HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » Their argument that the s...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:30 AM

Their argument that the superdelegates is undemocratic.

First, every one of the SD's hold their position because of an election. Governors, Senators, Representatives, and the President and Vice President were elected to those positions. Party leaders, meaning state chairs and vice chairs were elected within their state central committee. State DNC members were elected at state conventions by state delegates. Past Presidents, DNC Chairs, and former congressional leaders had held major elected positions. A form of emeritus staus.

Second, the Democratic National Convention is a DNC (Democratic National Committee) function. It is a Democratic Party organization and it is their event. It would be ridiculous to hold an event and not include their own members. That would be undemocratic. If anyone is not a Democrat and more importantly not involved as an activist in the Democratic Party they should not have a say in the party's organization.

It amazes me how little these people know about the Democratic Party and what it is and what it is not.

35 replies, 1262 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 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Their argument that the superdelegates is undemocratic. (Original post)
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 OP
Her Sister Jun 2016 #1
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #5
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #2
Cha Jun 2016 #3
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #24
DURHAM D Jun 2016 #4
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #6
mercuryblues Jun 2016 #7
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #8
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #9
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #11
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #12
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #14
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #15
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #17
spooky3 Jun 2016 #23
still_one Jun 2016 #27
wildeyed Jun 2016 #10
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #13
displacedtexan Jun 2016 #22
Walk away Jun 2016 #16
robbedvoter Jun 2016 #20
KittyWampus Jun 2016 #18
robbedvoter Jun 2016 #19
Walk away Jun 2016 #21
Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #25
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #28
Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #31
LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #32
Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #33
still_one Jun 2016 #26
Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #29
misterhighwasted Jun 2016 #34
wysi Jun 2016 #30
Ellen Forradalom Jun 2016 #35

Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:45 AM

1. I like Superdelegates!

 

They have inside info on the candidates that might not be obvious otherwise! Info that might come out when it's too late! When we as Democrats find us stuck with a DUD, just like the GOP is now.

Trump is proving to be unfit in so many ways: Mentally and Emotionally stunted/unstable!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:13 AM

5. I agree. They are more likely to be privy to critical information that is needed.

But more importantly, even the voters are likely to change their mind in who to support after they have already voted and circumstances have changed. The superdelegates have the flexibility to change their support because they are not locked into a possible bad decision.

What happens if a top candidate dies in the middle of the primaries? Or decides to drop out for personal reasons? Or they are found to be ineligible? Or has a medical condition that calls into question a candidate being able to handle the position? With any of those situations that top candidate somehow will end up with the most pledged delegates. Getting rid of the superdelegates would leave the Democratic Party in a quandary. Every federal elected official and state party officers would run from that candidate. They would not expend any energy to help get that person elected.

We have a situation similar to that in our district. The voters decided to elect an unqualified candidate that has mental issues just because of his name in the primary. Unfortunately, there is little that the local party can do to have his name removed from the ballot. Because of is lack of qualifications the party will not make any effort to get him elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:52 AM

2. It's just knee-jerk negativity because it didn't go their way.

They don't have to actually understand anything about it - it didn't help Sanders, so it's bad, by definition. It doesn't fit the narrative if they actually bother to understand why they're there and how the process works in the first place.

These are the same people who threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus and decided that her whole career was a sham because she is supporting the Democratic nominee for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:59 AM

3. It's just their latest Whne.. How many does make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:08 PM

24. Twelve cases?

2016 will not be a good year for California Whine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:10 AM

4. The argument is that Hillary Clinton appointed every one of them.



If you want to change the process one first needs to understand the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:18 AM

6. I know. I seriously doubt how it is all done.

And sadly, even the unpledged delegates likely don't know. This process has been in place since 1984 and very few if any are still around that went through it.

Just like they don't understand how it is determined each state receives their delegate allocation. They probably think they know but in reality they are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:29 AM

7. Take away

all the Super delegates and Clinton still wins.
Force the SD to vote according to who won the state and Clinton still wins.

So what exactly is the real problem about SDs? that have been used for decades, without a problem. What is different in this election that makes SD all of a sudden "undemocratic"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:49 AM

8. It is likely because Sanders calls it a rigged system.

He decides to run as a Democrat ten minutes ago and then decides he doesn't like the rules. The rules should not be decided based on how he wants them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:52 AM

9. Let's see, the system has been in place for

30 years and no one even noticed or cared until people outside the party wanted to run it. Makes sense to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:57 AM

11. Yes! Outsiders.

That also includes Sanders who just became a Democrat only for the purpose to get his name on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:00 AM

12. Well, he wanted the database too.

It was chocked full of voter names...even those for his opponent, which of course, his campaign felt entitled to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:08 AM

14. Well I hope after this he is locked out.

I just signed up with Bernie's campaign this week to be aware of what his campaign is doing. I should had done it sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:10 AM

15. Well, I hope if he stays in our party

he stops trashing us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:33 AM

17. So far he hasn't demonstrated that he will do either.

There is only so much time before he needs to get off the pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:36 PM

23. According to the DNC, the % of superdelegates

Was reduced from 20% to 15% from the last election to this one.

Luis Miranda said this during an interview about a week ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:59 PM

27. It also acts as a safety valve, rather intentional or unintentional, when a candidate has the most

pledged delegates, but falls slight short of the required number, it prevent chaos from taking over at the convention.

The ones that seem to have a problem with this are the ones who enjoy open primaries, and the caucus.

Historically, SD have always gone with the candidate that won the most pledged delegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:55 AM

10. And the thing is, superDs have never overturned the will of the people.

They exist, IMO, for extreme situations like if Edwards had won and then his infidelities came out. I would be OK with them not declaring their support until their state voted, something like that. And the media should be showing pledged delegates numbers separate from the superD totals.

Sanders peeps seem to think that the early party support swayed the actual voters but I doubt most voters pay attention. I vote for who I like best and so do most others who are civic minded enough to show up regularly for those elections. We just didn't like Sanders and they seem to have a hard time reconciling themselves to that reality.

The two party system IS problematic, what with fewer and fewer people identifying with either. The Democratic Party (and GOP) is more a coalition than a party now. BOTH parties need to find ways to reconcile themselves with this reality or continue to pay the price. Sanders was a warning shot to the Dems. I don't know if the GOP will even survive Trump.

I REALLY think that fixing the gerrymander districts (and both parties are guilty of gerrymandering) would go a LONG way toward fixing the discontent we see in the general population. That is the main problem, IMO. The Dem Party and all of us should get behind making non-partisan boundaries committees a reality in all states. Parties lose a little power doing that, but they get to survive and it will tamp down discontent in the general population. Plus is is what our country needs right now for democracy to function again. Compromise is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:06 AM

13. I just as soon political parties were not involved in the district boundaries.

Or at least make it very difficult for them to based it on whether it benefits them. It would be better if it was non-partisan and it followed specific requirements and best reflected the overall state. So the deviation of the voting population should should be minimal when compared to the state legislative bodies. Also, as an example a state has 50 senate districts and 100 house districts they require that two house districts must fit completely within a senate district.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:02 PM

22. Considering that lots of new voters either didn't register or learn about their state's party rules,

I doubt that supers were even on their radar until BS used their existence as proof every state he lost was rigged. If someone made a list of his excuses throughout the primary season, supers would just be one of many, many reasons he thinks he was cheated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:12 AM

16. I think it would be best if only actual Democrats can run as the Democratic nominee.

I'm pretty pissed off that my donations to the DNC were used to denigrate the DNC and my party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:54 PM

20. Somewhere in the DNC rules there is such a provision. "Bona fide D"

is also mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:59 AM

18. they are essentially the 'republic' part of a democracy. We are not nationally

 

a direct democracy. Nor are we on the state level. Nor are we on the party level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:51 PM

19. 🐘🐘 right now would give anything to have them too

and if the attempt to take over the party by an interloper teaches us something is just how useful they may end up being. They had no role in this election - beyond rhetoric. But for future Sanders out there, bent on destroying the D party - I say, let's have more of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbedvoter (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:41 PM

21. Absoutely, any kook could use our party to legitimize their run!

2016 proves our vulnerability. We need to start enforcing the existing rules more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:51 PM

25. Before there were the primaries the nominee was determined by the committe.

Each super delegate is free to make their choice, yes it is democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:15 PM

28. It can be put that way. How can it be democratic when they are forced to support someone?

At least with those that are elected as delegates they voluntarily place their name on the ballot to support a specific candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:42 PM

31. I am sure if a super delegate does not have to accept the responsibility of being

A super delegate so they are not forced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:44 PM

32. If they are eliminated

but if the remain some want them to be committed based on turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:46 PM

33. They should be making their decision based on the most qualified and electable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:55 PM

26. Historically the super delegates always side with the candidate who won the most pledged delegates

Which part of "undemocratic" do they mean?

That Hillary has won the most votes, the most primaries, and the most pledged delegates

The ones who are being undemocratic are the ones who LOST the election

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:09 PM

29. Not once, since 1984, have Superdelegates voted again the will of the Democratic voters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:54 PM

34. And THAT is bernie's problem with the SD's.

They're not voting for him.
And he's mad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:14 PM

30. A private organization...

... does not have to be a democracy. Few are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:38 PM

35. They are in place to prevent entryism

and another George McGovern disaster.

Consider them the Senate to the pledged delegates' House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread