HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Superdelegates do not hav...

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:44 PM

 

Superdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States

This is how Superdelegates work. They have been party members for years, they are the Establishment, they are the ones that one candidate is railing against; while the other works with them and appreciates their support. I have no idea why people think that online petitions and a bunch of angry messages and phone calls will change their minds.

But I can understand the WANT to pressure them to switch, but I sure hope the METHODS used are respectful. That vote is THEIRS. To do with as they please.



http://www.bustle.com/articles/140894-what-does-a-superdelegate-do-the-democratic-partys-rules-could-spell-trouble-for-bernie-sanders

181 replies, 24695 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 181 replies Author Time Post
Reply Superdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States (Original post)
bravenak Mar 2016 OP
DemonGoddess Mar 2016 #1
bravenak Mar 2016 #2
Mike__M Mar 2016 #119
DemonGoddess Mar 2016 #139
bravenak Mar 2016 #142
Liberty Belle Mar 2016 #3
bravenak Mar 2016 #6
CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #89
Thinkingabout Mar 2016 #103
Liberty Belle Mar 2016 #175
bravenak Mar 2016 #176
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #11
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #56
SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #61
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #122
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #124
SidDithers Mar 2016 #126
LiberalFighter Mar 2016 #164
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #4
bravenak Mar 2016 #5
unapatriciated Mar 2016 #14
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #17
unapatriciated Mar 2016 #113
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #117
unapatriciated Mar 2016 #118
SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #63
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #65
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #90
MoonRiver Mar 2016 #173
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #7
bravenak Mar 2016 #8
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #69
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #91
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #98
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #104
CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #123
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #125
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #9
bravenak Mar 2016 #10
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #16
bravenak Mar 2016 #18
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #21
Punkingal Mar 2016 #30
bravenak Mar 2016 #33
Punkingal Mar 2016 #35
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #107
Punkingal Mar 2016 #108
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #129
Punkingal Mar 2016 #131
beedle Mar 2016 #166
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #167
beedle Mar 2016 #169
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #170
beedle Mar 2016 #171
unapatriciated Mar 2016 #12
bravenak Mar 2016 #13
unapatriciated Mar 2016 #29
bravenak Mar 2016 #32
Major Nikon Mar 2016 #57
bravenak Mar 2016 #64
sheshe2 Mar 2016 #137
bravenak Mar 2016 #138
sheshe2 Mar 2016 #140
bravenak Mar 2016 #141
sheshe2 Mar 2016 #143
sheshe2 Mar 2016 #144
bravenak Mar 2016 #145
seaglass Mar 2016 #58
bravenak Mar 2016 #62
SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #68
bravenak Mar 2016 #72
SidDithers Mar 2016 #133
shraby Mar 2016 #15
bravenak Mar 2016 #20
Punkingal Mar 2016 #34
bravenak Mar 2016 #36
Punkingal Mar 2016 #46
bravenak Mar 2016 #51
Punkingal Mar 2016 #60
ieoeja Mar 2016 #168
George II Mar 2016 #162
Stallion Mar 2016 #99
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #39
TeeYiYi Mar 2016 #67
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #38
bunnies Mar 2016 #19
bravenak Mar 2016 #28
beedle Mar 2016 #172
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #22
bravenak Mar 2016 #24
AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #59
bravenak Mar 2016 #66
rachacha Mar 2016 #79
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #23
bravenak Mar 2016 #25
hack89 Mar 2016 #26
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #27
hack89 Mar 2016 #37
Henhouse Mar 2016 #75
hack89 Mar 2016 #97
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #31
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #41
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #55
radical noodle Mar 2016 #40
bravenak Mar 2016 #42
radical noodle Mar 2016 #47
libtodeath Mar 2016 #43
LineLineReply .
bravenak Mar 2016 #44
libtodeath Mar 2016 #49
bravenak Mar 2016 #50
libtodeath Mar 2016 #52
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
bravenak Mar 2016 #54
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #70
bravenak Mar 2016 #71
Vinca Mar 2016 #45
bravenak Mar 2016 #48
Vinca Mar 2016 #120
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #53
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #80
ljm2002 Mar 2016 #94
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #100
JPnoodleman Mar 2016 #73
LineLineReply .
bravenak Mar 2016 #74
JPnoodleman Mar 2016 #76
bravenak Mar 2016 #82
JPnoodleman Mar 2016 #86
bravenak Mar 2016 #87
Punkingal Mar 2016 #102
bravenak Mar 2016 #105
ThePhilosopher04 Mar 2016 #77
bravenak Mar 2016 #78
PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #81
bravenak Mar 2016 #83
mythology Mar 2016 #163
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #84
bravenak Mar 2016 #88
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #92
bravenak Mar 2016 #95
lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #96
Autumn Mar 2016 #85
Politicalboi Mar 2016 #93
mhatrw Mar 2016 #101
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #106
bravenak Mar 2016 #110
AZ Progressive Mar 2016 #109
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #157
MFM008 Mar 2016 #111
bravenak Mar 2016 #112
blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #114
bravenak Mar 2016 #116
blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #136
NorthCarolina Mar 2016 #115
AzDar Mar 2016 #121
bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #127
liberalmuse Mar 2016 #128
George II Mar 2016 #130
bravenak Mar 2016 #132
George II Mar 2016 #134
bravenak Mar 2016 #135
jfern Mar 2016 #146
bravenak Mar 2016 #147
jfern Mar 2016 #148
bravenak Mar 2016 #151
jfern Mar 2016 #154
bravenak Mar 2016 #156
AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #149
bravenak Mar 2016 #150
AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #152
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #153
bravenak Mar 2016 #155
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #158
bravenak Mar 2016 #160
Cha Mar 2016 #159
bravenak Mar 2016 #161
Gothmog Mar 2016 #165
bravenak Mar 2016 #174
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #177
bravenak Mar 2016 #178
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #179
Dem2 Mar 2016 #180
R B Garr Apr 2016 #181

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:55 PM

1. Good link!

It's good for people to see what exactly a super delegate does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:56 PM

2. Maybe they can stop thinking the supers owe THEM their votes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:24 PM

119. Neither do I owe MY vote

to Inslee, Murray or Cantwell. They can try to earn it if they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:07 PM

139. I somehow don't see that :(

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #139)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:09 PM

142. I'm a dreamer...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:57 PM

3. One could politely tell those elected officials who are superdelegates

That if they won't support the candidate who gets the most popular votes and delegates overall or at least in your state (whether that's Sanders or Clinton) you won't be voting for them in their next election.

If the Democratic party doesn't stand up for democracy, and respect the will of its voters to choose a progressive candidate (if Sanders is the leader) then its super delegates deserve to be voted out and replaced with new officials who will respect a democratic process, not a coronation by the party elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:00 PM

6. The candidate with the most popular votes already has their support

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:24 PM

89. State By State... fella... So They Should respect The WILL As Expressed By Their Constituents OR...

Expect to be VOTED THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK 'EM!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #89)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:42 PM

103. Some of the super delegates are not currently serving so cant vote them out.

The super delegates are serving the DNC, in the capacity of super delegate they are not serving their constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:27 PM

175. But the election is not over yet.

Wait until all the votes are in, and then let's see who has the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #175)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:28 PM

176. I am perfectly fine with that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:05 PM

11. America utilizes representative democracy, not direct democracy. How do you not know this?

 

Or understand it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:50 PM

56. JFC...

...we're talking about the Democratic Party's primary system. The Democratic Party is free to choose their candidate however the hell they want to. If they wanted to do it via direct democracy there is nothing to stop them from doing it that way.

As it is, they did not used to have Super Delegates at all. And also as it is, the media has latched onto the Super Delegate totals as a convenient way to skew perceptions of how the primary race is going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:55 PM

61. Yep. It's the media I have a problem with.

Right now I don't even want to hear about them, certainly not as part of the delegate count. I'll be interested in them when one candidate has a mathematical lock in elected delegates, not before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:43 PM

122. It's dishonest for Sanders to decry the super-delegate system yet employ the man that designed it.

 

Tad Devine made the super-delegate system, and he's running Sanders' campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #122)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:49 PM

124. Where has Sanders decried the superdelegate system?

I've seen plenty of it from his supporters, but not from him. But I may have missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:51 PM

126. Many, many of the superdelegates aren't elected officials...

They're formerly elected officials, who are supers because of their many years of service to the Democratic party.

The "we won't vote for you" threat won't work on them.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #126)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:10 PM

164. That is not true.

There are automatic delegates that are included because they are either current Governors, Senators, and Representatives. Others are included because they are DNC members representing the state at DNC meetings.

There are also Party Leaders of which some of them are former elected officials. Only a few of the DPL are former elected. Most have top leadership position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:57 PM

4. I don't see DUers calling on Alan Grayson to switch his vote to Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:59 PM

5. Of course not!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

14. If she has the popular vote at the end of the primary

I as a DUer and Sanders supporter will do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:09 PM

17. An honest poster.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:17 PM

113. Does your reply mean if

Sanders wins the popular vote you will join me in asking President Clinton as a super delegate to support him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #113)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:20 PM

117. If he won the popular vote i would say he should be the winner.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #117)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:21 PM

118. thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:58 PM

63. Yes, exactly.

Right now I'm tired of seeing them lumped in with elected delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:59 PM

65. Right now superdelegates tend to keep their endorsements...

...it's when it gets to the convention that I really care about it.

That said, I am all for superdelegates switching their endorsements during the primary to reflect the outcome in their state, or to agree among themselves to make their endorsements match the percentages in their states as closely as possible.

But that is not how it works nor how it was designed to work. The supers serve as an Establishment cadre who state their preference and retain that preference until the convention, in hopes of influencing the primaries and preventing "extreme" candidates from winning. Once at the convention, however, they have always given their votes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention.

Should Bernie arrive with the most pledged delegates, and should the supers decide not to change their votes at that time -- then I'll care, and I wager a lot of us will care. We'll see how it plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:24 PM

90. You will when McDermott, Murray and Cantwell are pressured to see the error of their ways. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:54 PM

173. Yeah, I'm waiting for that to happen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:02 PM

7. A super-delegate for Sanders from Nevada is on the record saying she won't vote as her state did.

 

This whole "vote the way your state did" literally only applies if your state voted for Bernie. If your state voted for Clinton, then the super-delegate is to ignore their voters and cast for Bernie anyway.

In other words, complete and utter hypocrisy from Mr Integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:03 PM

8. Oh hell yeah

 

We see the different standards applied constantly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:03 PM

69. Well Dr. Dean from Vermont has said the same thing...

...that he will vote as he sees fit, not according to the popular vote in Vermont, where Hillary Clinton was shut out entirely. So this is not all one-way, ya know.

Also, are you really implying that Sanders is responsible for that person's position? Your last sentence implies that, but I do not believe that to be the case. And if you are implying that, then presumably you also believe Clinton lacks integrity due to Dr. Dean's stance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:25 PM

91. No. I believe the poster was referring to the Bernie-supporters' ...

 

"vote the way the state votes" hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #91)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:32 PM

98. Um, I'm one of those "Bernie-supporters"...

...and I am not in the least bit hypocritical with this. I don't care who they endorse now; but once at the convention I expect them to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, regardless of how their own stated voted.

Also: the poster I replied to was implying that Bernie has a direct hand in that superdelegate's position. If we are to assume that, then we can assume the same thing about Dr. Dean's position. If we cannot make that assumption (and I believe we cannot), then it is disingenuous to try and pin it on Bernie absence any evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #98)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:43 PM

104. Then, the hypocrite label does not apply to you ...

 

but there are plenty of examples of those that it would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:44 PM

123. I think Sanders is a hypocrite. He was against super-delegates, until he needed them.

 

Screw that guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #123)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:51 PM

125. Link, please?

I have not seen Sanders come out against superdelegates. I've seen it from lots of his supporters, but not from him. I may have missed it though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:04 PM

9. Which is how superdelages work. Not how democracy works.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:05 PM

10. It is the system

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

16. It's the "system" than many of us want to rid ourselves of.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:10 PM

18. Not enough of 'us'

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:11 PM

21. Yet.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:27 PM

30. Screw the system...it doesn't work for regular people, just elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:29 PM

33. Rhetoric

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:31 PM

35. Truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:54 PM

107. The DNC can change their rules. Just not midway through a Primary

 

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)

You can work for future changes. Bernie knew the DNC Primary rules whe he jumped in the race. He too is attempting to create a false narrative, to change the rule mid way through th cycle. Really, super bad timing on that call for change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #107)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:58 PM

108. I understand the rules can't be changed now. But they need to be after this election.

This isn't a Bernie issue for me. It is a democracy issue, just like voter suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:59 PM

129. Democracy and the democratic rule of elections are a constitutional construct

 

DNC is not a government agency, and as such can make their own rules. For so much wailing and gnashing of teeth and calling for some implementation of democracy rules, it is plain silly.

Fwiw, GOP removed that individual unencumbered vote from their SuperDelegates. They changed the rules for Mittens (I think). I'd bet a million dollars they wish they had the DNC rules right mow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #129)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:04 PM

131. It can make it's own rules, sure.

And I guess it doesn't represent democrats? What we want doesn't matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #107)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 09:29 AM

166. You mean

 

Like how they couldn't change the contribution rules? But did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beedle (Reply #166)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:26 AM

167. Some rules are actually law...some are operational policy

 

I have not known either one to be changed mid way though an election cycle. Do you have an example and a link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #167)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:47 AM

169. here

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

I guess there is a 'law' against changing things that might harm Hillary, but it's only an 'operational policy change' if it's changed to help her?

Very convenient how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beedle (Reply #169)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:15 PM

170. Washington Post? Never mind, is does state it was a "guideline" for Obama's POTUS bid.....

 

“The guidelines that were previously in place at the DNC were guidelines that were instituted when Barack Obama, then Senator Obama, became the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Schultz said. “Those were guidelines that were modeled after his campaign for the presidency.”

That guideline was clarified and back to original policy almost a year ago, but Bernie is only recently complaining about it.

It was never a law to be changed or a formal operational policy. Your snarky comment attempting to rephrase the reality of changing laws on a whim, doesn't make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #170)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:42 PM

171. Bernie only recently complained about it

 

because it was done on the hush, and no one other than DWS, in-the-know lobbyists (ie: Hillary supporter lobbyists) and her cronies knew about the change until recently.

And as for the super delegates, you do realize that with the debacle that happened in 2008 that there were all kinds of delegate rules changes right up until Aug. So this tripe about delegate "rules" being set in stone, is just that, tripe.

The biggest change came on May 31 as a result of the meeting of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which lessened the penalty initially imposed on Michigan and Florida. The party had excluded all delegates (including superdelegates) from either state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all these superdelegates (as well as the pledged delegates from those states) but with half a vote each.[25] That action added 55 superdelegates with 27.5 votes. The total number of superdelegates could continue to change until the beginning of the convention (Call to the Convention Section IV(C)(2)). On August 24th, the Democratic Party, at the request of Obama, awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida full voting rights.[26]


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:05 PM

12. The candidate who wins the popular vote

will more than likely be our nominee, regardless of the super delegates. I have been voting since 1972 a good ten years before the emergence of super delegates. I have yet to see them go against the popular vote. There has always been speculation but that is all it is speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:06 PM

13. Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:26 PM

29. Only if you count Michigan and Obama was not even on the ballot.

kinda hard to know the true voter count of a state when only one name is on the ballot.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/seating-floridas-and-michigans-delegates/#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:28 PM

32. Oh!! I remember why I considered it even now

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:51 PM

57. Results...

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"O",this person is just a troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:58 PM

64. Thank you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #64)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:58 PM

137. What the hell????

You got alerted on for calling Obama O?



Hell!!!! I have posted his name as BO. I sure wasn't talking about Body oder. I adore our President.



?

Dear Goddess Bravenak, stalked much????????????

I loves ya babe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #137)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:01 PM

138. I'm sayin!

 

Sometime's you'll get a 7-0 leave when the jury did not agree. See it differently. But the alert made no sense at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #138)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:07 PM

140. Ya know....

Sounds familiar to a member that was trying to get me a hide. They said the same think "O" ....will try to find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #140)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:08 PM

141. Might be the same person

 

Should send it in so they can cross check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #141)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:10 PM

143. I just went to look.

Will get back to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #141)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:19 PM

144. Found it.

Will post you elsewhere.

Very similar. Hmmmnm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #144)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:20 PM

145. Ok. Hmmm. Mmmm hmmmm.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:53 PM

58. Again Bravenak - for transparency - in this case it looks like the alerter is being alerted

and also timed out from alerting

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"O",this person is just a troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:57 PM

62. Just getting obvious at this point. I can see what's going on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #62)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:02 PM

68. At least it was 0-7. Incremental improvements.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanCalvin (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:08 PM

72. Yep!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:09 PM

133. The candidate who wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee...

The popular vote has nothing to do with it.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

15. If superdelegates don't follow the way the people vote, it's time to chuck the superdelegate

system.
That's not how a democracy works.
I never liked the idea of having them since I learned about them. They were set up specifically to thwart what the voters want in a candidate which in my mind is totally wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:11 PM

20. They own their votes

 

It keeps the party from doing itself too much harm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:29 PM

34. Really? The party has done itself harm for many, many years.

so they need to give up that little experiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:31 PM

36. The party is doing better than at many other times when we picked ideoligical purity

 

over Practical liberalism. We lost very badly trying to play oh so pure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:42 PM

46. Are you serious? The party is doing awful.

We don't have the Senate, we don't have the Congress, we lost a lot of state houses and state legislatures. It isn't about purity, by the way. It is about the standards of the Democratic party, which no longer seem to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:46 PM

51. What did we have after we lost so badly to Nixon and Reagan?

 

We had HELL. That's what the establishment is preventing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:53 PM

60. Naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:46 AM

168. What did we have? The House, Senate, and majority of Governors and States Legislatures.

 


Republicans have taken all that since the Clinton takeover of the Democratic Party.

I knew you were a self-admitted troll and am looking forward to your big reveal on election night. But I did not realize you were so unknowledgeable.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:00 PM

162. If the Democratic Party is so damaged, why did Sanders choose to hitch his horse to this wagon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:33 PM

99. 2/3rd of the Registered Democrats in the "Party" Are Voting for Clinton

nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:36 PM

39. Not really. Only 20 Democratic Superdelegates are 'distinguished leaders' such as former Presidents

 

and VPs and Congressional Leaders, not simple Members. Those people have a vote that is their vote and they stand for no election. They fill no 'slot' allocated to such persons, so the passing of one does not cause the appointment of another.

The rest are all elected either to Governors offices or to the US Congress or to positions in the Party. All of them stand for election, each of them fills a slot that would be filled by anyone holding that office and anyone in that slot gets 'their' vote.

20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:01 PM

67. Good post...

"20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back."

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:32 PM

38. So, as noted above ...

 

have you written to Alan Grayson and the Nevada super-delegate to "follow the way the people vote(d)"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:11 PM

19. Their votes are not owed to us,

 

And our votes are not owed to them. Works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:24 PM

28. Me too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:48 PM

172. they vote at the will of the party

 

their votes can be taken from then at any time. It's allowable and has been done before:

remember 2008?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#In_2008

So if 'rules are rules', the "ALL rules are rules' .. right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:12 PM

22. Lee Fang @ The Intercept: Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination in Clinton's Favor.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:15 PM

24. I have no idea what that has to do with this

 

They did the same for Obama AGAINST Clinton last time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:53 PM

59. The point: Many superdelegates are lobbyists, not elected pols.

 

Their interests are not those of the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:59 PM

66. I really don't think that politicians have our best interests in mind either most times

 

Samesies. Depending on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #66)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:16 PM

79. Right. Follow the money if you want to know who the super-constituents are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:15 PM

23. Many of them are elected office-holders.

 

Voters are likely to remind them of unpopular endorsements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:17 PM

25. Maybe.

 

Maybe not. They are party loyalists who will have establishment backing and assistance. Helps them to win if they have support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:20 PM

26. Incumbents have such an advantage I suspect they are not concerned at all

especially with a "revolution " that can't even turn out to vote for their candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:24 PM

27. 75% of caucus goers yesterday called for a 'revolution'.

 

I imagine the superdelegates in WA, AK, and HI are aware of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:32 PM

37. But caucus goers as a percentage of GE election voters is tiny

lets not forget that simple fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:12 PM

75. Sanders is the incumbent in this primary...you think he has the advantage? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Henhouse (Reply #75)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:31 PM

97. No such thing.

He is a incumbent in the Senate. He is a losing candidate in the national primary that is ongoing. He will have no influence over super delegates after the convention. Neither will his supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:28 PM

31. Of course they don't, they are free to be the first politicians in history to risk their own asses

 

for the advantage of another politician and they might do that. They also might all swear off money and become wandering balladeers. Could happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:38 PM

41. Isn't that, exactly, what DU:Bernie is asking of the Super-delegates? ...

 

AND wanting the super-delegates to do so for a politician that has, throughout his career, not shown them an ounce of loyalty or respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #41)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:49 PM

55. Not sure what you are attempting to say, but I think the superdelegates should vote for the

 

candidate nominated by the people in the primary process. I think they generally do so for the reasons I have explained.
People yap about the superdelegates every cycle, few understand how it words and a quick review of opinions on them from 2008 will of course demonstrate great reversals of opinion because in 2008 it was Obama challenging her massive Superdelegate lead. There is lots of material from Obama and his staff stating that the winner of the primary allotted delegates should be the nominee. Obama said "The American people are tired of politics that is dominated by the powerful, by the connected."
I agree with Obama.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/obama-memo-to-superdelegates/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:37 PM

40. They have a right to vote for whomever they want

just as we do. Not only that, but Bernie has super delegates in states won by Hillary, do some of you really want them to support Hillary instead? There is a reason for these rules as Brave has so correctly stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radical noodle (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:39 PM

42. It seems that there are many double standards

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #42)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:43 PM

47. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:39 PM

43. Thanks for promoting oligarghy instead of Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:40 PM

44. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:44 PM

49. Too bad you dont even like Hillary so snooze on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:44 PM

50. Caucused for her

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:46 PM

52. Big deal.

A drum roll for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM

54. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:03 PM

70. I'm SOOOO stealing that!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:07 PM

71. Ha! My favorite

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:40 PM

45. That's what bothers me about superdelegates.

It seems they can just about nullify a popular vote in a state if they want to which leads to the question, why bother having a primary? Just round up the superdelegates in a room and have them vote. At least be honest about not having a democratic vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:44 PM

48. We are a representative democracy

 

It was set up like this for good reason I think. The best candidate will win the most delegates. Supers are pretty much tie breakers. The party decides the rules. If they see a candidate that they feel will not HELP the party, then they can try to put a stop to any damage they may cause by getting charge of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:34 PM

120. But that is precisely the problem.

You may think one candidate might hurt the party and I might think another. Democracy is democracy is democracy. The funny thing is that I'm sure you would be arguing my point if Bernie had all the superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:46 PM

53. Interesting that you support the idea...

...that superdelegates should ignore the electorate in their own states. They were created specifically to tamp down insurgent candidates. It must be really irritating that it doesn't appear to be working this go-round.

As you should already know, historically superdelegates vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, once they get to the convention.

If this year's bunch of SDs chooses to go against that, guaranteed there will be hell to pay. Like it or not, that would be an extremely divisive choice for the SDs to make, and it would tear the party apart IMO. Let's hope they choose wisely.

Of course, if Hillary arrives with the majority of pledged delegates, I would not want to see Sanders winning due to superdelegates either -- although that is not only unlikely but preposterously unlikely. Still, process is important. Surely you can agree with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #53)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:18 PM

80. Have you called on Alan Grayson and the Nevada Super-delegate ...

 

to make your thoughts known?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:28 PM

94. As I have said elsewhere...

...I really don't care who they endorse up until the convention. Given that we have superdelegates, they will endorse whoever they please, up until that time. Once a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, then I expect them to fall in line as they always have before and vote for that candidate. That includes the likely scenario where Hillary is the one who has the most pledged delegates -- at that point I do expect Alan Grayson and all the others to do the right thing and vote for Hillary.

I'm torn on whether we should have superdelegates or not. On the one hand, it is a way for the party establishment to put their thumb on the scale. It has allowed the MSM to skew the primary narrative by quietly including them in delegate totals. Only recently have they started being a bit more honest about pledged vs. unpledged delegates. On the other hand, I see what is happening in the Republican party, where Trump is almost certain to win the primary. It does seem prudent for a party to have some way of preventing an extremist demagogue from becoming that party's nominee.

But then one has to ask, if the party's voters really have expressed a preference for an extremist demagogue, WTH is wrong with the party in the first place? In the case of the Republican party, we know it has encouraged this sort of divisive, nasty discourse for many years, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Let's hope that whoever we nominate wins!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #94)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:35 PM

100. Oh ... Okay. I must have miss re-read your post(s).

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:08 PM

73. Praise the glorious revolutionary DNC for ignoring stupid wrong voters... /s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:10 PM

74. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #74)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:13 PM

76. Party can ignore sanders voters as they wish, they aren't entitled to our votes.

*shrug* If the message is my vote doesn't count, I will read that loud and clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #76)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:18 PM

82. I think people need to learn how this works.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #82)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:20 PM

86. How what works? Does the DNC or Hillary have some sacred divine right?

If you don't want to listen to people NOT praising the anointed one, maybe you should stop worrying what we think?

Seriously? Why do you give a shit about people whose opinion you consider worthless?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #86)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:21 PM

87. I do not care what most people here think

 

You can respond to my ops or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #82)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:42 PM

102. Who made you the ultimate authority on these things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:43 PM

105. What has my thinking things have to do with being the 'authority'?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:13 PM

77. They don't have to listen to anybody, but constituents of a given state or district ...

 

have the right to hold those SDs accountable if they vote against their wishes. And they should be held accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThePhilosopher04 (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:15 PM

78. They can try

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:18 PM

81. DU does not have to listen to Bravenak.

Superdelegates should represent the will and best interests of their constituents over and above maintaining their own privilege and power.

If not, they have a problem in character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #81)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:18 PM

83. That is nowhere in the rules

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #81)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 09:04 PM

163. The will of the people and the best interests of the people are not always easy to define

 

For example even in the deep red states, raising the minimum wage polls well and thus can be seen as the will of the people, who then vote for Republican candidates who run against raising the minimum wage, thus indicating that the people don't really care about the issue. Likewise, Congress as a whole has an abysmal approval rating, but everybody gets reelected.

And who defines what is in somebody's best interest? Can the super delegates decide it's in the people's best interest to vote for a particular candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:19 PM

84. Is this attitude what brought you to Clinton, or the reverse?

 

Have you always been drawn to establishment, plutocratic governance, or did you abandon your previously held belief that democracy was generally a pretty good idea because it was incompatible with support for Clinton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #84)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:22 PM

88. Very personal

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #88)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:26 PM

92. I'm genuinely curious.

 

I've always thought that autocracy was incompatible with being a democrat. Either that wasn't true, or something about Clinton is so compelling that it inspires people to abandon their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #92)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:28 PM

95. No. I just see how messy the whole thing is now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #95)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:29 PM

96. Democracy is supposed to be messy. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:20 PM

85. No they don't have to listen. I'm sure if they don't the voters will be happy to remind them.

Such desperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:26 PM

93. Bet most of Hillary's have been paid in some way

 

But if they ignore Bernie and he is the rightful winner in the end, they will be the ones to blame when she loses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:40 PM

101. Weird how some people still think the USA is a democracy.

Some myths are difficult to extinguish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:49 PM

106. I've tried to explain this over and over

 

The prevailing false talking point is that the SD vote the way of the majority of voters/poll participants. the primaries are so much more of a poll than an election.

One moe time: the SuperDelegates represent their own desires and reflect the desires of the DNC not necessarilymthe people casting a ballot. It very nice and much less messy when they align however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #106)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:59 PM

110. Thank you!!!!

 

Nobody cares. They will not listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:59 PM

109. Reince Priebus approves of this thread

The best thing for the Democratic Party to Republicans is to appear to be the undemocratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #109)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:35 PM

157. Yeah no shit lol

We even have that kind of dynamic here in WA state.

Few years ago, WA voters passed a binding voter initiative to go to primary elections. The state Repubican party honored the vote and went to the primary, while the state Democratic party establishment sued for the right to go back to caucuses, and won.

So now we have to listen to state-level Rs bloviate about how the Rs are more democratic than Democrats, and thanks to the idiocy and self-serving impulses of the Democratic party apparatus, they almost have a point. Blech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:07 PM

111. Super delegates no different from elected delegates


My sons girlfriend volunteered to run for delegate out of 8 for Hillary Clinton and many people probably keep this pledge in mind
They don't want to blow it off because someone elses supporters want them to.
Our group elected 3 delegates and 2 alternates, people expect them to represent our votes.
No its not the VOTERS in general, but 70 some people showed up for our district for both sides yesterday, the only people howling about delegate distribution were Sanders people even when 4 HRC voters were turned away for not making the 11AM cut off. If their votes would have been counted she would have won the district. She lost the 28th by 2.
Can you >>> I M A G I N E<<< the screeching if those had been Sanders voters??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #111)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:16 PM

112. I can imagine it

 

I watched them act the same way yesterday and try to get some of H's voters struck from the count after it had been certified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:18 PM

114. Is only you were born as Rubert Murdoch...n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueintelligentsia (Reply #114)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:20 PM

116. I am too cute

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #116)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:22 PM

136. Very cute...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:19 PM

115. Because, if they thwart the will of the voters, Democracy fails.

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:38 PM

121. How democratic!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:52 PM

127. The vote should not be theirs! It should ONLY the peoples vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:59 PM

128. We need to do away with Superdelegates.

It's obvious most of your "representatives" are woefully out of touch and could care less about the will of the people, unless they're corporate lobbyists. Let the people pick their candidate, not these establishment dinosaurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:03 PM

130. Here's my take on the superdelegates. As you rightly point out, they ARE the establishment....

...of the Democratic Party.

With Sanders berating and fighting THEIR party for decades, and essentially pointing out in each and every stump speech and rally that "the establishment is bad", I can't see many, if any, who have come out in support of Hillary Clinton changing at any time to support the candidate who has been insulting them since his campaign started.

As the old saying goes, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", and Sanders has gone through gallons of vinegar while is supply of honey is still in his cupboard unopened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #130)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:06 PM

132. I agree with that.

 

And this method I see recently to get them in his side is not any better than what he has already been doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #132)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:11 PM

134. It will only make matters worse with respect to superdelegates supporting him. Frankly....

....I'm happy to see that behavior. It means more delegates for Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #134)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:15 PM

135. It does help her out alot

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:16 PM

146. Half of superdelegates are white males.

So you're in favor of giving disproportionate power to white males?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #146)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:17 PM

147. I did not do that. AMERICA did. Thank the nation for creating that by not allowing the rest of us to

 

Vote until recent history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #147)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:20 PM

148. But you are defending superdelegates, which are half white males

Meanwhile, Bernie got 70% of the vote in Hawaii, which is about 11% white males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #148)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:25 PM

151. I'm interested in affirmative action

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #151)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:33 PM

154. So there aren't enough white males in the Democratic party so, they needed half the superdelegates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #154)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:34 PM

156. Unintelligible

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:24 PM

149. That's how Republicans win elections

 

The Democratic establishment ignoring the will of we the people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #149)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:25 PM

150. We the other people like them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #150)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:28 PM

152. Divide and fail

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:31 PM

153. I'm waiting until after June 7th before I start contacting local elected superdelegates

I've been on record before as saying that if Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, and supers give it to Hillary anyway, the party will have a 1968 problem on its hands.

It'd be hypocritical of me to demand that my local elected supers switch to Bernie at this point in time, before the full pledged delegate results are in.

So I'll wait for CA, and the other states that vote that day, to have their say before I revisit these arguments.

I did find the petulant demands from Hillary supporters that Bernie drop out during his best week of the primaries thus far amusing, can we please all get a chance to vote first!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #153)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:33 PM

155. That is a good idea.

 

We can just wait until somebody hits 2383

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #155)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:39 PM

158. 2383 is majority of pledged+supers

This discussion really only becomes an issue if the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates doesn't get to 2383 on the pledged delegates alone, which has been my biggest fear this whole primary.

I've always dreaded what would happen if Bernie won the pledged delegates, but supers gave it to Hillary, but now with other Bernie supporters trying to flip the supers early, I must now consider what happens if the shoe is on the other foot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #158)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:42 PM

160. I am doing it this way because the contest is officially over at that point

 

Any supers still there at 2383 are not switching. But with all the closed primaries coming up, I am feeling confident that that day will come early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:40 PM

159. Super Dels want the nominee who is going to be the best candidate in the GE and the best

President.. those who are pledged to Hillary know her and know she will be the best.

Mahalo, brave~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #159)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:43 PM

161. Yep. They usually form relationships

 

They do not deal well with demands. They are there to help us win against reoublicans. Not many here seem to get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:39 AM

165. Sanders will not be successful in appealing to super delegates

I do not see Sanders being able to flip many super delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #165)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:03 PM

174. I agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:32 PM

177. Super delegates are elites and party power brokers. The vast majority are the 1 percent...

...which is why Superdelegates suck and should be banned from our party.

The PEOPLE should decide the vote, not a bunch of party mucky mucks.

I mean, Jesus--can the Democrats at least have their elections be as fair as the Republicans?!?

Pretty sad, that this is where we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #177)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:35 PM

178. This is where we have been for a long time

 

I think you know that better than I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #178)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:48 PM

179. Yes, and maybe this election will help us screw our heads on straight.

Super delegates are a stupid idea.

Nothing we can do about it this cycle, but maybe we can all use common sense and become as fair minded as the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:49 PM

180. Thus the "super"

I prefer "badass" myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:43 PM

181. K&R! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread