2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMessage auto-removed
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)non-establishment approved candidates....like Bernie.
Nanjeanne
(6,566 posts)Who'd a thunk it?
Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)The Democratic Party however is a different story. If they could GUARANTEE that ONLY Triangulating DLC New Dem types could be allowed to compete then Superdelegates would not be needed.
Bernie represents precisely what the Superdelegates are meant to guard against. What other reasonable purpose could Superdelegates be meant to serve if it isn't to decide the outcome of a primary contest in favor of the establishment? None.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Where've you been?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Response to DesertRat (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)choose their nominee and leader of their party when he recently decided to join the party.
But, It's still very early, many more state primaries coming up. Supers may not even be an issue.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They're not going to be an issue.
Response to Codeine (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Codeine
(25,586 posts)I believe it's reasonable to give a political party some latitude on how they select their candidate; this could help avoid a McGovern situation. We seem to forget that political parties aren't really obligated to allow voters to choose their nominee.
That said, I honestly see superdelegates as a non-issue in the modern era; the Party knows better than to alienate its voters at the start of a general election campaign, so they will be released to line up with the winner of the majority of pledged delegates at the convention.
Bottom line -- if Sanders wins more pledged delegates than Clinton then he'll be the nominee, superdelegates notwithstanding.
Response to Codeine (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed