the circumstances are extreme to the point that warrant being overturned. So in the circumstance of a close race, that determination lies solely in the hands of the supers. We may have very different opinions about what "extreme circumstances" mean, and your counseling to not worry about it because we should always just trust that such a system wouldn't be abused is not particularly convincing.

Granted, generally speaking where we most see Superdelegate influence currently is in the reporting done that includes them when evaluating candidate chances. It makes it look like a candidate is far out of reach when that isn't necessarily the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #198)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:17 PM

199. Such as damaging news coming to light late in the primary season or after the last primary.

The media generally makes it clear that so-and-so has X pledged delegates and Y superdelegates. After all, the media loves nothing more than a horse race and it isn't in their interest to suggest a race is over (as the 2016 Democratic primary essentially was by mid-March).

Even with the rule change, superdelegates can and will make endorsements. They simply won't be able to vote on the first ballot. I don't really have any trouble with that rule change, especially if we do away with caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #199)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:42 PM

201. then you weren't paying attention to the news and the way the race was being reported, particularly


early on. Yes, the media always does seem to love a horse race, once the results are pretty certain. If you think an occasional distinction makes it clear how votes are broken down to the general public, which probably doesn't have a solid grasp of how this convoluted system works, I wholly disagree. Showing numbers that indicate how much of the vote one candidate has over the other, which does often add in supers, shows a massive advantage for one candidate and a huge deficit for the other, appearing to make a race look out of reach before superdelegates have officially cast their votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #201)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:50 PM

202. I paid attention, but we clearly have a different take on the reporting. Regardless...

...the race was essentially over long before the media said it was.

As for the general public, the general public doesn't pay close enough attention to know what the delegate count is...or what delegates are for that matter. They just vote for who they like...or don't vote at all.

Clinton didn't win because of superdelegates or because of reporting. She won because she had far more support among the base of the party, particularly women and persons of color. This is why it was clear by mid-March that she was going to win with ease in spite of undemocratic caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #202)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:53 PM

204. people don't so often just go and vote for the loser...the person they think is already out of the


running. It doesn't feel good to lose, and there's such a thing as fair-weather politics. I think enough people don't like to feel like they are throwing away their vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #89)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:01 AM

98. This is bizarre. You are saying that a fabricated story is

more important than what actually happened. Nothing happened regarding superdelegates. You are the one pushing this contrived superdelegate crisis. This is pure manufactured outrage, which is all it ever was.

We need to quit attacking people over “fairness” when the issues you are describing are completely fabricated.

We have the vote totals, so you don’t have to worry anymore about yet another fabricated crisis about “fixed” nominations. Millions more everyday people decided the outcome, sorry. Why keep creating conspiracies when we have the facts about the vote totals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #98)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:04 AM

100. If what you say is true, and it is, then we have nothing to fear if we end the superdelegate

convention because they don't change the outcome of the process, and they bring no value to it.

Let's get rid of superdelegates and make a big deal of it. Let's have a campaign to bring Democrats back to our Party. Let's assure them that their votes will count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #100)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:16 AM

106. It's obvious your concern is not about fairness

or appearances to voters or you would be more concerned about caucuses. There was actual documented unfairness in the caucuses, not your fear mongering over something that never happened with superdelegates.

Read pnwmom’s post in this thread about how voters were disenfranchised in the state of Washington because more people avoided the hostile and undemocratic caucus.

Caucuses should be eliminated. They are unfair. Your insistence on drumming up resentment over something that never happened is bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #106)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:19 AM

108. I agree that caucuses should be eliminated.

Both caucuses and superdelegates should be abolished. Let's find utterly honest, open ways to pick candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #108)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:25 AM

110. It is dishonest to imply that our candidates are

picked unfairly. I recognized this pattern right away with the same undermining done to Hillary. Endless untrue insinuations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:34 AM

113. I'm not claiming that our candidates are picked unfairly.

I'm saying we should go to extremes to assure voters that they are picked fairly.

We must do away with any tradition or policy or convention that could be interpreted, however mistakenly, as unfair or dishonest. And superdelegates can be interpreted as being unfair or dishonest. They probably aren't, but if they aren't, why have them?

What good do they do. Is it a way of flattering big donors? Or successful politicians?

If it is a way to pick a candidate when other methods haven't worked, then we have to find some way that looks utterly honest and above board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #113)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:47 AM

117. Talk about honesty, when you have to draw this much

attention to something that never happened with superdelegates, then it looks like there is a different motive. There are a lot of extremes we could go through—mandatory tax return releases and no caucuses come to mind. We should not convince people there is a crisis just because our candidate lost when the vote totals tell the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:48 AM

119. So why have superdelegates if they don't really do anything?

If they don't make any difference, why have them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #119)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:02 AM

123. This is a contrived issue. When you look at the article

posted, we see what this is about and who it is supposed to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #100)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:53 PM

165. You are dead wrong. Super delegate are the off switch that prevents a democratic Trump.

They have a role and it comes into play if needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #165)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:10 PM

168. Let the people, the voters and the delegates decide.

The super delegates are merely an expression of a sick, unwarranted desire on the parts of rich donors and career politicos to control our democracy. It is time for that institution, that of the super delegate, to end.

As a nation, we move slowly but surely toward more democracy and more individual participation. Super delegates serve no purpose other than to slow the development of democratic expression in favor of bureaucracy, potential (and very, very possible) corruption and bad election results. The tradition, the institution, of super delegates needs to end.

We don't need them. They just invite corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #168)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:43 PM

169. It is a waste.

You have peddled false information in several posts. Maybe you sincerely believe the incorrect claims, but I don't. Both of us are set in how we view super delegates, I am not going to change your mind, neither are you going to change mind, so let's leave things at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #89)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:53 AM

121. The Democrats are a POLITICAL PARTY. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties

get to set their own rules. One person one vote is bullshit when it comes to political parties.

You know what rule the Ds SHOULD adopt? A rule that says you must be registered as a D for five consecutive years before you can announce as a D presidential candidate.

Oh yeah, and fuck non-Ds like Bernie Sanders who don’t have the commitment to the D Party to remain a D even after the party allowed you to enter its primaries.

BTW - when I bash Sanders on DU, I am not bashing a fellow D. I am bashing and Independent who was a D for less than a year. He’s not a D. He’s made that very clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #89)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:18 AM

149. So you are back to claiming that super delegates are corrupt

You made that argument on another thread and you had to back down on that thread. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are important members of the party leadership. These leaders have earned a right to go to the National Convention. There is nothing corrupt or crooked in having elected officials such members of the CBC go to the convention as delegates. The current system rewards states that elect more members to congress.

I am working hard and giving to a number of candidates in Texas to see if we can elect more Democrats to the Senate or Congress. Having more elected officials is a good thing and should be rewarded. I know that California should pick up a number of new Democratic congresscritters and I think that California should be rewarded for such results

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:12 AM

83. I tell you what I find ironic. You are against SD, but you are all for Open Primaries, which perhaps

speaks volumes about where you are coming from than anything else.

Registered Democrats should be the ones who decide who will be their parties nominee, NOT someone who does NOT want to be identifed as a Democrat. I do NOT want a republican, independent, or THIRD PARTY voter to decide WHO SHOULD BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, and the lame excuse that public officals, clergy, and others may want to keep their political party affiliation anonymous is nonesense.

People are not naïve about the folks pushing to have NON-DEMOCRATS help choose their parties nominee, and it has nothing to do with public officials and clergy wanting to remain anonymous.

The solution is very simple if they want to remain anonymous, just change the rules so the registration form party affiliation won't be made public.

Of course that is NOT the real motivation of those who want open primaries for Presidential elections. They want open primaries because they want third party control of the Democratic party, and in fact they want to destroy the Democratic party.

But keep pushing this divisive bullshit, and see if some of those self-identified progressives who REFUSED TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE in 2016, can f**k up the midterm elections like they did 2016, which allowed the republicans to place in the SC court TWO conservative justices, and then blame it on everybody but themselves.

Every DEMOCRAT running for Senate in those critical swing states in 2016 lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, because of that bullshit, undermining, lies, and distortion of the Democratic party from some of these so-called self-identified progressives, who did their damnedest to discourage people from voting by their false equivalency bullshit between the two parties.

This is just the same usual suspects from 2000, who said a vote for Gore was a vote for bush.

You don't want to be registered as a Democrat, then you don't get to choose who the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS FOR PRESIDENT.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #83)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:20 AM

85. I have registered many, many voters.

Increasingly, young voters register Independent, not Democratic.

We need to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #85)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:42 AM

90. I don't care how many people you registered. If people want to decide who will be the DEMORATIC

PARTY NOMINATIOPN FOR PRESIDENT, they need to be registered Democrats

The ONLY motivation for those who do not want that is because they DO NOT want to be Democrats and work through the Democratic party

For those who are so inclined, then their are plenty of other third parties where they can setup their own rules.

The day they open up the primaries for Presidential elections is the day the Democratic party ceases to exist, and I suspect that is the true motivation behind this garbage

As for your ascertion that "young voters register as independent", that is irrelevant, and a lot of those so-called young independent voters are trump and libertarian voters, and I DON'T want them determining who the Democratic nominee for President is. No Thank-you.

If they want to choose who will be the Democratic nominee for president, then they register as Democrats, it is that simple.

I don't care if they get rid of SD or not, that has never been a determining factor, but I sure as hell don't want a non-Democrat choosing who will be the Democratic nominee. That will be a determining factor, and if you think that because the demographic is young and independent it means liberal, you are mistaken.

Not only will it destroy the two party system, but the easiest environment for a dictatorship to emerge





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #90)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:52 AM

95. I disagree with you. I think there has to be a way to encourage people to register

Democratic and vote in Democratic primaries. But even though the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of expression in many respects, fact is that an employer or anyone else can find out how we are registered to vote. So there is an incentive for people in certain jobs to avoid registering for a specific party. Otherwise I would agree with you.

Unfortunately, I notice that a lot of young people are registering Independent which is No Party Preference in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #95)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:10 AM

102. I am in Northern Califronia, and the jungle primary is insane. We were just damn lucky that we

didn't have Democrats being knocked out of certain district races in republican districts, and have two republicans running against each other.

Also, the Democratic party in California is very clear that Presidential primaries are excluded from Open Primaries. There is a very good reason for that


As for keeping your party affiliation anonymous, I mentioned the easy remedy for that in another discussion I was having with you, just change the rules so the party affiliation remains anonymous.

That is a far safer solution then open primaries for presidential elections


As a side note, I don't think you need to clarify that we disagree, I think that is obvious



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #102)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:15 AM

105. Have you ever canvassed for a candidate?

Your party preference is on the voter list. It's fairly easy to see.

Your party affiliation if you have one is not that hard to find out.

I think the jungle primaries are a mess, but it's worse if you have a lot of candidates and not just those who did best in the primaries. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:37 AM

114. Yes I have, multiple elections, multiple times going door to door. Also extensive phone banking

In addition, much of that information is not correct or not updated.

My point being is to remedy that that situation is they change the rules to keep that party preference confidential. That isn't rocket science. It already is done for many things.

Also that voter list you are referring to is usually based on the last election, so you can easily change the rule and make that confidential.


Those doing the canvassing would be going houses or apartments without knowledge of the occupants party preference, which would actually present some additional opportunities in convincing people to vote for the candidate you are canvassing for.


The only thing you would know is the occupant is registered to vote, and that is all that is really necessary





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #114)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:42 AM

116. You can't make the voter's registration confidential because when you canvast

you have the list of voters that are registered Democratic or whatever you are canvassing and it is public.

Also the lists are available to those who work at the polling places. It is public information. I don't think it could be made more confidential than it is, and it isn't very confidential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:51 AM

120. Yes you can. You make the field of PARTY PREFERENCE HIDDEN. If you are looking to canvass just

Democratic voters, that is usually what that is for, so people doing the canvassing do not have to go to houses that are assumed not Democratic. In that case it is to get the vote out. There is different types of canvassing though, and canvassing to voters who are not exclusively Democratic opens things up to some new opportunities

As far as Names, Address, yes that information is public for REGISTERED VOTERS, but you just hide the party preference field. Things like this are implemented in software all the time. Passwords, SSN, etc.

We are never going to agree on open primaries for Presidential elections, and the day that happens will be the end of the political party systems, and opening the country up to a potential malevolent group without any checks or balances





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #90)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:32 PM

162. This🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:24 AM

86. Superdelegates had no bearing on the 2016 result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #86)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:02 AM

99. That is not the point. Perception is the point.

One way to dissuade people people from voting is to convince them that their vote does not count for some reason. The existence of superdelegates makes it easy to persuade people that their vote does not count even though superdelegates probably don't make any difference as to the outcome of the process.

And people who don't think their vote counts are not likely to vote.

We need to get people to vote. We need to avoid any process or culture or procedure that discourages people who would or might vote Democratic from voting. The existence of our country may depend on persuading people who might not vote to vote Democratic.

If we can persuade voters that our process really is utterly fair and honest and if it really is utterly fair and honest, we have a better chance of winning. And our winning is essential for having a good country.

It is irresponsible to have superdelegates when so much is at stake. And when the process used by the Democratic Party to choose our delegates and our candidates has even the suggestion of unfairness, then we are being irresponsible. We need to be the party Americans identify with honesty. Especially now that the Republican Party is so dishonest.

Being honest and appearing honest are, in politics, more important than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #99)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:39 AM

129. It makes it easy, perhaps, for unscrupulous people to persuade gullible people...

...that their vote doesn't count. Anyone possessing even a modicum of critical thinking skills can recognize that their vote counted even if their preferred candidate didn't win (and that their preferred candidate losing had nothing to do with the presence of an insurance policy known as superdelegates).

But for the unscrupulous and the gullible, there will always be something they can exploit or by which they can be exploited.

Superdelegates are yet to be the deciding factor in a primary, but you still carry insurance in case it's needed. You don't drop the insurance just because of some gullible people or dishonest people with ulterior motives.

This outrage over a longstanding aspect of Democratic primaries was contrived in 2016. And the 2016 Democratic primary was essentially over by the 2nd week of March, yet there were people in denial about the math. You can't fix stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #99)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:21 PM

173. Nope, it's not the point. You can't live your life based on other people's warped sense of reality.

Neither should the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #173)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 05:16 PM

179. If you want to win elections, you have to consider how people see you, how they

perceive you as a candidate and how they perceive your party, whether they view it as a party in which their participation matters or whether they view it as a party in which the rules make it possible to "fix" outcomes.

Politics is very much, in part, about perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #179)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:44 PM

188. Nope, you don't consider lunatics in your strategy. Focus on sane people. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #188)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:50 PM

191. You have to consider everyone including the sane and the crazy.

Well, we have a terrible record.

We have lost in so many states.

Hillary won the popular vote, but not the electoral college.

If we want to continue losing, we should continue as we have in the losing past.

If we want to win, we need to look as objectively as possible at what we have done in our losing past and change.

Of course, change can be threatening to those all comfy in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #86)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 05:54 AM

142. We simply don't know.

The media were reporting delegate numbers that included announced superdelagates. It created the perception that Hillary was further ahead than she actually was at each stage. Whether that made a difference or not, we have no way of telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #142)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:04 AM

156. Generally speaking, I think the media made the distinction clear. And the media loves a horse race.

The contest was essentially over by the 2nd week of March, but you wouldn't know it from media coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #142)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:59 PM

185. I agree, not good for perception,

I also didn't like that the supers announced their vote right before the CA primary, making her the official nominee, instead of allowing the voters to weigh in. She was going to win anyway so why not wait.

I support the new plan as long as it also gets rid of caucuses and open primaries, and mandates early voting... this way a broad cross-section of registered Dem voters will be the ones in most cases (aside from contested conventions, where the supers will come into play as they should) choosing the Dem nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:09 PM

160. In 2008

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards supporters claimed that superdelegates were unfair to them because it gave Clinton too big of an advantage.

How did the 2008 primaries turn out for Clinton again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #160)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:40 PM

163. We should strive for the reality AND appearance of utmost fairness and honesty.

If a bargain is to be made to resolve a tie, all candidates and their supporters should be openly involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:06 PM

11. It prevents food fights in close elections...and I want it to stay...called the DNC and said so.

Supers always vote for the person with the most votes...but see we need winner take all primaries if this happens as we could have ties or close primaries and end up in court or worse and I for one am tired of losing elections and enabling fucking Republicans...and when you have a disputed primary, you always lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:15 PM

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination

process was unfair and rigged.

If they make no difference really in the end, why have them?

In politics, appearance matters. Superdelegates give the appearance of unfairness.

We don't need them. I suppose there is an ego trip involved in being a superdelegate, but let's don't be a party that fees the egos of its upper crust.

Let's be a party that cares about getting every voter out to vote, fairly counting the votes without fail and backing the candidates that we know have won fair and square.

It is partly about appearances. All politics is partly about appearances.

Fairness counts. Superdelegates appear to be unfair. Whether they are or not, the appearance of unfairness drives away voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:34 PM

21. Yes, Sophia, if they don't make a difference, get rid of them.

It makes the Democrats seem like they don't want what the voters want...that they need to be protected from the voters by some special "Super Delegates."

You are so right on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:40 PM

41. Come on Sophia.

State what you really mean. We all know who you are talking about. Just say it.

Sophia4 (3,137 posts)

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination process was unfair and rigged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:15 AM

125. Yep

Pretty obvious what this really means. She wants open primaries too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:13 PM

51. No worries, Sophia, because "impressions" are not what is counted --

it is vote totals. Prolonging this urban myth is not useful, so why do you keep doing it. The facts are not on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:30 AM

111. If voters have the "impression" that the process is unfair, "rigged," then they

are less likely to vote, especially if the ultimate nominee does not completely meet their expectations, satisfy their wishes -- is not an almost impossibly perfect candidate.

And that affects, no, determines the vote totals.

That is how it works. Those few votes of the rare voters who do not like a process that appears slightly unfair or dishonest, those make the difference sometimes between winning and losing.

So that is why an utterly honest process if important.

And we Democrats have to deal with this underlying, very serious, very basic problem. It is a problem of inspiring the trust of voters.

And right now, elections are going to be decided by the trust of the voters.

Voters will trust a process that is exceedingly and purposefully honest.

Obama won because Democrats really, really trusted him.

Trust is the key.

The idea of superdelegates destroys the trust of a lot of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:41 AM

115. Sorry, but this is leftover and very bad fear mongering

that was meant to drum up anti-Establishment anger. You are using a non-issue about superdelegates, so if you want people to trust you, you shouldn’t misrepresent facts and twist them to convince people that their vote didn’t count.

Your buzzwords “rigged” “unfair” “impression” are just rehashing a loss. The vote totals don’t support your accusations. The Russians used this negative messaging to stoke divisions. This is the exact type of unsubstantiated propaganda they spread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:47 AM

118. I respect your right to your opinions, but I disagree with you on this issue.

I'm talking about one of the many reasons Democrats have been losing so many elections that we should not be losing.

There are many reasons that we have lost in so many states, one of which is the decline in membership in trade unions.

We should work to change what we can.

It would be easy for us to end the superdelegates. We don't need them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #118)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:57 AM

122. That is bizarre you are saying superdelegates

are causing lost elections. It’s not even remotely a real issue.

Again, I remember your reasons for not voting for Hillary. When you actively work against our candidate, then there must be some realization that a lost election could be the outcome. This kind of undermining is what we should be aware of. Why blame on Democrats what other’s intentional actions were. We should stick with the conventional wisdom that seems to work—no prolonged unnecessary attacks on our candidate and our party that only benefit the GOP.

We should spend more time attacking Republicans than attacking Democrats. Attacking Democrats is a stupid idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:20 PM

172. People have all kinds of impressions. We can't be responsible for them.Some people believe in ghosts

Are you going to change your life because someone else believes in ghosts?

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:50 PM

59. Spot on, especially this: "if they make no difference really in the end, why have them?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #59)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:50 PM

177. Why have auto insurance if you're a good driver or health insurance if you're healthy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:59 PM

74. Again, you are totally wrong on the facts

Yes, I know that members of the CBC hurt sanders' feelings and so you want to punish them. That is sad. In the real world, Super delegates have voted for the candidate with with most votes and most pledged delegates.

If you are really worried about appearances, then why do you want to punish a group of leaders who are far more important to the success of the party than the people pushing this new rule. I support the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and this new rule will be seen as an insult to these key leaders. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place

The Congressional Black Caucus is against eliminating superdelegates, putting the group at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.

Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter.

It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:13 AM

103. If you are right, if as you say,

"In the real world, Super delegates have voted for the candidate with with most votes and most pledged delegates."

then we don't need superdelegates. They change nothing, and they are not needed.

They make our Democratic Party, a Party that belongs to all of us, look untrustworthy and crooked -- even if they do not do that at all.

Appearances are very important to voters.

Trust and procedures that insure fairness are in today's politics, in Democratic politics, utterly important.

Superdelegates make our Democratic Party look bad, and if they don't do anything, don't affect the outcome of nominations or elections, we should go full force for looking and being honest and having an honest process and end the superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #103)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:23 AM

109. We should not be dishonest and accuse people of things

they never did. The superdelegates were not an issue, but you are calling them dishonest. This same kind of undermining with no proof is what the Russians liked to see. Endless untrue smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #103)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:26 AM

153. Super delegates are elected leaders of the party such as members of the CBC

I know members of the CBC. I think that these leaders are far more important to the party compared to the sanders followers pushing for this change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:29 AM

88. Why have them? They're an insurance policy. Like having health insurance even if you're healthy.

Here's the transcript of an interview with one of the superdelegate inventors: http://inthesetimes.com/features/superdelegate-interview-elaine-kamarck.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #88)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:05 AM

101. What do they insure?

Control for the party bureaucrats? Do we really need that? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #101)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:11 AM

124. Did you click on the link in my last post?

Not that the answer isn't obvious. It's insurance against the selection of someone who isn't viewed as being electable. Just because that has yet to be an issue doesn't mean it won't ever be an issue. I have auto insurance but rarely utilize it.

From the Marcetic-Kamarck exchange:

The creation of superdelegates seems to have been intended as a corrective to the reforms of the 1969-70 McGovern-Fraser Commission, which took power away from party bosses and provided for the selection of delegates through primaries. Was there a sense that the primary system encouraged nominees who represented the party’s extremes?

Yeah, I mean what we’ve known for many years now is that primary electorates are not representative of the whole party. Republican primaries skew right and the Democrat primaries skew left. That’s really dawning on people after 1972, when you had a real increase in the number of primaries. There was a concern that we were going to be nominating unelectable candidates like George McGovern.


One way to help mitigate that is to do away with caucuses, participation in which is especially not representative of the electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:31 PM

182. By your own words.

Sophia4

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination

process was unfair and rigged.


Well one super delegate did, Bernie Sanders said "rigged"...yet by your own words he gave the voters the 'impression', as a super delegate that he was one of the ones doing the rigging. I am sincerely confused here.

In politics, appearance matters. Superdelegates give the appearance of unfairness.


So...Sanders as a super delegate gave to the voters that he as a super "appeared" to be unfair... "the appearance of unfairness"?

We don't need them. I suppose there is an ego trip involved in being a superdelegate, but let's don't be a party that fees the egos of its upper crust.


So again, by your own words about the super delegates and their possible corruption (link in above thread)...now you are accusing Sanders along with the super delegate smear to be on an ego trip and feeding the egos of the upper crust?

Fairness counts. Superdelegates appear to be unfair. Whether they are or not, the appearance of unfairness drives away voters.


So a super delegate with the " appearance of unfairness" drives voters away?

Wow.

.....................

Not sure you are helping your guy all that much. Correct me if I am wrong please. I find your posts in this thread hard to follow and I feel I need a road map to get to the destination. So many twists and turns.

My Senator Warren is a super delegate and I take offense that you feel she is corrupt, unfair or on an ego trip bowing to the egos of the "upper crust" and is "driving voters away".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #182)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:32 PM

186. We should have no superdelegates.

The very concept makes our Democratic Party look untrustworthy.

And how processes and candidates "look" is very important in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #186)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:45 PM

189. No answer.

Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 01:44 AM

215. California DNC Member Suggests Superdelegate Reform Is Part Of Russian Plot

Elimination of super delegates will make the party weaker https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bob-mulholland-california-dnc-superdelegates-reform-putin-russia_us_5b1d636fe4b09d7a3d73e7bb

Momentum is growing within the Democratic National Committee for a significant reform to the party’s presidential nominating process, but the proposed change has caused a leading California Democrat to question whether Russian meddling is behind the effort.

The Californian, Bob Mulholland, could provide no proof for his claim. But his comments underscore the resistance the reform push is expected to encounter from some party stalwarts.....

Mulholland, a DNC member and longtime key player in California Democratic politics, sent an email Friday to other DNC members from the Golden State that implied Russian President Vladimir Putin might be behind the reform effort.

The basis for his claim? An activist from West Virginia promoting the changes, who he had seen at two national party gatherings, admitted to him that she was a Green Party member and had voted for its nominee, Jill Stein, in the 2016 election.

“I concluded someone is picking up her expenses but there she and others are, demanding we change our Rules,” Mulholland wrote. “The Putin operation is still active.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #215)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 02:56 AM

216. Wow! That is interesting! A so-called Green party

member is against superdelegates. I’ve always wondered about Tad Devine’s influence over the misplaced Sanders’ campaign obsession with superdelegates, and now we see that his colleague Manafort was funded by the Russians.

This whole thing is a complete ruse. We see that getting rid of superdelegates is just a way to get non-Democrats to circumvent doing anything for the party while benefitting from it. Opportunistic, and that’s being polite. They are not against superdelegates at all, they just want them to vote third party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #216)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 09:57 AM

217. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:33 PM

38. This is yet another contradiction -- now in this post you are concerned

about "ordinary Democrats" yet your other posts say that Independents and third party voters should not be denied an opportunity to contest conventions, which makes no sense. All of your own proposed scenarios are fabricated, yet you tag "ordinary Democrats" with your own contrived misgivings. The superdelegates were not a roadblock even recently, as the vote totals were not there to support going forward. They did not abuse their roll, so it's just complete hooey at this point to keep insisting that superdelegates should go away just as some kind of victory lap for third party types. Let's not make things up about superdelegates, including making up false impressions of them and then insisting people live by your own impressions.

It is interesting that you talk about winning elections. Voting for the Democrat is how we can do that, not refusing to vote for our nominee and then encouraging others to do the same. Blaming Democrats for the willful behavior of others is not right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:42 PM

43. Teach!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:53 PM

46. lol, yes! That same ol' reality bending and blaming gets old.

Getting people upset over something that never happened is tiresome. Blaming Democrats for what you, yourself, have done is tiresome, but very familiar. Hey she,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #46)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:10 PM

65. I really had to LOL.

"creaky old uppercrust." Seriously?

Hey back, R B.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:59 PM

47. You have no evidence of that either way since super delegates have never affected

a primary race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:09 PM

48. Yes but Nina Turner said.................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:33 PM

69. Thank you for trying, Sophia4.


I'm with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:43 PM

70. Why do we want to punish the CBC and the leaders of the party

Super delegates had nothing to do with losing the 2016 or any other election. Punishing members of the Congressional Black Caucus is a dumb idea. Members of the CBC are far more important to the party than the sanders supporters pushing this change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:31 AM

79. Agree, also get rid of caucuses and open primaries.

Sure, superdelegates never played an official role, but were a looming spectre in several elections (especially 2008) and is simply not a good look for democracy.

We need early voting with closed primaries which would allow the largest amount of rank-and-file Democratic voters to choose the Dem nominee, with minimal ratfucking.

So the elected delegates (ie, the people's choice) alone should vote on the first ballot, with superdelegates allowed to vote on every subsequent ballot.

Some say the superdelegates should never vote on any ballot, but I don't agree with this, since you much rather have trusted party figures having a strong say rather than elected delegates (party hacks) who (iirc) are not bound to vote the people's' choice on subsequent ballots but can vote however they wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #79)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:43 AM

91. I think that superdelegates are no more trustworthy than "party hacks."

Superdelegates cause a lot of distrust among voters.

Elected delegates are not necessarily party hacks.

I was a delegate at the state level. Most delegates are good people. If the Democratic leadership does its job, the delegates will continue to be mostly good people.

The superdelegates are also mostly "good people." But they bring the appearance of corruption to the nomination process.

The more open, visibly open and more honest, our process is the better, the better off we are as a Party. Our process has to be absolutely honest.

The shabby appearance of a fix that superdelegates bring even if the process is in reality very honest, is not worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:13 AM

104. Superdelegates are publicly accountable

establishment leaders who are favored by rank-and-file Democratic voters whereas regular delegates are usually party hack activist types who regular voters don't want making decisions for them. I would actually prefer they didn't even exist. Let a computer vote in the results on the first ballot based upon the people's choice then let the superdelegates add in their votes on the subsequent ballots until a nominee is reached.

Even Sanders' plan supports superdelegates on the subsequent ballots, simply excludes the from the first wherein the people's voice will be the only voice. I agree with this.

All political parties must have a mechanism of dealing with deadlocked first ballots that proceed to a contested convention. The superdelegate system was created to prevent back room horsetrading to install a nominee as was common in the past - iow to avoid corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #104)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:17 AM

107. We do need a mechanism to deal with deadlocks, but superdelegates are not what

we should use. Let's find a better way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #107)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:32 AM

112. Only better way would be voters going to the polls again

which simply isn't practical, thus the superdelegates (being trusted by the broad swath of the Dem electorate) are the ones who should add their voice on the 2nd ballot, which are highly uncommon anyway. So superdelegates in most cases would play no role, as the voters have 100% of the voice on the 1st ballot under the new plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:30 PM

200. 2nd ballots will be a lot more common under the new proposed rule.

Without superdelegates, it's much more likely that no candidate will reach 2382. It'll take superdelegates and the 2nd ballot in order to put someone over the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #200)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:01 PM

206. True, but candidates have their chance

to win the votes of the people alone (pledged delegates) on the first ballot, with no input from any party officials or superdelegates etc.

If the candidate can't do it, they (and their supporters) can't cry because they had their shot.

I personally think whichever candidate gets a strong plurality should win it even if he/she doesnt reach the >50% (2382) because it won't look good otherwise. ie lets say someone gets 40%, but then the party gives it to someone else on the 2nd ballot ... would be mayhem.

the GOP establishment was considering such a thing, to give it to Kasich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:28 AM

154. Members of the CBC are "party hacks"

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are important leaders in the party. They are not corrupt and they are not party hacks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:55 PM

205. Ha!! :-D



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:00 PM

3. Reducing or eliminating caucuses would be a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:01 PM

5. Yep. Caucases need to go. They're undemocratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:05 PM

9. Yes. I agree. Caucuses don't include, can't include all voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:07 PM

15. and OPEN PRIMARIES SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED DEMOCRATS

I do NOT want Non-Democrats deciding who the Democratic nominee is

and for those who can't grasp this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/illinois-house-primary-dan-lipinski/index.html


republicans crossed over and voted for lipinski in the OPEN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, and the progressive candidate lost


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:23 PM

19. There should be a way for certain independents and third-party registered voters to

vote in Democratic primaries.

Alternatively, we should make it very easy for voters registered as independents to re-register as Democrats.

One problem with re-registering Democrats is that the voter registration roles are publicly available under certain circumstances. That means your employer can find out how you register to vote. Privacy can be important with regard to your voter registration.

I don't have an answer to this problem, but it should be acknowledged.

I recall during my working years, I was once called in by a boss because he wanted to discuss privately with me my stance on a certain political issue. I had never voiced an opinion on that issue in the workplace. Hardly even had one. It was very odd. It think he saw my voter registration and assumed my stance on that issue.

Restricting voters in primaries to registered Democrats sounds good, but there are problems with it. Life can be complicated.

Think of teachers, pastors, lawyers, many other professions that deal with the public and have to be careful about their affiliations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:55 PM

24. Why should a non-Democrat choose the Democratic nominee? No it ISN'T complicated. Those who do NOT

want to register as a Democrat should NOT be able to determine who is the Democratic nominee. It is actually quite simple

Bernie recognized this, and became a Democrat when he ran 2016

Complicated my foot.

It is an argument that third party candidates use. If they are NOT DEMOCRATS, and do NOT want to be associated with the Democratic party then they do NOT have the right to choose who the Democratic nominee IS. It is that simple




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:02 PM

27. As I pointed out, some people may, for professional reasons for example, need to

maintain privacy about their political preferences. I understand that very well.

Has nothing to do with being a Democrat.

Has to do with their professional responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:25 PM

36. Actually if you perceive that as a problem, that solution is very simple, just change the rules so

the registration form party affiliation won't be made public.

Of course that is the real motivation of those who want open primaries. They want open primaries because they want third party control of the Democratic party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:57 AM

82. Agree

The anonymous ballot is the foundation of our system and as such the voter registration data should be private also. Perhaps only available to campaigns who must be bound by privacy laws just as medical and financial data is.

Like you I feel strongly that nomination contests should be high turnout closed primaries with early voting so a broad swath of registered Dems are the ones choosing the nominees.

This would minimize Repub ratfucking and 3rd party hijack attempts. Would also reduce the influence of activists who tend to dominate in caucuses and low turnout primaries, which tend to produce unelectable and unrepresentative candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:17 AM

84. Absolutely. They want to get rid of SD, fine, but the day the Democratic party opens up the primary

for the office of PRESIDENT, will be the end of the Democratic party, and I suspect that is the real motivation behind a lot of those pushing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:57 PM

25. Jesus.

Your posts are the written equivalent of yoga classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:03 PM

28. What do you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:15 PM

31. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:34 PM

39. Ummhmm


























Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:17 PM

33. there is a way - register as a democrat. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:26 PM

37. I prefer closed primaries.

But you make a good point. Letting independents into democratic primaries would work if only democratic leaning independents came in (no way of telling how an Indy leans). If republican voting indies get in, they could cause trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:39 PM

56. In my purple county, we had a serving Republican comptroller

whose term was ending running in the Democratic primary for county executive last year. The Republican candidate for county executive ran unchallenged.

I'm glad I live in a closed primary state. If not, we may well have had had a GE choice between Republican A and Republican B. Instead, we now have a Democratic county executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #56)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:13 PM

66. I am somewhat confused by your post.

Let me summarize how I understood it.

The republican primary for County Executive had only one person in it.

In the democratic primary, a sitting republican entered.

Yet, you concluded that your county now has a democrat as County Executive in your closed primary state.

I don't understand, did the republican enter the democratic primary and got beaten by the person that went on to win the County Executive seat in the General, or did something else happen that is unclear to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Blue_true (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:50 PM

72. Same here and I would like to get rid of undemocratic caucuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:04 AM

75. Then you support the DNC rule that is quid pro quo for the super delegate rule

The DNC is adopting a new rule that should keep sanders from running unless he becomes a real democrat https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

Democratic National Committee officials on Friday moved forward with a proposal to force the party’s presidential candidates to identify as Democrats, a move that drew immediate criticism from a top official in Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

The prospective rule change, approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would not necessarily impact Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who ran for president as a Democrat.

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August.

Sanders would have to drop the stunt of claiming that he is not a member of the party is he wants to run under this new rule.

This rule has already been adopted and is appropriate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:51 AM

155. If someone wants to vote as a Democrat in

the primary, then they should register as one. How you vote should not be the concern of an employer unless you are in public service and prohibited from affiliating with a party. You are also allowed to hold opinions on issues. I do not see what that has to do with party affiliation.

The primaries exist for the purpose of the selection of the parties' candidates, their rules and by-laws, the platforms they endorse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:06 PM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:07 PM

14. Yes. Caucuses are undemocratic and exclusive. They need to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:03 PM

6. "wretched timing" is a good phrase for it.

But it is 100% intentional. The same way that they forced Clinton to put their cronies on the DNC committee. The same way they forced Clinton to modify the DNC draft to put in their minor modifications.

It's called hostage taking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:38 PM

22. I stand with the CBC

Thanks for this reporting, Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:15 AM

77. I know a number of members of the CBC and I stand with them also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:00 PM

26. I iwll support getting rid of superdelegates when we get rid of caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:11 PM

30. We should get rid of caucuses FIRST.

I certainly hope Sanders is calling to an end of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:18 PM

53. Caucuses are the only reason the 2016 primary was even remotely close, so I doubt it.

Even then, the race was over by the 2nd week of March.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:37 PM

40. Exactly! This is why it's obvious this is just a distraction and not a

serious consideration of all voters. So phony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:41 PM

42. It's not a distraction

It’s an attempt to stack eco in someone’s favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:44 PM

44. True, I had to word it carefully, but you are exactly correct.

It's as obvious now as it ever was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:11 PM

49. it is not up to a political party to decide on primary or caucus.

It is decided by the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #49)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:13 PM

50. Idaho Dems are going to a primary for 2020

Michigan Dems went from caucus to primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #50)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:15 PM

52. How? Did the state provide an option? Or change the process?

Please provide a link for both claims.

The reason for these laws is that in the primary states the government pays for the elections. In caucus states the party pays for the events. So, is the party paying for the primary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:06 PM

29. Rep. Gerry Connolly is my rep. Two thumbs up. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:16 PM

32. Do superdelegates always reflect the popular vote?

If they do, they are not needed. If they don't, they need to go.
Why should there be an extra layer of "democracy" between the voters and the results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:27 AM

87. They didn't in 2016 for West Virginia...

Sanders won the popular vote in the primary (in all 55 counties) and the superdelegates all voted for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to k8conant (Reply #87)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:48 AM

93. Because Clinton won the overall popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:18 PM

34. the democratic party should not aim to please republicans and other non party members nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:21 PM

54. They'll still be able to endorse whoever they want. And vote. Just not on the first ballot.

I don't see this as a huge deal.

Like others, I'm all for getting rid of caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:32 PM

55. Having a little control by leadership is not a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:41 PM

57. I'm with the CBC.. and Gerry Connelly makes

a lot of sense.

Mahalo, Goth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:51 PM

60. Ditto!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #60)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:55 PM

61. Hey Aloha, ucr!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #61)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:57 PM

62. Aloha from burning asphalt h#ll!

you are soooo lucky to just have an active volcano in your back yard Cha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:44 AM

81. Cha is four islands over from the Volcano

My son is headed to the Big Island at the end of August for a week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #81)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:26 AM

127. Bet he wishes he were there now. . .

Bet we all do!

p.s. he is going to have a wonderful, wonderful time. I can say that because I was there for a few days in November and it was utterly enchanting. I did get to drive around a bit after with Mrs UCRdem but not as much as I'd like. Can't wait to return!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:08 PM

64. I think Perez will probably horse-trade a little and make both sides happy.

There's another proposal to make a documented 2-year Democratic party membership a prerequisite to running nationally that the Sanders partisans really hate. So I think they will end up cancelling each other out.

But not without major drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 11:19 PM

67. Super delegates can vote at the polls like everyone else.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:14 AM

76. Additional new DNC Rule-Presidential candidates must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat

The quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule is a rule that will require candidates to be real members of the party. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

According to the draft rule change adopted Friday, “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.”

The draft goes on to require that any candidate pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president confirm in writing to the Democratic National Committee chairman that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will “run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting in Providence, R.I., made no final determination on superdelegates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has proposed prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. Rules committee members also discussed a modified version of that proposal, in which superdelegates would be allowed to vote on the first ballot if a candidate had already earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

This rule is in effect the quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule
Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:21 AM

78. I hope for a day when we do away with delegates altogether.

I'd like a National Primary system in which we all vote, the votes are counted, and the winner wins. To me, the delegates are the same basic theory as the electoral college. Put the nominating process in the hands of registered Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:35 AM

80. Oh, FFS! Superdelegates make sure grassroot members of the party gets *more* say, not less!

The system of superdelegates contributes to giving ordinary, non-elected party members more say in party business, not less! It increases their chances of getting to go to the convention! What the fuck do these yokels think will happen if we get rid of our superdelegates? The delegates at the convention will become less diverse, as state and county parties will pick elected Democrats, those who are now superdelegates, as pledged delegates. It ill be much harder for ordinary, non-candidate party members to get elected as delegates, and it will certainly make it less likely for minorities to break into party politics. Working to be elected delegate now is a low threshold way of getting engaged in the party - often the stepping stone before standing for election either as a candidate or a party officer. Get rid of superdelegates, and that avenue will be all but closed. I mean, who would deny say Senator Warren a delegate slot over Jane Blow from Bumfuck, MA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KitSileya (Reply #80)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 05:58 AM

143. That is a truly terrible excuse for superdelegates..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:55 AM

97. Super delegates need to go

Just like the electoral college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:17 AM

126. The super delegates should be eliminated. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 03:48 AM

130. uh...why is it idiotic? Because some people's votes should cancel out 1000's? How weird that

that would spark a revolt amongst those who currently wield so much power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:05 AM

135. Not giving an opinion on...

… superdelegates, but on this being a "Sanders-backed" thing... Bernie Sanders should have remained a Democrat and continued to strengthen the Democratic Party. He was a good influence and voted for the nominee & best candidate for President - Hillary Clinton. However, Bernie should not be backing rule changes, after re-identifying himself as an Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike Nelson (Reply #135)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:19 AM

137. Especially when he's not also calling for the end to undemocratic caucuses.

Without caucuses, the need for the superdelegate insurance policy would be lessened. So, failing to also call for the end of caucuses is inconsistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #137)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:32 AM

138. I agree, the...

… caucuses are not democratic. I know people say they encourage grassroots participation and I like that idea - but we have do it more democratically. Both the superdelegates and caucuses need to be looked at, for reform consideration. The caucuses are more of a problem, in my opinion. I don't think the superdelegates changed the outcome in the Clinton-Sanders race. I can't remember exactly, but I think the Obama-Clinton race was closer... I hope we get it right in 2020 because the country (and world) will be watching, with greater interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike Nelson (Reply #138)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:49 AM

140. They absolutely didn't change the outcome in 2016. They never have.

They constitute an insurance policy.

And, yes, 2008 was much closer. Many superdelegates who had supported Clinton had no problem voting for Obama, who they knew was electable.

There are many people who are either not able or not inclined to take part in a lengthy and very public caucus process. It's rather embarrassing that the Democratic Party continues to hold caucuses. But traditions can be potent. Like the tradition of starting the primary off with Iowa and New Hampshire, even though neither state is remotely representative of the Democratic electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #140)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:00 AM

144. How are they an insurance policy?

What exactly do you think would happen if they ever over-ruled the voting public about the nominee? It would absolutely cost us an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #144)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:06 AM

157. See post #88.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:33 AM

139. Lulzd

It’s going to be adopted and there is almost no controversy over it.

Stop being played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:01 AM

145. They should absolutely be scrapped

The entire rationale for them existing is patronizing and ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:17 AM

146. Do superdelegates also get to vote on the party platform?

If so, then that may be a bigger aspect of this fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:11 PM

161. I'd back lessening the influence of superdelegates

if it was in exchange for every state holding a closed primary instead of caucuses or open or partially open primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:06 PM

167. Russia's working hard to defeat us on November 6.

I'd love to know their part in pushing this dissension. The DNC is already redoing the rules to reduce superdelegate power somewhat, but NOT so much that they likely couldn't stop a very bad candidate who'd do America harm, even a Russian agent, from being nominated.

That's not enough? WHY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 01:45 PM

170. I still don't think we should have superdelegates. No one's vote should have the power to negate

another person's vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #170)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:36 PM

174. If I vote for the person running against the person you voted for, am I negating your vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #174)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:38 PM

175. You may if you're a superdelegate. It depends on the final numbers in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #175)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:45 PM

176. There are 4763 delegates (4051 pledged) sent to the convention. One must reach 2382...

...in order to secure the nomination. If no candidate reaches 2382 (without counting superdelegates) but one candidate has far more pledged delegates than the other candidate(s), only in extreme circumstances would those superdelegates not support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

In other words, this is much ado about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #176)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 05:21 PM

180. It's not fair.

In the primary, if my choice - Candidate A - gets 10 delegates based on the popular vote count and Candidate B gets 8 delegates, the supers might weigh in with 3 delegates and give the state to the person who received the smaller number of popular votes. Kind of sounds like the 2016 presidential election, doesn't it? The person with 3 million more votes didn't win. Not fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #180)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:54 PM

184. That's not how the system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #184)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:53 PM

193. This is a sore spot for me since I live in New Hampshire.

In the last primary, Bernie won about 60% of the popular vote and Hillary won about 40%. Because the 6 superdelegates in New Hampshire stood with Hillary, Bernie and Hillary came out of New Hampshire with the same number of delegates. Unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #193)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:56 PM

194. Breaking it down by state seems silly to me. It's the total that matters.

Clinton won far more pledged delegates in total. And the only reason it was even remotely close was due to undemocratic caucuses.

With or without superdelegates, Clinton is nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #194)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 07:15 AM

207. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 02:31 PM

171. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #171)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:28 PM

181. Oh yeah! Superdelegates for me but not for thee.

Great reminder from this Twitter post on July 12, 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #171)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:49 PM

190. more likely that was justification to stay in the race when so much noise was being made to get


him to abandon it. The truth for my money is that everything Sanders campaigned on was at stake. The democratic establishment was very very ready to move on and brush that whole unpleasantness under the rug. Sanders had to take it to the Convention to get a compromise on the DNC and Clinton platforms which would address those of us at the left of the party. Its one of those stupid elements of politics where you can't actually say you don't expect to win and keep running. You have to always profess a potential path to victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #190)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 11:04 PM

209. Magic does not work in the real world

There was no magical voter revolution and super delegates were not going to magically support this candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #209)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 11:29 PM

212. I literally said in my post I ddin't think that was ever the expectation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #212)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 01:40 AM

214. Eliminating Super delegates will not help sanders but will help Harris

Eliminating superdelegates is not a magical fix for sanders and will not help sanders win the nomination. In fact, this plan will help a real Democrat, Senator K. Harris https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/democratic-party-superdelegate-system-benefits-kamala-harris/

Harris, not Sanders, will be the probable beneficiary of the rules change because of the demographic makeup of the Democratic primary electorate. It would not be an oversimplification to say that the Democrats divide into three rough groups: progressives, centrists, and non-whites. African-Americans are by far the largest share of the last group, totaling nearly a quarter of all Democratic voters nationwide.

Democratic party nomination fights have followed a similar pattern since at least 1984. A candidate appealing to educated, more liberal Democrats challenges a relatively more centrist rival favored by the party establishment; the progressive wins most primaries and caucuses in New England, the West, and Wisconsin, while the centrist wins most of the remaining states. This outcome has historically doomed the progressive, from 1984 challenger Senator Gary Hart to Sanders himself, because there are more centrists than progressives or liberals.

The non-white vote, and especially the African-American vote, plays an underappreciated role in this process. Non-whites almost invariably back the more centrist candidate, providing that person with key support to defeat his or her more liberal challenger. African-Americans and Latinos backed Walter Mondale over Hart in 1984 and Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown in 1992, delivering the nomination to both men in the process. They did so again in 2016, backing Hillary Clinton by margins as large as 80 percent, allowing her to win most Southern and Midwestern primary states as a result.

African-American voters do break from this mold, however, when a serious African-American candidate is running. Jesse Jackson won two states dominated by African-American Democrats in 1984 and swept six Southern states in 1988. Crucially, Barack Obama owed his nomination in 2008 to African-American voters, riding their overwhelming support to win seven Southern states and many delegates in Midwestern and Northeastern states with large, urban black populations. If not for their support, Obama would have merely been yet another failed progressive challenger.

Magic does not work in the real world and eliminating super delegates will not help sanders magically win the nomination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #214)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 03:37 PM

218. I've explained my issues with Superdelagates in the past, one of which major issue is how they are


reported, but I don't like their existence at all. That said, their actual function, no would not have changed the outcome of the last election. The question is, had it been close, what would have happened if Sanders or anyone, were in the lead of popular vote but hadn't clinched? I don't want the superdelegates flipping a vote because of their disproportionate power.

But you keep on strawmanning about magic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #218)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 03:50 PM

219. Magic does not work in the real world

The whole sanders platform is based on a magical voter revolution that did not and could not happen in the real world. The sanders supporters also believe that the elimination of super delegates will somehow help sanders win in 2020. Again, magic does not work in the real world and the elimination of super delegates will help Senator Harris and not help sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #219)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 03:59 PM

220. The whole Sanders run was based upon moving the party to the left, which, if you look at the


issues mainstream candidates are championing, has proven to had an impact. Do you really think Sanders thought from the get-go that he was going to have as much success as he had? He was looking to draw a small contingent of voters as a representative of that voting block, giving them a voice and getting the mainstream candidates to take notice of a contingency they may want to court.

That he got as far as he did was an astonishing achievement none of us, including those of us who were early donors, thought would happen.

Again, if you want to make up what it was we were shooting for just to say we didn't achieve it, by all means carry on, but you're only convincing yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #220)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 04:31 PM

221. Sanders platform was based on unrealistic assumptions about a so-called revolution

Sanders platform could never be adopted in the real world without a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Without the use of magic, none of sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world. Sanders admitted that his platform was based on a voter revolution.

Sanders supporters also evidently believe that getting rid of super delegates will magically help sanders get the 2020 nomination. Again that belief is based on magical thinking. The best guess right now is that getting rid of Super delegates will not benefit sanders and will benefit Senator Harris.

I am very happy with the other new rule that will require that Sanders have to run as a Democrat is fhe announces a run for the nomination The quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule is a rule that will require candidates to be real members of the party. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

According to the draft rule change adopted Friday, “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.”

The draft goes on to require that any candidate pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president confirm in writing to the Democratic National Committee chairman that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will “run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting in Providence, R.I., made no final determination on superdelegates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has proposed prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. Rules committee members also discussed a modified version of that proposal, in which superdelegates would be allowed to vote on the first ballot if a candidate had already earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

This rule is in effect the quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule
Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #171)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 11:03 PM

208. That effort failed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #171)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 11:09 PM

210. I was a delegate to the national convention and was at the Texas breakfast where we had a revolt

It was a fun experience



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 04:52 PM

178. Pure democracy and the flaccid emotions of the masses

brought us Trump. The populace is easily swayed.

Our superdelegate system is to inject wisdom into the process and prevent radical candidates who will not be perceived as able to win and mainstream by the general electorate in the general election.

We have passed through an age when the center could not win, but we are not there any longer.

Leave the superdelegate system as-is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:51 PM

203. We used to have a right wing

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2018, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

When George Wallace was shot he was high in the polls. The CBC remembers this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri Jul 13, 2018, 11:09 PM

211. Eliminate superdelegates, eliminate caucuses, close the primaries

I care little for superdelegates bemoaning their loss of privilege and wails of "disenfranchising the elected leadership."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2018, 01:38 AM

213. House Dems seethe over superdelegates plan

This plan will be opposed by the CBC and member of congress https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/superdelegates-house-democrats-630357

The controversial issue of “superdelegates” and their future in the Democratic Party led to an angry confrontation on Tuesday night between Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and House Democrats, according to several lawmakers.

But the members’ angst may not help them since it appears that the DNC is ready to rein in the status of superdelegates, also known as “unpledged” delegates, no matter what lawmakers say or do.


Superdelegates include members of Congress, governors, party elders such as former presidents and vice presidents, DNC members and other assorted “distinguished party leaders.” They made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention. Unlike other delegates, they are free to vote for any candidate they want.

The logic is that party leaders immersed in the candidates and issues of the day can provide a guardrail against selecting an “unelectable” nominee for the general election. But the party base loathes this elite class of delegates, saying it stacks the primary process against the wishes of regular voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread