HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » The complaining about Hil...

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:12 AM

The complaining about Hillary's super delegates has begun

Do the supporters of the other team really believe that this primary is about popularity? If that had been the case, Hillary would have beat Obama by a landslide in 2008. How hard is it to understand that those "establishment" Democrats are going to vote for the Democrat?

49 replies, 2498 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 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply The complaining about Hillary's super delegates has begun (Original post)
leftofcool Feb 2016 OP
romana Feb 2016 #1
leftofcool Feb 2016 #4
Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #14
yallerdawg Feb 2016 #2
leftofcool Feb 2016 #6
Blueguyinthesky Feb 2016 #3
leftofcool Feb 2016 #5
Blueguyinthesky Feb 2016 #7
leftofcool Feb 2016 #9
BooScout Feb 2016 #13
bluestateguy Feb 2016 #31
FBaggins Feb 2016 #8
Cha Feb 2016 #10
leftofcool Feb 2016 #11
FBaggins Feb 2016 #17
Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #12
BooScout Feb 2016 #15
yallerdawg Feb 2016 #16
Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #21
George II Feb 2016 #22
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #36
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2016 #48
stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #18
disillusioned73 Feb 2016 #19
Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #23
disillusioned73 Feb 2016 #24
Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #25
leftofcool Feb 2016 #27
Cha Feb 2016 #28
Cha Feb 2016 #29
BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #34
William769 Feb 2016 #42
George II Feb 2016 #20
DesertRat Feb 2016 #26
Cha Feb 2016 #37
Iliyah Feb 2016 #30
restorefreedom Feb 2016 #33
leftofcool Feb 2016 #38
William769 Feb 2016 #41
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2016 #49
aaaaaa5a Feb 2016 #32
Nonhlanhla Feb 2016 #35
leftofcool Feb 2016 #39
Nonhlanhla Feb 2016 #40
Treant Feb 2016 #43
Nonhlanhla Feb 2016 #44
72DejaVu Feb 2016 #45
Cha Feb 2016 #47
mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #46

Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:17 AM

1. Superdelegates

I confess I'm not always comfortable with superdelegates. Didn't Clinton have a lot on board last time, only for it not to matter? This is a delegate race, and I think for the time being it's better to be focused on state delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romana (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:20 AM

4. No, Obama took more of the super delegates last time.

Hillary won the popular vote, Obama took more supers. This time, the supers will vote for the Democrat. That is the way it has always been done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romana (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:35 AM

14. I'm a huge fan

Last edited Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

This is about a party's nominee. The leaders of the party should have a disproportional say in who wins their nomination. The reason for the supers is to prevent populist non Dems from taking over the party. This year is a good example of why the supers are vitally important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:18 AM

2. Democrats want to win above all else!

We have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Do we really need an 'independent" to come in and save us?

When that is the path to losing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:21 AM

6. No, we do not need an Independent to save us.

Independents have never won an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:19 AM

3. I think super delegates are a terrible practice and totally antiethetical to the purpose of a

 

democracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blueguyinthesky (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:20 AM

5. That is the way we have always done it. They have a vote just like anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:22 AM

7. Actually we've only done it since 1972

 

And just because we've done it for a long time doesn't make it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blueguyinthesky (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:28 AM

9. That's the way it is. Your argument is with the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blueguyinthesky (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:34 AM

13. Yep and the reason being...

We never want another debacle like the McGovern Campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:28 AM

31. Superdelegates have been around since 1984

But about half are elected officials, and they will not go in a different direction than the Democrats who elected them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:26 AM

8. Unfortunately, they aren't "Hillary's super delegates"

They are party leaders who have publicly supported her to date. However, just like primary voters who tell a pollster months in advance who they plan to vote for, their preference can change in the interim. They aren't "her" delegates until they actually vote for her.

If, by some miracle, Bernie wins a majority of primary votes and is clearly ahead in delegates... a large number of them will change their minds. If for not other reason than the fact that most of them face those same voters periodically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:29 AM

10. I'm not worried.. they're not going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:29 AM

11. Hillary was clearly ahead in delegates in 2008

The supers went for Obama. They will not change their minds are vote for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:51 AM

17. No she wasn't

About 50 superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama when he took the lead in "normal" delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:33 AM

12. I disagree

Look at the list of commitments. These are strong supporters of the Clintons who are unwilling to change.

In a normal year when we would have multiple Democrats running then I would agree that they are more mercurial. This year we have one Democrat running. The majority of the leadership will support the democrat come thick or thin.

Count the supers as solid Clinton support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:38 AM

15. No they won't...

Sanders has done nothing to give them reason to support him. These are seasoned politicians. They no more believe Sander's rhetoric than I do. They will stand behind the Democrat in the race.....the one that also fights and supports down ticket Dems......something apparently Sanders can't be bothered with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:42 AM

16. On the other hand...

the Party has to have some safeguards from exactly what has happened. An 'independent' was allowed in, and non-Democrats are leading the Party to a freefall!

Democratic voters prefer Hillary. Independents and a number of people who have never voted Democratic before could take us way off track.

This is the Democratic Primary - not a free-for-all. Independent candidates have their own path to the ballot.

Obviously, many people don't appreciate the value and strength of a political party in a majority rule democracy.

And one candidate understands "joining" the Party is the only way to be a viable candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:05 AM

21. Exactly

Point spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:06 AM

22. Remember, the two states that have voted so far had "open" caucuses/primaries. Sanders' so-called..

..."good" showing for the DEMOCRATIC nomination was fueled by independent and republican crossovers.

The upcoming Nevada caucus is closed - it will be interesting to see how that state goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:49 AM

36. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 11, 2016, 06:42 AM

48. "And one candidate understands "joining" the Party is the only way to be a viable candidate."

Even if it was 5 minutes ago. I can't for the life of me figure why the BS'ers would think that Democrats would fall in line behind someone who only joined the party a few minutes ago, because he doesn't have one of his own, especially one that attacks Democrats as much he attacks Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:59 AM

18. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:59 AM

19. Is this really the new argument?

 

He's not a "real Democrat"..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:07 AM

23. It's been around for a while

He's not a Democrat. The party insiders won't support him over the Democrat. The super delegate count now shows that.

Also....go back to GD-P. This is the Clinton forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuckinthebush (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:10 AM

24. I'll go where ever I like..

 

thank you very much..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:15 AM

25. Not for long

Respect, if not given, is enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:17 AM

27. Actually, no you don't. This is the Hillary forum.

Take your complaints to GDP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:22 AM

28. No you won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:23 AM

29. It's not "new".. bernie himself said he could never run as Dem because of all the things he's

said about the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:47 AM

34. "It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat...

...because of the things I have said about the party."

He does not and never has considered himself to be a Democrat. He's only one now out of political expedience.

In a recent interview with Politico Sanders was asked that since he was running for the Democratic nomination for President why not become a Democrat? He wouldn't answer the question, responding instead with: "Iím running for the Democratic nomination. I will meet all the regulations and requirements. I look forward to doing that." That's a dodge.

So why again do you believe he's a Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disillusioned73 (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:10 AM

42. Not a new argument just the facts.

And, I'll bet money that when he loses the Democratic primary he will go back to calling himself a Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:01 AM

20. Aw, sorry - when you work outside the "establishment" for decades and insult them daily.......

......you're not going to get many of them on your side.

People should know the "rules" before they jump into the game. Super Delegates have been around for decades.

Just a recap, with Iowa and New Hampshire having spoken, Clinton has 23+4 from Iowa and 11+6 from New Hampshire vs. Sanders 21+0 and 13+0.

Totals:

Clinton 45
Sanders 35

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:16 AM

26. ^^This^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:50 AM

37. Thanks for the recap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:25 AM

30. K & R

Well, if the shoe was on the other foot there would be no complaining huh. Anywho, HRC has the delegates

Two states that does not look like America in its diversity, HRC did very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:41 AM

33. as a sanders supporter,

i would not be happy if the shoe was on the other foot. i would not want to see bernie win because he had to be propped up by the establishment. the winner should be the person the most people voted for. the superdelegate practice is the most UNdemocratic thing i have ever seen, and will disappear once dws and her cronies are out.

but as to the election, its a moot point. they will support the winner unless they want to lose their own jobs and see the end of the dem party.

namaste

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:53 AM

38. This is the Hillary forum and you are wrong

We have had super delegates since 1972 and they are not going anywhere. Democrats will vote for a Democrat, not an Independent running as a socialist in the Democratic Party. McGovern is the exact reason we have super delegates. Please take your complaints to GDP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:07 AM

41. What a crock of shit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 11, 2016, 06:50 AM

49. Your little fit of pique aside, DWS didn't make the rules. They were in place when she was in....

grade school, but nice try. BS should have warned his supporters this could happen. And no elected Democrat's job is on the line for correcting a mistake made by an influx of Independent voters in two of the whitest states in the Union that look nothing like the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:33 AM

32. Superdelegates were technically created

For a situation just like this potentially could turn out.

In 1972 Democrats nominated George McGovern, a candidate way to far left that everyone knew had no chance of winning. The SuperDelegates were created so that the party could have some emergency influence of a radical "once in a lifetime" situation which led to a damaged nominee.

SuperDelegates have NEVER determined the party's winner. And SuperDelegates are ELECTED officials. In a representative democracy it's actually more democratic than a caucus.

Bernie Sanders currently reminds me of a George McGovern nomination. Whether or not that turns out to be true, we will have to wait and see. But this type of situation is what the SuperDelegates are intended for. It's the party's way for officials elected by the people to have some structure within the party.

By the way, this is the same party that Bernie Sanders was not even a part of until it became politically necessary for him to change his affiliation for his Presidential run. He was trying to find someone to primary Obama in 2012, which could have taken the Democratic Party out of the WhiteHouse. Could you imagine the GOP controlling all 3 branches of Government now? That's Bernie Sanders circa 2012.

You could make a case that the SuperDelegates as an obligation to the party are being lenient in their endorsement preferences so far. Again, we will have to wait and see how it turns out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:48 AM

35. This is a delicate situation

Superdelegates were created to prevent an unelectable populist from becoming the Dem candidate. On the other hand, superdelegates will also realize that if a candidate gets an overwhelming number of normal delegates, them swinging it to the other candidate can de facto make their candidate unelectable as well. We could potentially face that situation this year. Either scenario is fraught with difficulty. It is clear that there is a lot of anger in the country. You can see it in both parties' primaries, with outsider candidates tapping into people's anger and traditional party candidates being demonized by a large part of the electorate.

I don't envy the superdelegates the task that is lying ahead for them if Bernie should get the majority of elected delegates. They would have to calculate which is the least damaging thing to do: switch over to a largely unvetted candidate with weak ties to the party who also brings significant weaknesses to the general election; or swing the nomination to the traditional Dem with fewer elected delegates and her own set of baggage. This is shark infested water, folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:54 AM

39. Bernie will never get a majority of delegates.

It just isn't going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:05 AM

40. I don't think so either

Was just dealing with hypotheticals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:17 AM

43. I think we'll be fine.

Clinton just did passably in two very unfriendly states. In the off chance that Bernie actually does dominate, it sure won't be by anything appreciable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Treant (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:23 AM

44. I think you're right. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:29 AM

45. I have no problem

with the idea that Harry Reid or Jennifer Granholm or John Lewis should have more say in choosing the Democratic nominee than someone who joined the party yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 11, 2016, 06:15 AM

47. Zing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Original post)

Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:07 AM

46. agree...

and my quote for the night comes from A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN....Tom Hanks said "there is no crying in baseball"...the bernie team did not get that memo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread