What exactly was the point of the DNC rule change for superdelegates?

[LiberalFighter]

Beginning with the 2020 nomination process, candidates will no longer be able to count superdelegates if they want to win the party's nomination on the first ballot of voting at the convention. This makes it impossible for superdelegates to change the outcome of the pledged delegates' will, which has never occurred since superdelegates were created ahead of the 1984 campaign.

The rule change would not have changed the convention outcome in 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html

[CentralMass]

1. Superdelegates are an affront to democracy and should be eliminated.

[themaguffin]

68. As noted in the OP, no "affront" happened.

[FiveGoodMen]

230. "Yes, officer, I did shoot at the man who annoyed me...but I missed, so what's your problem, huh?"

[themaguffin]

233. That is an illogical response, but whateve's. I don't go to Pizzagatetown.

[Adrahil]

75. Now let's end open primaries and caucuses.

If remove the protections from external manipulation of our nominee, then we must secure our primaries against such manipulation.

[samnsara]

76. actually i LIKE our caucuses as long as they are not 'taken over'

..as were many during the last election..

[Adrahil]

77. Caucuses usually attract only 1/4 of what primaries do.

It concentrates the selection of delegates in the hands of only a few people. And the long and specific participation times disnefranchise people who cannot get child care, or get time off work.

They are a terrible idea. And your point about "taking over" is why. Very low participation makes them much easier to manipulate.

[LisaM]

82. No, caucuses are very restricting.

The last few they've held in Washington state were held during a two-window period of time on a Saturday and if you want to be there for additional rounds of voting, you can't leave. Thus, some went on from 10:00 a.m. till past 11:00 p.m. at night, even after venues were closed and people were in the parking lots still shouting at each other. The 2008 caucuses were a little acrimonious, but the 2016 ones sounded terrible.

Who does a two-hour window (that could extend) benefit? College students. Who does it keep out? People who work in stores, nurses, bus drivers, police, disabled people (who can't stay for hours at a time), and caregivers of any type.

Washington state also decided to hold its caucus in 2016 on Easter weekend. Imagine if you were going to have family over the next day, and some people decided it was fun to keep a caucus going till 11:00 pm? I knew someone who was at one of those caucuses, and she was preening about it (she was a Bernie supporter, for what it's worth), and I was reading her comments and just seething. They were trying to win by attrition, and it was successful, but not very democratic.

[Demsrule86]

188. No caucuses and winner takes all primaries...so we don't have close elections that could cause heaps

of trouble.

[LonePirate]

146. I believe states like CO, KS, MN (others?) are moving away from caucuses to primaries.

So while the Bernie wing of the party cheers the vastly reduced imaginary power of superdelegates, the far more inclusive primary replacements for caucuses only hurts his chances. If he runs in 2020, his campaign will effectively be over after the southern Super Tuesday primaries, just like it was over for him in 2016. Whether he realizes that or not is another story.

[SkyDancer]

169. Colorado has moved to open primaries

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Yes, absolutely, which is why super delegates should be eliminated altogether.

[Demsrule86]

189. Nope...not unless you went to winner takes all primaries.

There will be real trouble in close races.

[stopbush]

112. Bullshit. Did I mention, bullshit?

These are NOT elections for government office. These are nominating processes run by political parties. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties can have whatever nominating process they wish (see Jones v California).

Your argument is specious.

[Atticus]

145. And, in addition, bullshit! Entirely agree. We should be able to understand what

our party stands for without waiting for primary results. If a gazillion billionaire-funded "evangelicals" invade our primary process, do we ditch the pro-life and gay marriage planks? Our leaders should be democratically elected but there is no requirement that parties adhere to strict democratic rules in selecting their candidates. While I favor tolerance and a big tent, "Democrat" should mean something.

[redstatebluegirl]

203. This, just this!

[Adrahil]

149. Werd. NT

[femmedem]

2. It will change media coverage, for one thing.

People won't be able to say that a candidate is within x many votes of the nomination including superdelegates.

I think this will help voters in later primaries feel more included.

[Garrett78]

15. The media will still make it clear who those superdelegates are endorsing.

And we'll simply have more 2nd ballots, since reaching 2383 on the 1st ballot will be challenging.

[JCanete]

62. You're right, the media will do this. That of course sucks, and the media of course, for the most

part sucks. But this does influence elections, so I would say I don't know why we keep supers, but I do know why we keep supers.

[Garrett78]

74. I don't have anything against endorsements.

And endorsements are pointless if not made public.

[JCanete]

81. hehe..I don't have anything against endorsements. that isn't what we were talking about.

We were talking about the use of those endorsements by the media to pad the number of the frontrunner and make it appear that that person has already essentially put the race away.

[Garrett78]

88. What I mean is I have no problem with media pointing out that so-and-so has X number of endorsements

To not object to endorsements is to not object to the media reporting those endorsements. Because, again, endorsements are pointless if kept secret.

Primary results won't be any different as a result of this superdelegate change. We'll simply have more 2nd ballots.

[JCanete]

94. Again, superdelegate endorsements aren't pointed out by the media as endorsements, but AS votes.

As a count to be included when determining total votes tallied. Its not strictly accurate at the time of reporting, but that hardly matters. That is the issue.

[Garrett78]

95. Now, they will be pointed out as endorsements and not unpledged delegates, which was my point.

Either way, it will be clear who they support. That won't change. All that changes is them not voting until the 2nd ballot, which we will now have a lot more of.

[JCanete]

96. I see, except that its not all that it changes since right here you say that now they will be

reported as endorsements rather than votes, which is another change and a big one. Of course that remains to be seen.

[Garrett78]

102. I think the impact will be far from big. It won't amount to much at all.

As for there being more 2nd ballots, I'm not sure that's such a good thing (it could result in a narrative that our nominee doesn't have sufficient support, as evidenced by the need for a 2nd round of voting), but as long as the media uses the term endorsement instead of unpledged delegate, this represents a great victory...or something.

Anyway, I must have missed where Sanders advocates for getting rid of caucuses. Talk about anti-democratic. Caucuses are exactly that, and I know Sanders would want to be consistent. So, as I said, I'm sure I simply missed the reports about him making a stink about caucuses. I didn't miss, however, his advocating for superdelegates throwing him the nomination in spite of Clinton having a large lead in pledged delegates. Odd that.

[JCanete]

105. I don't think you'll see him put up a fight about caucuses. I won't argue against undoing them

either because everybody who wants to should be able to easily participate in our process, but I do understand that caucuses are a place for lesser widely known and funded candidates to gain momentum, on platforms that are usually drowned out in the press and bigger money, bigger name recognition options, so in that one respect getting rid of them will be a bummer...but absolutely, that's not a trade-off worth disenfranchisement. No trade-off is.

That said, obviously big money influencing the reach of candidates over others is also a kind of disenfranchisement. since our system privileges big money and their interests in deciding which candidates will be taken seriously.

[Garrett78]

109. They are incredibly disenfranchising.

So, why hasn't Sanders been making as much or more noise about caucuses as he made about superdelegates? Gee, I can't imagine.

And, again, he was all for superdelegates throwing him the nomination in spite of Clinton's large lead in pledged delegates. Just as he was all for being dismissive of our electorate in the Deep South while not saying boo about caucuses or primaries in places like Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, etc.

[JCanete]

113. I don't think he ever believed that and simply, because of our good ol media, had to make a

path-to-victory case for staying in the primary. I think the actual reasons for staying in the primary were very good and had to do with leverage, but you have to pretend that you think you can win if you are running. You can't just say, "I'm trying to pull the party to the left and I'm representing a voter block that should be paid attention to, but no I don't think I can win." That is a case begging to be exploited.


I don't think saying what they said about the southern vote was smart, because we want to make the case that we can win on ideas anywhere, and generally that's what Sanders is doing, but again, when besieged with "what does this say about your campaign" questions the Sanders campaign made the real point(if one we shouldn't emphasize) that these states were not going to go for Clinton or Sanders. It wasn't that he was belittling the voters who voted for Clinton there. He was saying that it wasn't indicative of his potential in the GE. Again, I'm not a fan of that argument because of what I said above, but it wasn't being dismissive of our electorate in those states.

Anyway I told you why he probably isn't making caucuses a focal point. Probably for the same reason I almost certainly lament an aspect of them going away.Caucuses allow passionate voters to have a say and that can benefit less widely known candidates who don't necessarily have the financial apparatus to be piped into everybody's living room...it is still a disenfranchizing approach to voting because it is just too damn hard for people to particiapte in this system, but it sin't privileging the most financially backed candidates. So, losing them will be a trade-off of sorts. So its not Sanders pet issue, but others are taking it up. Not everything is everybody's pet issue. If he actively attempts to denegrate efforts to rid our primary process of caucuses come back to me.

[Sneederbunk]

3. Trying to remove arrow from Bernie's quiver.

[Dave Starsky]

5. How does this hurt Bernie? It helps him.

The whole argument was that the superdelegates were making Hillary Clinton's nomination a fait accompli.

[SunSeeker]

12. It was an argument based on lies. Shameful that it got perputated. nt

[irresistable]

28. It was the truth. Gore had a similar advantage over Bradley.

It affects public perception of the race if one candidate has a 400 delegate lead before the first vote is cast.

[SunSeeker]

31. OFFS. There was no truth to the argument that Hillary won because of superdelegates.

She won based on plain old delagates. The superdelegates just added to her victory.

[irresistable]

33. If there was no truth to it, you wouldn't be so upset by the change.

[Squinch]

36. You're embarassing yourself. Maybe look up superdelegates and the primaries they have decided.

Which would be none, ever.

[irresistable]

38. It is at the beginning of the race where they create the unfair advantage.

In 2000 and 2016, the front runners had a huge delegate "lead" before the first vote was cast. In 2004 and 2008 the superdelegates were split, which made for a more competitive race.

I am a Democrat. I want elections to be decided by votes.

[brush]

65. Sanders was only in the race because of caucuses which are disenfranchising to...

to everyone who doesn't have time to sit for 4-5 hours because they have to work, or go to school, or attend to matters at home.

Superdelegates were not his problem, voters in primaries were.

[irresistable]

98. I would be happy with 100% primaries.

I also want same day registration. Creating hurdles for voting is a Republican concept.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. I want to say something, but I cant.

I want to say something that is 1000% in support of the D party, D candidates and electing only D's.

But I dont want to risk trouble.

I wish I could though.

[Squinch]

61. Wouldn't it be great if, on Democratic Underground, we could do that?

[Eliot Rosewater]

63. It isnt funny anymore. Madness

[qazplm135]

207. ah the old..

the fact that you bothered to respond in the negative means you really know it's true canard.

[JHan]

86. She did not fucking win because of the Super Delegates.

She did not need the fucking Super Delegates to win.

This has been gone over multiple times,

Anyone spreading the lie that Superdelegates were behind Clinton's win is spreading disinformation.

[irresistable]

100. I don't care about 2016. I'm just glad that the Democratic Party...

made the right choice this time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. Me too, was the right thing to do. Now, let's take the next step & end Super Delegates altogether.

[JHan]

107. You're spreading disinformation, I'm starting to think it's willful.

the "right choice" was made in 2016 - ergo, Clinton is who the democratic base wanted.

[irresistable]

110. I get it that you think that the DNC made the wrong choice in 2018.

It is the future that I care about. The past is gone.

[JHan]

114. Actually no, my point is the decision was inconsequential..

because the criticism was stupid in the first place. It changes nothing because the Superdelegates did not shape the outcome in 2016.

Superdelegates have never had the sway you and others have claimed. They didn't in 2016 and they certainly won't now.

This whole charade is because a particular individual wanted to blame other reasons than himself for his loss in a primary.

That's it.

[irresistable]

117. It shapes public perception at the beginning of the race.

It doesn't have to decide the race in order to be unfair and unnecessary.

[JHan]

119. That is sophistry.

"Shapes public perception" - Pundits shape perception, spinmeisters shape perception.

What you said is not tethered to facts.

[irresistable]

125. You believe that headlines like "Clinton Maintains Massive Superdelegate Lead"...,

when their separation in delegates based on actual votes is in the single digits, have no impact on public perception.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm ready to let it all go. I'm just glad that they made the right decision this year.

[JHan]

126. Of course if it was "Sanders has massive superdelegates lead"

You'd have no problem with it... this is getting silly.

And him chasing them for an endorsement is also him hating superdelegates right?

I have to laugh.

Yes, she had a Superdelegate lead.

*watch my bored expression* And?

So according to your perception of things, she shouldn't have lead with superdelegates - in other words, she was deserving of nothing. How else to interpret the point you're trying to make here?

You've dug yourself into a hole where you're insinuating the only person who deserved to win was Sanders .. For the record, in 2008, Clinton had an early lead with superdelegates and Obama was able to outmaneuver her:

Number of headlines with Obama complaining about superdelegates: nill.
Number of headlines with Obama calling for rule changes: nill.

Sure there were Clinton supporters who never got over it, but Clinton herself dusted herself off and went on to campaign enthusiastically for Obama.

Another cool fact: No one really complained about superdelegates until their dude lost a primary and didn't have the humility to look himself in the mirror to wonder why.

[irresistable]

128. Now we don't have to worry about any of that.

The DNC did the right thing.

[JHan]

130. There was never any worry in the first place but wrong and strong eh?

[irresistable]

131. I'm not worried. The DNC decision was fair.

[JHan]

132. Making something "fair" suggests something was unfair in the first place...

Which is not the case here.

You'd be better off and more honest to just share with us how much you hated the Dem nominee in 2016, instead of this rabbit hole of reasoning.

[irresistable]

133. I have explained why I thought it was unfair, and you disagree.

The change is made. It's done. Why do you want to fight with me?

[JHan]

135. I'm not fighting, I'm replying to you.

Your assumptions about the process are wrong, and you've been corrected several times.

but wrong and strong is your right I guess.

[irresistable]

137. I guess agreeing to disagree isn't your thing.

[ehrnst]

161. As I recall, for short time, Superdelgates were the darling of those

who now say that they are "undemocratic."

Funny how that works.

[George II]

185. Where did that headline appear, and when?

[irresistable]

218. here are some Feb 2016 headlines

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467230964/survey-clinton-maintains-massive-superdelegate-lead

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/superdelegates-give-clinton-large-delegate-lead/47178548

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-superdelegates-that-stack-the-democratic-race-toward-clinton-2016-02-22

https://cbs12.com/news/election/clinton-expands-lead-in-delegates-despite-sanders-win-in-nh

[George II]

186. When was it "in the single digits"?

[JHan]

192. I completely missed that in my reading of irresistable's post...

I don't know what they're talking about either.

It's bizarre. either people are just making shit up or they just don't know and don't want to know.

[irresistable]

199. after IOWA

[George II]

201. ...

[irresistable]

210. Thankfully, the DNC did the right thing and changed their policy.

[JHan]

219. ++ Have to laugh . it's purposeful misinformation.

[George II]

184. No it doesn't. The average voter doesn't even know anything about "superdelegates"

[irresistable]

198. The news outlets report that the candidate has a huge DELEGATE lead

You can deny it all you want, but it has an effect.

[George II]

200. You've said it, but can't confirm it. The news outlet did NOT do that. There may have been...

...a report or two, but it wasn't something that was readily reported.

[irresistable]

212. Of course they did...

....and Hillary's campaign and surrogates promoted it endlessly as proof of her inevitability, which was a perfectly reasonable strategy. I don't blame Hillary for playing by the rules as they existed.
I'm just glad that the DNC did the right thing and changed the policy.

[George II]

214. All I can say is, no they didn't.

[irresistable]

215. I actually lived through that period, and saw it.

Were you off-planet?

[George II]

220. I was on earth, but can't answer your question - which planet are you referring to?

[lapucelle]

241. The divisive "proof of her inevitablity" talking point was used by right wing

radio talk show hosts and message boards, Fox News, and Trump and his surrogates. It was a favorite narrative of HA Goodman.

[R B Garr]

165. It has to be willful. It's a totally contrived drama. The

disinformation is astounding.

[JHan]

166. It's disinformation like that conservatives and kremlin operatives enjoyed exploiting:

[R B Garr]

226. Excellent post. Manafort and Devine worked together on previous

foreign campaigns, and both had a common opponent with Hillary Clinton. Hmm.

[romana]

150. Doesn't hold up

Clinton had a huge advantage over Obama in 2008 with respect to endorsements and superdelegates, and yet we know how that worked out.

The truth is Bernie felt he was entitled to Democratic Party superdelegates, and didn't bother doing the actual work to earn their endorsement/vote. At least not until he had to admit he got his butt kicked in the primary, then he decided it was OK to attempt to steal superdelegates away through harassment.

[Garrett78]

154. Yep

[ehrnst]

162. +1000. (nt)

[JHan]

202. this in a nutshell. +++

[Squinch]

35. The superdelegates had no effect on the primary outcome. Never have. And now never will.

So what?

[MosheFeingold]

60. They give the perception that the game is fixed

Politics are about perception.

One must not only be innocent, but appear innocent.

This was Hillary's foible. She may have been 100% totally clean (it doesn't matter), but she looked guilty as heck.

People will not participate in a process that appears to be rigged. Why bother?

[Squinch]

64. No. She didn't look guilty. Corrupt people SAID she was guilty, and imbeciles believed it

and took up the torch. Then people who KNEW she was NOT guilty of anything found it convenient to push that narrative because it benefited them.

But don't ever say she "looked guilty as heck." Nothing she ever did "looked guilty."

And it is very funny that the superdelegates have been in place for quite a long time and it was never a problem. Then a non-Democrat told his acolytes that they were a problem, and suddenly those acolytes hated the idea of them.

[LiberalFighter]

73. The perception was created by Tad and the media to stir it up.

[MosheFeingold]

89. Don't get me wrong

I am not saying she did anything wrong.

But she was perceived as wrong -- yes, by the efforts of Drumpf.

One must not give them a toehold to which to cling.

And super-delegates are a toehold.

[brer cat]

157. So you are content letting the republicans

dictate how we do things so there is no possible negative perception? Give up super delegates now, then maybe tomorrow we can just let them pick our nominee. I'm sure that will solve all our problems, right?

[sheshe2]

167. Well

Give up super delegates now, then maybe tomorrow we can just let them pick our nominee.

Perhaps, since many do not wish closed primary's or ending caucuses that seems the end goal.

[MosheFeingold]

179. Nope

I'm about winning elections for Democratic candidates.

[George II]

158. "she looked guilty as heck"? "a process that appears to be rigged"? Are you serious?

[Eliot Rosewater]

159. I cant believe I am reading that HERE, but I am. Oh well. Ok.

[MosheFeingold]

180. You mistake appearances for what is

Superficially, it looks bad. She looked bad.

I am not saying superdelgates are wrong or she is bad.

[ehrnst]

160. Some are given way, way more benefit of the doubt in appearing innocent than others.

As we have seen.

Misogyny makes some look way more 'guilty' than those who stand when they pee, but who have just as many, if not more "guilty appearing" incidents.

[MosheFeingold]

181. I don't disagree at all.

Very unfair.

We can take our ball, go home, and pout, or we can win.

My son got a traffic ticket yesterday with me in the car. (I am very old and he was driving me to the doctor in another town.)

10 cars passed us, but we were singled out, probably because we had out-of-state plates.

Very unfair.

Life is unfair, kid.

[ehrnst]

182. What we do about that unfairness is what makes us progressives, does it not?

To shrug and say, "Life is unfair" when one has the opportunity to speak out or act, is not what progressives do, is it?

That said I am a realist, and choose my battles, because we don't have energy for everything, and not everthing is indeed fixable right away.

Misogyny is something that real progressives try consciously not to let themselves fall into, or simply ignore in their own actions.

Such as when someone assumes or implies guilt in another without evidence, one needs to look at ones own bias.

[yardwork]

168. Guilty of what?

[MosheFeingold]

183. No idea

But the Repugs did a great job painting her as such.

If you poll likely voters, something like 70% will say they didn't trust Hillary.

You can complain and rail against the unfairness of this, say it is stupid, and you are 100% correct.

But it won't change the perception (however unfair it such perception is).

For example, lots of people, on the left and right, hate Jewish people. I've never figured it out. I try to be nice, and kind, and serve my fellow citizens. But still they hate us.

The hatred is neither rational, nor fair, nor kind. But antisemitism is a fact of life. I fight against it.

But to make plans for a world where antisemitism doesn't exist is magical thinking.

While I obviously disagree and work to change hearts and minds, I recognize the existence of that hatred as a fact of life, that I work around.

Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't get anything done.

Here we have an irrational dislike of super-delegates. They're really more of an honorary thing than anything, and mostly harmless. But still the irrational dislike is a real thing, and we're not going to change hearts and minds.

So we work around it.

[ehrnst]

204. Who here is pretending it doesn't exist? Progressives acknowledge that it does...

Who are you speaking to? Referring to?

[Recursion]

193. To stupid people, maybe

What other parts of our decision-making process should we base on their expectations?

[MosheFeingold]

231. Half the electorate is below average n/t

[Recursion]

234. Is it too much to hope that's the half that doesn't vote? (nt)

[Adrahil]

52. Nah....

If Bernie wins the majority of delegates, there was almost no chance the SD’s would have overturned that.

[Dave Starsky]

72. I agree that it was paranoid bullshit.

But at least it eliminates the argument about it.

[joshcryer]

140. Yeah, it's just removing a "talking point."

One which has been used more effectively by the right wing than anything.

[Me.]

4. "has never occurred since superdelegates were created ahead of the 1984 campaign"

it was done to appease those who thought the primary was skewed even though it was actually millions of votes which decided the outcome.

[still_one]

6. It was an excuse used by some to justify why their candidate wasn't successful, even though it had

no bearing on it.

Purely psychological and political purposes

[Me.]

14. Boom

[Garrett78]

16. Pretty much. Time to ban caucuses.

[still_one]

20. and open primaries. I want Democrats deciding who will be the Democratic nominee

[irresistable]

34. If you want people to vote for the Democratic nominee....

you should not exclude them from voting in Democratic primaries. We should have Same day registration that allows people to state their party affiliation as Democratic.

[Squinch]

37. What does tht have to do with superdelegates?

[irresistable]

39. I was responding to a post where banning open primaries was proposed

I disagreed.

[Squinch]

43. Of course you were.

[irresistable]

45. What does THAT mean?

[brush]

66. Why would you want repugs to be able to vote on who our candidate is?

[irresistable]

99. Republicans will vote in their own primary.

I want to encourage new people to vote for Democrats.

[brush]

101. In open primaries repugs can vote and influence who wins.

IMO the people who took the initiative and time to register as Democrats should be the ones to vote on who represents the Democratic Party.

[irresistable]

104. Primaries are conducted with taxpayer money.

Independents pay taxes, too.

[brush]

108. So start a party and have a primary, and btw, I don't have kids but still pay school taxes.

[irresistable]

111. I already have a party...the Democratic Party, with an open primary in my state.

If you tell people to "start a party"....don't complain when they vote for their third party candidate.

[brush]

142. Well you're not an independent then like you implied. And a multi-party, parliamentary system...

I would welcome because the Democratic Party, the party of sensible, doable policies and the party of the people would dominate as the others from centrist to leftist would want to form coalitions with us to defeat the wingers.

Better than having a deadlocked, non-functioning government dominated most of the time by repug obstructionists when they're out of power and repug destructionists when they're in power.

[still_one]

41. No one excludes anyone from the Democratic primaries except those who don't want to be Democrats

You can register by mail, the post office, and many other avenues, and those who have to be persuaded perhaps are too immature.

Anyone who is that immature after the 2000 and 2016 election, and doesn't realize the importance of voting, or the bullshit the green party, Nader, Stein, Sarandon, and the rest of the rest of those so-called self-identified frauds perpetuated in misleading and lying to the most naïve, had better grow up.

As for those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party, or not voting, as far as I am concerned they have clearly demonstrated their analytical skills

Too much trouble to register to vote until the last minute? bullshit. There is no excuse

You don't want to be a Democrat and choose the Democratic nominee, then don't register as a Democrat

I voted for the Democratic nominee in 2016, and there was no "lesser of the two evils" bullshit that was perpetuated by some self-identified progressives

Your open primary gave us Dan Lipinski over the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT

I AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.

ARE YOU?

[irresistable]

44. There is no registration in my state and we have open primaries.

I have never voted for anyone who was not a Democrat, unless there was no Democrat on the ballot. In those cases, I voted for whoever was not the Republican.

Same day registration and naming party affiliation works just fine. There is no reason to make it hard to register or to vote.

BTW, Wouldn't you prefer Dan Lipinski over a Republican?

[still_one]

240. Because of OPEN PRIMARIES, Lipinskik won the Democratic nomination because republicans determined

the Democratic nominee, over the progressive DEMOCRAT

Facts DO matter.

and Democrats should decide who their nominee


I am not surprised that some are more than anxious for non-Democrats to determine who the Democratic nominee is.

The bullshit that some through the feeble excuse that registration is too difficult. It isn't. There are multiple way to register, including by mail, and they have way over a year to register.

What a cop out. "Oh, I can't register until the last minute excuse", is bullshit.

If people are that imature, perhaps they are too imature to vote.

No, I do NOT want a republican cross over, or some person who has no desire to be a Democrat or work within the Democratic party for change determining the Democratic nominee, either for their own political agenda, which for a good number in that mindset only's interest is to further the republican agenda, or a third party agenda.

[Cha]

27. I file it under

[JCanete]

83. That was never what many of us thought or alleged. Sanders never alleged that. That

entirely ignores the reality that its a shitty way to convincingly have a democratic process in the democratic party when all people are equal but some people are more equal.

[MineralMan]

7. Optics. It doesn't really affect much of anything.

We should also eliminate caucuses, but that is a state-by-state issue, and isn't something that can be done by the national party organization. Here in Minnesota, it required the state legislature, which has replaced them with a primary. That will have to be done by each state that still uses caucuses.

However, the actual impact will be only optics. Superdelegates have never changed who the nominee was, and neither have caucuses.

[tritsofme]

18. I think you understate the DNC's power a bit here.

I don’t see why they couldn’t pass a rule refusing to seat delegates in states that did not have a primary election with a secret ballot.

It would be heavy handed, but also likely to force action.

[MineralMan]

19. They would never do that. It's not just heavy-handed, either.

Some states have always used the caucus system, and it can't be changed in some of those states without approval of the state legislature. That was the case in Minnesota. After the 2016 election, the legislature passed a bipartisan bill switching to primaries for the Presidential race.

Iowa is another example. The national party cannot just mandate such a change, because such a change is not in the hands of the state party organization.

It's also not a critical need. Minnesota's caucuses, for example, chose Bernie Sanders. Had there been a primary, it would have gone to Hillary, and all of Minnesota's delegates would have been Hillary delegates. The caucus system works both ways. I have enjoyed working with a caucus and convention system, and have been a delegate to conventions on several levels because of that. However, I recognize now, and did before, that caucuses sample too small a number of voters and, so, are subject to being controlled by a small group of supporters of one candidate or another. That's unfair, whether I like or dislike the candidate.

Still, the system did not change the outcome in 2016. The changes would not have changed the outcome, either, had they already been in place.

So, it's really just optics.

[tritsofme]

21. In 2008 it didn't stop the party from stripping delegates from states who did not comply

with the party’s primary schedule diktats, even though those dates were often chosen by state legislatures.

It is not optics to guarantee your voters a chance to vote in a primary with a secret ballot, it should be a fundamental right. Whether or not they changed an outcome in any particular contest is immaterial.

States who choose to employ undemocratic means of selecting delegates ought to be barred from the convention, I wouldn’t think this to be a controversial proposition.

[MineralMan]

22. They're going about as far as they can, by recommending that caucuses

be eliminated. Be patient. They'll be gone before long.

If you understand the historical significance of caucuses, you'll understand why they have lasted this long. In another time, they were by far the fairest way to select candidates, but that was long ago. They have survived in some states out of tradition. It takes time to replace traditional systems. That's understood by those who are actually involved in politics at the convention level, etc.

Even Congress acts based on old, old traditions. Its rules are based on the rules followed by the earliest Congresses, with only some changes that came over a long period of time. It's also outdated, and the rules give the majority party far more power than it should have, including the power to keep bills from being introduced or voted on. I want to see those rules change, too, but tradition and the advantage it gives to the current party with a majority prevents that.

Be patient. Things will change, but not on your schedule. If you want them to change faster, become part of the system that delivers delegates to conventions. That's where the changes will occur.

[cemaphonic]

24. At least in here in WA, the Democratic power structure wants a caucus

We have a primary election, and the Republicans use it to seat delegates, but the Democrats ALSO have a caucus, and completely ignore the primary results. Its the most confounding and frustrating thing about our otherwise pretty good political landscape.

[Lucky Luciano]

50. The primary is meaningless, so it indicates nothing in Washington.

[NurseJackie]

8. I'm not entirely sure what the point was... perhaps vanity? Lingering bitterness?

The rule change would not have changed the convention...

You're right about that. From what I can tell that was not from a lack of trying however. Surely I'm not the only one to see this. I'm just saying that all the reasons NOW being given in opposition are not historically consistent, that's all.

[murielm99]

9. An attempt to appease the

so-called far left, and to get them to STFU.

I think they are a very small element in our party. They just make an inordinate amount of noise.

I am sure they will find something else to whine about.

IMO, it was a slap in the face to the Congressional Black Caucus, who have done far more for us as Democrats than the far left.

[SunSeeker]

13. THIS.

[ehrnst]

25. Yep - the CBC was truly slapped in the face. (nt)

[mythology]

32. The CBC should quit whining on this

The superdelegates had never overturned the winner of the primaries, and if they did, it would have decimated the party. So being a superdelegate was nothing more than a meaningless designation. They haven't presented a valid reason to keep superdelegates because they don't have one.

The entire concept is stupid as it worked out in practice.

[ehrnst]

46. Whining?

They have had this position for years.

Just because you think that the Black Congressional Congress's reasons are "invalid" doesn't mean they are "whining."

What else about them lacks validity?

[Eliot Rosewater]

47. Where am I again? sigh, I think I give up

If there isnt a huge blue wave in November by DEMOCRATS, we might as well shut this place down and for that matter all social media.

[Hortensis]

26. :) THIS all the way. Oh, it was also a two-fer.

These things need tweaking over time, and so we did.

I've noticed that the leaders of the capital-P Progressive cum new social democrats have been making exaggerated claims about the tweaks ("Democrats strip superdelegates of power," and such), suggesting they may not be satisfied but nevertheless are choosing to present this as a large victory for their followers and helpful media.

Btw, the slap in the face of the black caucus would be more understandable if this turns out to be the social conservatives among their populists making themselves felt. So many populists are social conservatives who also support big government programs that their characteristics are among those that define populist movements. I haven't seen a numerical breakdown of who's in these groups, and have no idea how many are left, but Sanders did try to draw as many of them as possible away from Trump to what he styled as a populist revolution.

Lol to your prediction, Muriel, because it would be very strange if they hadn't already chosen the next Democratic policy that requires their attention. After all, groups that exist to oppose or reform, whatever the case may be, must do that or die.

[Cha]

29. Mahalo for your very candid

observation, Muriel!

[NurseJackie]

40. You are correct. And I promise you, that displeases many.

Good.

[GulfCoast66]

42. They will just find something else to bitch about.

They are not the majority in the party and when that becomes apparent they will again throw a hissy fit.

[Eliot Rosewater]

48. Very well stated.

But what does the CBC know...right?

Why not insult them, I mean ...pfft

[Lucky Luciano]

51. The "far left" here is very centrist in most countries.

Next thing you know, liberal will be a bad word again.

[joshcryer]

141. Yep.

[TCJ70]

10. So they don't make a difference? Trim the fat. Bye.

Superdelegates and they’re votes were used inappropriately in both the 2008 and, in my opinion, in a worse way in the 2016 primaries to try to establish a front runner before a single vote a was cast. There were charts making it look like Clinton had a 45-1 lead over Sanders in delegates...before Iowa.

This not only creates a false narrative in terms of who is actually ahead in a primary, but also alienates voters by creating the appearance of the party choosing the winner before the contest starts.

Let’s simplify things and just count the raw votes. No superdelegates. No caucuses. Popular vote.

[Lucky Luciano]

55. Absolutely. Also, no more caucuses.

Caucuses are much more blurry than primaries.

[TCJ70]

78. That's literally what I said. Why the also? n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

97. Missed your last sentence.

[brush]

71. Agreed on caucuses. Get rid of them. As for superdelegates and their role in 2016...

Hillary was way ahead because Sanders' campaign didn't think the southern states with their large AA population were important enough to go after, thus he was behind on superdelegates as well as votes.

Whose fault was that?

Now superdelegates influence is lessened, let's see what the next complaint is when the Dem base again rejects you know who.

[TCJ70]

79. Thanks for the non-relevant point. Take your Sanders jabs elsewhere.

The point was how superdelegate counts created an appearance of Hillary being ahead before a single vote was cast. I made no commentary on what happened once the voting started.

[brush]

91. Hardly non-relevant when perception to some was that superdelegate votes hurt Sanders...

even though that wasn't the case at all.

That was what forced the change.

[aikoaiko]

11. Its a good thing.

[tritsofme]

17. It's a good start. Next up should be banning undemocratic caucuses

And guaranteeing a primary election with a secret ballot for all Democratic voters.

[MineralMan]

23. That process is underway. Minnesota did away with those caucuses,

following the 2016. election. Why? Because Bernie Sanders won in those caucuses. Why? Because Ted Cruz won in the GOP caucuses.

Things are not always what they seem, and change doesn't necessarily get you what you want.

[Cha]

30. TY, MM.. Good on Minnesota! I knew

I had read recently that a state had dropped caucuses.. I just couldn't remember which one.

[Lucky Luciano]

56. Bernie may very well have won a primary too.

I prefer primaries for the same reason I don’t like superdelegates - popular vote should be clearly discernible and the decisive factor.

SDs, while they never broke from the winner, definitely create a false narrative at the beginning of the process. It is not good. I remember hearing HRC is up by x00 delegates and thinking, “wow.” Then later being - “oh, they’re including SDs, so not real, but the media made it sound real.”

[MineralMan]

57. Well, we don't know, do we?

That's why it has been changed. From now on Minnesota will hold presidential primaries.

[Lucky Luciano]

58. Exactly. Primaries are best.

That neither of us can say for sure with any kind of confidence is terrible.

[MineralMan]

59. I agree, although I enjoyed participating in

the caucus and convention system for a few elections. It was always prone to being influenced unfairly by an active small group of supporters, though. In 2016, I was the chair for my precinct's caucus meeting. Everything went relatively smoothly, and the results were reported correctly. The turnout, however, was far too small, and the overall organization of my ward's caucus meetings was poor.

That won't occur in the future. I think it's a good choice, but I'll miss the process, just because...

[moondust]

49. Aren't they like the electoral college?

In violation of the "one person, one vote" principle?

[klook]

54. Because "Your vote may or may not count" is not a good look,

especially to younger voters.

[JCanete]

67. Should never occur is the point. Should not influence voting. This change deals with the former to

some degree, and probably not the latter. But if supers had no potential impact I don't think some supers would be so inclined to bristle at this move.

I do not trust an anti-democratic "contingency" option. I know of one Superdelegate here who has both said that Samantha Bee's coverage of supers was spot-on(she said it would only be used for people like Edwards if they ended up being damaged candidates in the late game) and yet this person has also stated, with an honesty I respect, that there's a chance he would have voted to flip the votes away from Sanders, if he thought it was the right choice for the party, and of course he does think that Sanders was bad for the party, so its hardly a stretch to assume this person would be game.

And oddly enough, Samantha Bee's own analysis that this would only be used in cases of Edwards and sudden falls from grace, was led in with her history lesson that Superdelegates were created in response to the McGovern and Carter losses. Weird that, since neither of those were Edwards-like situations.

[helpisontheway]

69. Well..I remember when some wanted to use super delegates to take the nomination away from President

Obama. They said it was because he could not win the big states. I could see why super delegates might be helpful if you had a nutcase like Trump that was about to win the nomination.

[Gothmog]

70. The sole purpose was to make bernie and his supporters happy

There is a quid pro quo for this rule that I like.,he DNC hasadopted 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

[zipplewrath]

84. And caucuses

I suspect the push to end caucuses will also continue. This all looks like one huge compromise among the delegates to address issues that arose over the last several national primaries.

[at140]

80. Super-delegates made no difference and this rule change

therefore will make no difference. It is a feel good move though, that our party is more democratic.

[zipplewrath]

85. Optics

It was all about optics.

[JHan]

87. Truth: No one really cared about superdelegates until....

someone needed a reason, other than themselves, for why they lost a primary.

The rules themselves don't change the fact that Superdelegates can vote in a contested convention, which is really where they are actually useful. And it doesn't change the fact superdelegates can vote in state primaries. Lost in the discussion about this are some caucus reforms.

But I just want to thank all those involved in this "reform" for their determination to change rules which didn't make that much of a difference anyway. I mean God forbid energy could have been devoted instead to Russiagate ( which I was constantly told no one gave a fuck about even though it exposes vulnerabilities in electoral systems and points to a cabal of rich oligarchs involved in money laundering, delighted to do Putin's tasks for him like supporting right-wing movements determined to undermine democracies in the west).

Thanks for setting me straight on the shit-that-never-mattered-and-never-will.

All part of the:

#BlameSuperDelegatesGame
#EveryoneElsesFaultButMe

[Garrett78]

90. And superdelegates will still make endorsements.

This is really much ado about nothing. Caucuses and election integrity are of much greater consequence.

[JHan]

92. yup +++++

[JCanete]

116. Truth, I didn't know how they worked. I despise the whole concept. Its not true that its never

mattered. That's just outright wrong. They get tallied in reporting. They make candidates seem inevitable and others seem like voting for them is throwing away your vote. How does that not matter?

How would these actually being used as they could be not matter? If they never will then we'll never miss them. If there's no issue, then why don't we just say...."whatever, we don't need them?"


How much effort should it take if its not an issue for people and has no impact for us to change the rule? How much of our limited bandwidth to do a simple rule change for the better? If its no big deal, why are some superdelegates incensed by it?

[JHan]

118. History proves you wrong.

They have never changed the will of the democratic base, their voting has always been in line with what the base wants. They are only useful in contested convention situations.

I'm not in the mood to give you a history lesson.

The fact is they mattered for naught in 2016.

And as a woman, I fucking resent the implication that our first female nominee only got the nomination because of Superdelegates, when it was the base who wanted her, the delegates also wanted her because she's been a stalwart Democrat for decades.

All of this, because her opponent could not face the reality he fucking lost.

[JCanete]

120. I just told you how the media uses them. Why not address that? You can't quantify that in

whether or not they have actually directly flipped an election by voting against the will of the democratic voters. It may in fact represent how we see the votes fall.


Who is saying she only got the nomination because of superdelegates? That's not what's being said by Sanders, or me here. You can go ahead and resent it when its said, but its a strawman to say that this is the typical position that is held.

And your last characterization is also just not true. Sanders did accept that he lost. Sanders never did blame superdelegates for the loss. Sanders moved to have all of his delegates added to Clinton and endorsed her. You can say what you want, you just don't have the evidence to back up that claim.

Nor does our short superdelegate history have anything at all to do with what COULD be done. Nor does it address the fact that by conversations I've had here with a superdelegate, (I'll take his word that he is in-fact one), he would in-fact have been amenable to the idea of flipping the election for Clinton for the good of the party. All of the bullshit about what would never be done can't be proven by saying it has never be done, because there's been no real test case. The Obama Clinton race was NOT a test-case. They were similar candidates when it comes to their platform.

[JHan]

121. I am not strawmanning...

that's your specialty.

[JCanete]

122. Where? I told you yours. Do I here, or does Sanders, hold the position that supers won Clinton

the election? Who are the people you are bristling at who do hold this position?

[JHan]

123. LOL

[JCanete]

124. ROFL

[JHan]

129. I hope you're laughing as hard as I am because the whole point of this..

was to question the process of the selection of a presidential nominee. So yeah 2016 factored into it...

So I'll laugh along with you at the ridiculousness of it all -- good to see we agree this was all bullshit.

[JCanete]

138. oh damn...should have known the emogie was coming. Why do these always descend into LOLs and emogies

when the arguments tap out.

The whole point is that Supers got attention during the last election and people started understanding how they can function, and you know what, many of us democrats didn't like it. I assure you that our leadership wouldn't be making changes if the base was totally fine with things as they were.

Regardless of whatever political reasons you want to ascribe to this being made an issue, unless you have a good argument for why we shouldn't have made changes...for why it IS in fact a good practice to give superdelegates such a huge "theoretical" say in our election process, I don't know why you are going to pour so much of that limited resources of your time and energy into lashing out at that move.

[JHan]

151. You're not making any kind of solid argument..

You're sticking to already debunked talking points, which is your prerogative.

My points are clear though.

You cannot, on the one hand, say 2016 had nothing to do with it, and while you agree that Clinton didn't win because of superdelegates the whole point of Sanders and his gang raising a muck about this was the outcome in 2016. Anyone denying this is denying facts, reality, and #WhatActuallyHappened. I get enough twisting of facts from the President, I don't need this rejection of facts and evidence becoming more of a thing on Democratic Underground.

In other words, if Superdelegates endorsed in Sanders in 2016, we'd be hearing nothing about the "Unfairness" of the Superdelegate system. It is why the fake "rigged primary" meme won't die, a meme Sanders has yet to reject, even playing along with Ted Cruz when he suggested the same for politically nefarious reasons in a debate they had.

The "Base" is not calling for this, Sanders and his backers are. The "base" had no problem with it prior 2016, continues to have no problem with it.. It's Sanders who raised a ruckus about this when things didn't go his way, and Our Revolution has followed suit.

These are #Facts. You are welcome to ignore them, your ignoring them won't change them being #FACTS.

[JCanete]

152. Excuse me, are you making the utterly ridiculous claim that the Democratic Party is

making changes because it is worried about independents and their opinion of us? If it wasn't about at least a portion of the democratic base that wanted this, there'd be no reason for this change. I am part of the base by the way. I'm a Clinton supporter in the GE. I had no problem with supers prior to the 2016 election because I didn't fully understand supers. Now what I understand of them is a problem. That we became aware of how supers works is not a bad thing. That you claim this came about because of some mythology that it cost Sanders the campaign is neither here nor there to me. Why should they continue to have this power?


Supers were never going to endorse Sanders, and he and his campaign had to know that, and their suggestion that it might happen had nothing at all to do with an actual path to victory, but to do with presenting one to a media that was looking to put a dead dog down for continuing to run up to the convention. Do you actually seriously believe they thought this was a possibility?

So if it never was a reality and nobody ever truly pinned their hopes on it then its a real big flight of fancy to say that Sanders would have simply been mum on Supers if this silly scenario had occurred. Its an entirely speculative assumption you're making, not based on any real hopes or dreams of the Sanders campaign. Or at least I never believed they actually meant it. I thought it was one of those necessary campaign lies that our system forces our candidates to perform. Again, you though they meant it?

[JHan]

153. No, my points are solid.

"That you claim this came about because of some mythology that it cost Sanders the campaign is neither here nor there to me. " -

You've truly boggled my mind, congratulations. This was never my argument, that was actually the argument Sanders and his backers made - that the Superdelegates had tremendous influence and gave clinton an edge despite all evidence to the contrary. That is the whole point behind all of this bruhahaha. So it is not mythology.

Yes , the media sometimes focus on favorites, this is also nothing new for decades.

The only reason I persist in this exchange is that you have a disturbing habit of wilfully misrepresenting what people type or ignoring simply stated facts.

[JCanete]

156. Sorry if that weas unclear...you claim that a mythology was created and that that's the only

reason this issue is being discussed. I claim that the reason it should and is being discussed is because its an actual issue.

[R B Garr]

190. It is not an *actual* issue. It is a cynical strategy to claim victimhood

where none exists. It is a strategy to create a false narrative to create misinformation and fear mongering that something is being taken from voters when that is not the case. It is a completely contrived non-issue.

[JCanete]

196. It is an actual issue. I don't ever want my vote flipped. Do you?

[R B Garr]

206. It is a totally contrived issue. Just as you are trumping

it up here by claiming your vote is being taken or suggesting that iif another candidate is preferred that you can make a false narrative about robbed votes/rigged systems. It’s fear mongering and an attempt to support one persons false campaign narrative. Fake news is for the Trumpies.

[JCanete]

209. I am saying I never want it to happen. It never has happened and it should never ever be a

possibility. Its none of what you just said. Again your arguments are as ridiculous as Ajit Pai's when it comes to net neutrality. Never happened and won't happen are not justifications for allowing something the potential to happen.

Do you think its okay that it could happen? If you do then just fucking say so.

If you don't, then why the hell are we having this conversation.

[R B Garr]

216. Correct, it never has happened. There is reason only one

person is pushing this false five alarm fire drill over something that has never happened and has subsequently gotten others to continue the false attacks about this thing that never happened.

I don’t want to see my party smeared with bogus drama and outright disinformation about corruption and rigged systems when it really is just a distraction to perpetuate a false narrative. We should not be dishonest with voters and imply corruption that isn’t there.

[JCanete]

217. No drama. Lets just get rid of superdelegates and move on. nt

[R B Garr]

225. Right, no more drama. Let's just get rid of the phony brouhaha

about superdelegates that really is a distraction for the real reasons this was all trumped up -- to ease access by "independents" who wish to utilize the Democratic party infrastructure without belonging or contributing to the party. That would be truly ending the drama -- presenting the real intentions behind making such a fuss over superdelegates instead of badmouthing people and implying corruption.

[JCanete]

238. Good, lets get rid of the distraction, unless you think they need to be there. Do they? nt

[R B Garr]

239. The distraction is insisting they are a problem when the only one who

has ever talked about them is one man who is an Independent. Let's not get distracted from the reason they are being attacked and be honest about the motives for attacking them now.

[frazzled]

208. The media can still use them, because ...

superdelegates are not prohibited from saying who they support in a primary race (that's called free speech); they just can't vote on the first ballot, and candidates can't use them in touting their tallies. But the media will still be able to assess a race based on presumed support from superdelegates in the event (highly unlikely) of a second ballot being needed. They'll still be able to say that 47 Democratic senators support the X campaign. Absolutely nothing of substance really changes with this new ruling. Perceptions will still be out there.

One thing many here don't seem to understand is that primaries are about parties selecting the candidates they wish to run in a general election (whether local, state, or federal). I, for one, believe that elected Democratic officials, state party chairpersons, etc. should serve as superdelegates: after all, they are the core of the party and should have some eventual say in who they want in the event of a stalemate. But they NEVER HAVE decided a nomination. It's always been a democratic process.

We've gotten farther and farther away from the idea that parties choose the candidates they want to run ever since back-room choices were replaced with primaries and caucuses. There's a lot of good to that, democratically speaking. But now that primaries have been opened in most states to people who are not members of the party (independents or even members of the opposition party in some cases) it leaves the party open to attacks from the outside. That is how the Republican party got taken over by Tea Party and then Trumpists. It's contributed to the increasing divisiveness in the political sphere. It's my belief that superdelegates are sort of a last-resort stopgap against losing the party's identity and values. I wish the Republicans had been able to stave off the Trump takeover in their party somehow (they have a much weaker superdelegate system). I don't ever want to see something like that happen in our own party.

[JCanete]

211. No the republican party got taken over by the tea-party because the republicans themselves,

Fox News, the Kochs etc. astro-turfed a tea-party as opposition to Obama. They made their own bed...it didn't come from the outside. It became a Frankensteinian monster they couldn't control, but this wasn't an infiltration.

You are right that the media can still do what it will with Supers, which is why we should just do away with them, except that I assure you, the party establishment sees value in that.

I have no concern that we're going to be taken over by tea-party people in the Democratic Party. You have to get a majority of votes here and we're all a whole lot saner. We're all a whole lot more empathetic and generally speaking, more educated on the issues.

NEVER HAVE is not a reason to keep the potential. The potential is the problem. When one of the regular posters here, who identifies as a superdelegate, suggests that had it come down to it he might have cast his vote for Clinton over Sanders even if he'd won the popular vote - obviously for the "good" of the party - I grant that that's anecdotal, but if an unlikely makes his way through the ranks and wins the popular vote, fuck the idea that a handful of people can say "yeah, but we're going with the safe bet....you'll thank us democratic party."

I don't agree with you at all regarding allowing certain previously elected members a disproportionate say in who we nominate going forward. Times change and you are literally arguing for regressivism with that. There will be resistance in change from an old guard that believes in the system that they themselves have helped to create and perpetuate. Well, if the voters want a different kind of party, isn't it their party?

By the way, the "stalemate" is a function of how our election system is written. Pouplar vote winnig could be what it takes to break that "stalemate." Flipping the votes to break that stalemate is ridiculous to me. Its also probably damning to the party's chances that year, but the reasons it might be done anyway is that the candidate who won might seem so rogue to the powers that be, such a wrench in the workings of the party, that they'll take that loss of Republican control for 4 years over that rogue candidate. Really, that's the only scenario I can see this being the lever that Superdelegates pull.

So of course you'll almost never see it happen. If you never have a circumstance like that it will never happen, but if we ever do have that circumstance, I don't see how giving a handful of people the power to blow up the party's chances in a given year in order to preserve a certain status-quo is advisable.

[MyNameGoesHere]

93. We're giving out ponies too!

It's all about appeasement.

[JCanete]

115. its all about making shit up here clearly. Arguments keep being made and ignored as to why this

kind of assessment is foolish, and very few people are even bothering to make a cogent case as to why we should actually keep super-delegates. Care to weigh in on that?

[R B Garr]

127. It is clear who is making stuff up. The whole fabrication

about superdelegates has been entirely fabricated and all because the fabrication benefitted fabricated perceptions. Who benefitted from the fabricated false alarms about superdelegates??

[JCanete]

134. What is it about superdelegates that you want to preserve and why? This OP

is about why we should keep them as they were. Do you agree? If you don't, then we've got no beef. We both agree that up to this point Superdelegates have not changed the outcome of an election.

I would however, not agree that their presence doesn't have an outcome on that primary election, but that's more an aspect of the reporting and how it covers them and includes them in the vote tallies than it is a matter of their function.

As to their function, I don't want my vote among 10,000 others to simply be nullified by the "pragmatic" preference of a single superdelegate, ever. I don't care that that's never been exercised. I don' t see why it is a reasonable argument to say "but it never will be an issue..." That's the kind of bullshit that the GOP gives us all the time. "We don't need net neutrality because why would companies ever exersise their power to throttle competitors? We haven't seen it happen...wink ... .... ..."

So I commend the changes, if in my opinion incomplete, that our Democratic leadership have made to this process. Good on them.

[R B Garr]

143. These are all fabricated concerns. That's the point .

Who benefitted from all these false alarms and why did they create them. All of this concern is fabricated. It’s actually like a conspiracy theory. Enough.

[JCanete]

144. They aren't fabricated. They are literally the power of the superdelegates. What is fabricated about

truth?


You know what, if you come back with the same thing, I give up and you win. Solid solid argument.

[R B Garr]

164. You refuse to accept that this is a manufactured catastrophe

so one person can claim victimization which some find appealing. This is a cynical strategy. It is very obvious.

Of course the reality does not support the superdelegate conspiracy theory so you have nothing to support the false alarms and fear mongering about superdelegates. It’s like submitting a claim to your insurance company about an accident you didn’t have. Eventually you run out of scenarios to support your claim since nothing actually happened.

[Crunchy Frog]

136. I remembered how well the 1984 campaign turned out.

[Mike Nelson]

139. The Democratic...

… Primary has become more fair, over the years. The superdelegate system matched the public's taste, early on... it was never "rigged" against Bernie. He ran a good campaign and took advantage of the voting systems in place, as did Hillary. The best candidate got the most votes, and won. The general election was rigged!

[Docreed2003]

178. Spot on assessment!

[lame54]

147. next step - delegates

[Blue_Tires]

148. Bernie (or at least his staffers and strategists)

are convinced that this is the #1 reason why he didn't win the primary and are trying to set the stage for an easier primary in 2020

[Garrett78]

155. If that's their thinking, they're as delusional as Trump.

[Blue_Tires]

177. Like I said three years ago, if Bernie is *SERIOUS* about winning

then he'd cut loose the crazies, sycophants, nutbars and cultists who have been managing and advising him...

But sadly almost all of them are still there.

[Uncle Joe]

163. To produce the strongest Democratic candidate to challenge the Republican nominee in the G.E.

Thanks for the thread LiberalFighter

[pnwmom]

171. If that were the case they'd get rid of the low-participation, non-diverse caucuses.

We almost met the all time record for attendance in my state: 4.5%.

[Uncle Joe]

222. It is the case and was a step in the right direction, regardless of what other actions they take.

Progress is seldom if ever a straight line on every issue.

[pnwmom]

224. No, it wasn't a step in the right direction.It skewed the system even more against minority voters

That's why the Congressional Black caucus was against it.

Getting rid of superdelegates -- which gave them a voice -- while retaining the elitist, non-diverse caucuses just made things worse.

[Uncle Joe]

227. One person one vote. Having super-delegates is what skewed the system.

The Congressional Black Caucus still has a voice, individually as American Voters and as a caucus in the Congress.

"Elitist non-diverse" caucuses?

Which caucuses would you be speaking of?

[pnwmom]

235. All of the caucuses were elitist and non-diverse. Which one do you know of that

had a large fraction of minority voters? And they all are limited to people who can drive whatever distance it is to get to their caucus (often hours away if you're in a rural part of the state); and someone who isn't working or in school that day, for a period of several hours.

In my state, we almost broke the record for turnout -- with 4.5% of voters participating. I had to drag my husband there, because he did it once and that was enough to last a lifetime, if you're not a very political person -- which most people aren't. The whole ordeal takes at least four hours and requires sitting in a room and talking politics and sitting through interminable votes with volunteers who half the time don't know what they're doing and are reading the manual to figure out what the next step is.

THEN, at the end, they have to pick two volunteers (one, an alternate) from the precinct to agree to the next step -- going to an ALL DAY state conference. Oh, goody! Years ago, when we went to our first caucus, NO ONE volunteered for this next step -- so we roped someone in who WAS willing to be a delegate: someone who had been supporting a DIFFERENT candidate.

Caucuses are nothing more than the old "smoke-filled rooms" that primaries were supposed to replace, except without the smoke. And the whole reason we have them in WA -- even though the state voters voted to replace them with primaries -- is because the party insiders refused to let go of the reins of power, and sued the state to keep their caucuses.

[Uncle Joe]

237. My mistake, I misread the last sentence of your post 224.

Peace to you, pnwmom

[SkyDancer]

170. Good! It's about time

This is the correct thing to do and let's be serious, it's a dividing wedge and nothing more.

I personally believe that nothing should over rule the will of the voters. We do after all live in a democracy. Nobody's vote should be worth any more than any one of ours. 1 person = 1 vote.

Foe those saying "there has never been an instance where super delegates have had more sway than voters", my answer to you is why have them to begin with then?

[pnwmom]

172. Caucuses are a bigger dividing wedge. Why should voting be limited to people

who have the time and freedom to spend hours debating issues and candidates with people in their district, and who don't care if their neighbors, relatives, bosses, etc. know how they voted?

Caucuses are like the old smoke-filled rooms the primaries were intended to replace; they've got everything but the smoke.

[SkyDancer]

173. I am on the fence with caucuses

I see both sides of the argument. I don't care either way. For me, whatever works, works, when it comes to caucuses.

That being said, I also think election days should be a state & national holiday.

[pnwmom]

174. If you don't live in a state that has them you don't know what they're like.

Everyone I know hates them. The voters in my state voted by a large majority to replace them with primaries, and you know what happened? The Democratic party went to court to insist on their right to keep choosing candidates with caucuses, and the court ruled for the party. It can choose its delegates however it wants.

Meanwhile, the Republicans do choose their delegates through the state sponsored primaries, so Dems have to pay twice: once, for the cost of the state-run primary (which is a "beauty contest" only for the Dems), and also for the cost of the caucuses that we voted not to have. To add insult to injury, the first thing they do when the meeting starts is pass around envelopes and ask everyone to chip in to contribute to the cost of having the caucuses -- the caucuses that they shove down our throats!

[SkyDancer]

175. Put it to a vote

Let the people decide what they want.

[pnwmom]

176. We DID put it to a vote. The state's voters passed a referendum to get rid of them

and replace them with primaries.

But the Dem party SUED the state to retain their precious caucus system, and the court ruled for the party.

Our votes didn't matter. It's infuriating that the party did this to us. Meanwhile, the GOP picks their delegates through the primary because the GOP didn't ignore the wishes of the voters.

[SkyDancer]

195. That is seriously messed up

Ugh!

[pnwmom]

197. And to add insult to injury, when we go to the caucuses

they pass envelopes and ask us to donate money to help pay for the costs of the caucuses -- the caucuses we voted to end.

Even though the primaries would be free to the party because the state pays for the primaries.

[Uncle Joe]

223. I believe this to be a great idea SkyDancer and long overdue.

That being said, I also think election days should be a state & national holiday.

[SkyDancer]

228. I've never understood why they are not

[Uncle Joe]

229. I haven't either, how relevant is Columbus Day to having a federal holiday celebrating our democracy

such as it is, by making it easier for all Americans to vote?

Our priorities seem out of whack to me.

[SkyDancer]

236. They are out of whack

[Demsrule86]

187. It will lead to electoral losses in my opinion and will hurts us ...cause division.

[LiberalFighter]

191. One of the perceptions of superdelegates is that they are not elected.

I say otherwise. They were elected by the people in their state or district. By having them, it is an incentive for party supporters to work hard to elect Democrats in those positions so they have additional delegates to the conventions. So it is not just the voters in those states or districts that elected them. It is also the party activists that help on campaigns and help get the vote out. By having superdelegates it also frees up additional delegate spots for the activists within the party.

It is also an incentive for Democrats to turn out the vote on election day during Presidential elections so they can increase the number of delegates in their district and state that go to the national convention. The number of delegates are determined by the average of the past three presidential elections based on votes for the Democratic nominee. Just one election can increase the delegate size.

Because the delegates are based on election results in each state a primary candidate needs to have strong support in those states they can win in the general election that will allow them to win the presidency. The blue and purple states. The number of delegates in blue and purple states will be higher than in red states even if their population is comparable. Because, in past elections, they have more votes for the Democratic than the Republican candidate.

And you are right that it will lead to electoral losses and division. Because, those superdelegates, allowed others to participate while still allowing them to be a part of the process. And they have the knowledge and experience that others don't have because of their position. Hopefully, the change will be minimal.

[zipplewrath]

213. Well, it's stacking the deck

It becomes a cartel. Win an election, and you and the people you represent get an outsized representation for choosing the NEXT candidates. They get their vote, plus the vote of the person they elected last time. It's a bit like gerrymandering in that the people elected get to determine the winner of the NEXT election. It's not absolute by any stretch, but it is tipping the scales. It's how we get "factions" or "wings" within the party. It's why the CBC objects so strongly, because it diminishes their out sized influence within party politics.

Doesn't make it wrong, and one can make a case that this is "healthy" and creates longer term consistency and reduces volatility. But it is an optic that requires some explanation.

[LiberalFighter]

221. Stacking the deck? Really? Just wow!

There is nothing outsized when members of Congress win an election and are delegates. It represents the interests of the voters in their district or state. Proportionally. There is no reason for districts or states to have delegates in that category when they don't elect a Democrat. There is no additional vote advantage for a candidate under this process. Not when there are districts and even states that don't have delegates in this category. They do as far as state party leaders. There is no reason to allocate additional delegates in this category for red states.

It seems you want to punish Democrats that were elected to Congress and not allow them the same rights as everyone else. The alternative would be to go back to the old days when decisions were made in back rooms or elected members of Congress run for those delegate spots thereby taking spots away from the activists.

Superdelegates don't change the outcome of a nomination when a candidate receives the majority of delegates as they have since 1972. Nor do they determine the winner of the NEXT election as you suggest. It does include them to be part of the convention. If you want to keep them out then you really don't want a strong Democratic Party. If there is any tipping of the scale it is when they relay info back to party activists in their district or state as to how it looks. They have access to how campaigns are doing and encouraging support.

We don't have factions or wings in the party because of this. We have factions or wings in the party because there are over 320 million people and spread out over nearly 4 million square miles. That creates division and different interests. You seem to want your faction whatever that might be to have control of the process. That is not how it works. A balance was found back in 1968 and for the most part it works. The people who complain about it are those that use it as an excuse for losing and of course outsiders. They want the rules set up to make it easier for them to win without regard to fairness.

The delegate strength of each congressional district is based on the average of the last three presidential elections that the Democratic nominee receives. I guess next the votes of those now deceased in those three elections should not be considered when allocating delegates.

In all cases, the allocation of delegates is proportional to votes. It may not seem like it too you. But the DNC use formulas that are included in the party rules to determine it and it is voted on by all of the delegates.

Then you suggest that the CBC's influence is outsized within the party? If anything, they are underrepresented. They represent only 9.4% of Congress while 12.5% of the population is black.

[zipplewrath]

232. Of the last election

There is nothing outsized when members of Congress win an election and are delegates. It represents the interests of the voters in their district or state. Proportionally.

Proportionally based upon the last election not the on in which delegates are being chosen. Especially for down ticket races in which the existing office holders have such influence over who will be leading candidates in the next race.

As I say, it isn't to say that this is a bad thing. It generates a level of consistency and continuity. It can unfortunately also create a bit of stagnation or to lagging behind shifting attitudes. And as you suggest, super delegates can help to give under represent populations a more "level" representation.

[George II]

194. Placation.

[Glamrock]

205. Take a few minutes,

step away from DU, and ask some people who aren't as politically engaged as those of us here what they think of the Supers. The answer to your question will be apparent pretty quick. It's a consideration of the optics and the effect on the vast majority of the politically disengaged.

P.S. Just wanna say, no snark intended if it comes across that way....