Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:44 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
Superdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States
This is how Superdelegates work. They have been party members for years, they are the Establishment, they are the ones that one candidate is railing against; while the other works with them and appreciates their support. I have no idea why people think that online petitions and a bunch of angry messages and phone calls will change their minds.
But I can understand the WANT to pressure them to switch, but I sure hope the METHODS used are respectful. That vote is THEIRS. To do with as they please. http://www.bustle.com/articles/140894-what-does-a-superdelegate-do-the-democratic-partys-rules-could-spell-trouble-for-bernie-sanders
|
181 replies, 23694 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | OP |
DemonGoddess | Mar 2016 | #1 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #2 | |
Mike__M | Mar 2016 | #119 | |
DemonGoddess | Mar 2016 | #139 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #142 | |
Liberty Belle | Mar 2016 | #3 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #6 | |
CorporatistNation | Mar 2016 | #89 | |
Thinkingabout | Mar 2016 | #103 | |
Liberty Belle | Mar 2016 | #175 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #176 | |
CalvinballPro | Mar 2016 | #11 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #56 | |
SusanCalvin | Mar 2016 | #61 | |
CalvinballPro | Mar 2016 | #122 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #124 | |
SidDithers | Mar 2016 | #126 | |
LiberalFighter | Mar 2016 | #164 | |
hrmjustin | Mar 2016 | #4 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #5 | |
unapatriciated | Mar 2016 | #14 | |
hrmjustin | Mar 2016 | #17 | |
unapatriciated | Mar 2016 | #113 | |
hrmjustin | Mar 2016 | #117 | |
unapatriciated | Mar 2016 | #118 | |
SusanCalvin | Mar 2016 | #63 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #65 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Mar 2016 | #90 | |
MoonRiver | Mar 2016 | #173 | |
CalvinballPro | Mar 2016 | #7 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #8 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #69 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #91 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #98 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #104 | |
CalvinballPro | Mar 2016 | #123 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #125 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #9 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #10 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #16 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #18 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #21 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #30 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #33 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #35 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2016 | #107 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #108 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2016 | #129 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #131 | |
beedle | Mar 2016 | #166 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2016 | #167 | |
beedle | Mar 2016 | #169 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2016 | #170 | |
beedle | Mar 2016 | #171 | |
unapatriciated | Mar 2016 | #12 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #13 | |
unapatriciated | Mar 2016 | #29 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #32 | |
Major Nikon | Mar 2016 | #57 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #64 | |
sheshe2 | Mar 2016 | #137 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #138 | |
sheshe2 | Mar 2016 | #140 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #141 | |
sheshe2 | Mar 2016 | #143 | |
sheshe2 | Mar 2016 | #144 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #145 | |
seaglass | Mar 2016 | #58 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #62 | |
SusanCalvin | Mar 2016 | #68 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #72 | |
SidDithers | Mar 2016 | #133 | |
shraby | Mar 2016 | #15 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #20 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #34 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #36 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #46 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #51 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #60 | |
ieoeja | Mar 2016 | #168 | |
George II | Mar 2016 | #162 | |
Stallion | Mar 2016 | #99 | |
Bluenorthwest | Mar 2016 | #39 | |
TeeYiYi | Mar 2016 | #67 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #38 | |
bunnies | Mar 2016 | #19 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #28 | |
beedle | Mar 2016 | #172 | |
AtomicKitten | Mar 2016 | #22 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #24 | |
AtomicKitten | Mar 2016 | #59 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #66 | |
rachacha | Mar 2016 | #79 | |
HooptieWagon | Mar 2016 | #23 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #25 | |
hack89 | Mar 2016 | #26 | |
HooptieWagon | Mar 2016 | #27 | |
hack89 | Mar 2016 | #37 | |
Henhouse | Mar 2016 | #75 | |
hack89 | Mar 2016 | #97 | |
Bluenorthwest | Mar 2016 | #31 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #41 | |
Bluenorthwest | Mar 2016 | #55 | |
radical noodle | Mar 2016 | #40 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #42 | |
radical noodle | Mar 2016 | #47 | |
libtodeath | Mar 2016 | #43 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #44 | |
libtodeath | Mar 2016 | #49 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #50 | |
libtodeath | Mar 2016 | #52 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #54 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #70 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #71 | |
Vinca | Mar 2016 | #45 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #48 | |
Vinca | Mar 2016 | #120 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #53 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #80 | |
ljm2002 | Mar 2016 | #94 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Mar 2016 | #100 | |
JPnoodleman | Mar 2016 | #73 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #74 | |
JPnoodleman | Mar 2016 | #76 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #82 | |
JPnoodleman | Mar 2016 | #86 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #87 | |
Punkingal | Mar 2016 | #102 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #105 | |
ThePhilosopher04 | Mar 2016 | #77 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #78 | |
PufPuf23 | Mar 2016 | #81 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #83 | |
mythology | Mar 2016 | #163 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Mar 2016 | #84 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #88 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Mar 2016 | #92 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #95 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Mar 2016 | #96 | |
Autumn | Mar 2016 | #85 | |
Politicalboi | Mar 2016 | #93 | |
mhatrw | Mar 2016 | #101 | |
Sheepshank | Mar 2016 | #106 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #110 | |
AZ Progressive | Mar 2016 | #109 | |
strategery blunder | Mar 2016 | #157 | |
MFM008 | Mar 2016 | #111 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #112 | |
blueintelligentsia | Mar 2016 | #114 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #116 | |
blueintelligentsia | Mar 2016 | #136 | |
NorthCarolina | Mar 2016 | #115 | |
AzDar | Mar 2016 | #121 | |
bkkyosemite | Mar 2016 | #127 | |
liberalmuse | Mar 2016 | #128 | |
George II | Mar 2016 | #130 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #132 | |
George II | Mar 2016 | #134 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #135 | |
jfern | Mar 2016 | #146 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #147 | |
jfern | Mar 2016 | #148 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #151 | |
jfern | Mar 2016 | #154 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #156 | |
AgingAmerican | Mar 2016 | #149 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #150 | |
AgingAmerican | Mar 2016 | #152 | |
strategery blunder | Mar 2016 | #153 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #155 | |
strategery blunder | Mar 2016 | #158 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #160 | |
Cha | Mar 2016 | #159 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #161 | |
Gothmog | Mar 2016 | #165 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #174 | |
CoffeeCat | Mar 2016 | #177 | |
bravenak | Mar 2016 | #178 | |
CoffeeCat | Mar 2016 | #179 | |
Dem2 | Mar 2016 | #180 | |
R B Garr | Apr 2016 | #181 |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:55 PM
DemonGoddess (4,640 posts)
1. Good link!
It's good for people to see what exactly a super delegate does.
|
Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #1)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:56 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
2. Maybe they can stop thinking the supers owe THEM their votes.
Response to bravenak (Reply #2)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:24 PM
Mike__M (1,052 posts)
119. Neither do I owe MY vote
to Inslee, Murray or Cantwell. They can try to earn it if they want.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #2)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:07 PM
DemonGoddess (4,640 posts)
139. I somehow don't see that :(
Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #139)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:09 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
142. I'm a dreamer...
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:57 PM
Liberty Belle (8,839 posts)
3. One could politely tell those elected officials who are superdelegates
That if they won't support the candidate who gets the most popular votes and delegates overall or at least in your state (whether that's Sanders or Clinton) you won't be voting for them in their next election.
If the Democratic party doesn't stand up for democracy, and respect the will of its voters to choose a progressive candidate (if Sanders is the leader) then its super delegates deserve to be voted out and replaced with new officials who will respect a democratic process, not a coronation by the party elite. |
Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:00 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
6. The candidate with the most popular votes already has their support
Response to bravenak (Reply #6)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:24 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
89. State By State... fella... So They Should respect The WILL As Expressed By Their Constituents OR...
Expect to be VOTED THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK 'EM!
|
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #89)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:42 PM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
103. Some of the super delegates are not currently serving so cant vote them out.
The super delegates are serving the DNC, in the capacity of super delegate they are not serving their constituents.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #6)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:27 PM
Liberty Belle (8,839 posts)
175. But the election is not over yet.
Wait until all the votes are in, and then let's see who has the most.
|
Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #175)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:28 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
176. I am perfectly fine with that.
Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:05 PM
CalvinballPro (1,019 posts)
11. America utilizes representative democracy, not direct democracy. How do you not know this?
Or understand it?
|
Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #11)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:50 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
56. JFC...
...we're talking about the Democratic Party's primary system. The Democratic Party is free to choose their candidate however the hell they want to. If they wanted to do it via direct democracy there is nothing to stop them from doing it that way.
As it is, they did not used to have Super Delegates at all. And also as it is, the media has latched onto the Super Delegate totals as a convenient way to skew perceptions of how the primary race is going. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #56)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:55 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
61. Yep. It's the media I have a problem with.
Right now I don't even want to hear about them, certainly not as part of the delegate count. I'll be interested in them when one candidate has a mathematical lock in elected delegates, not before.
|
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #56)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:43 PM
CalvinballPro (1,019 posts)
122. It's dishonest for Sanders to decry the super-delegate system yet employ the man that designed it.
Tad Devine made the super-delegate system, and he's running Sanders' campaign.
|
Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #122)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:49 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
124. Where has Sanders decried the superdelegate system?
I've seen plenty of it from his supporters, but not from him. But I may have missed it.
|
Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #3)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:51 PM
SidDithers (44,058 posts)
126. Many, many of the superdelegates aren't elected officials...
They're formerly elected officials, who are supers because of their many years of service to the Democratic party.
The "we won't vote for you" threat won't work on them. Sid |
Response to SidDithers (Reply #126)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:10 PM
LiberalFighter (41,159 posts)
164. That is not true.
There are automatic delegates that are included because they are either current Governors, Senators, and Representatives. Others are included because they are DNC members representing the state at DNC meetings.
There are also Party Leaders of which some of them are former elected officials. Only a few of the DPL are former elected. Most have top leadership position. |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:57 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
4. I don't see DUers calling on Alan Grayson to switch his vote to Hillary.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:59 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
5. Of course not!!!!
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:08 PM
unapatriciated (5,390 posts)
14. If she has the popular vote at the end of the primary
I as a DUer and Sanders supporter will do just that.
|
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #14)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:09 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
17. An honest poster.
![]() |
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #17)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:17 PM
unapatriciated (5,390 posts)
113. Does your reply mean if
Sanders wins the popular vote you will join me in asking President Clinton as a super delegate to support him?
|
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #113)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:20 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
117. If he won the popular vote i would say he should be the winner.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #117)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:21 PM
unapatriciated (5,390 posts)
118. thank you
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #14)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:58 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
63. Yes, exactly.
Right now I'm tired of seeing them lumped in with elected delegates.
|
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:59 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
65. Right now superdelegates tend to keep their endorsements...
...it's when it gets to the convention that I really care about it.
That said, I am all for superdelegates switching their endorsements during the primary to reflect the outcome in their state, or to agree among themselves to make their endorsements match the percentages in their states as closely as possible. But that is not how it works nor how it was designed to work. The supers serve as an Establishment cadre who state their preference and retain that preference until the convention, in hopes of influencing the primaries and preventing "extreme" candidates from winning. Once at the convention, however, they have always given their votes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention. Should Bernie arrive with the most pledged delegates, and should the supers decide not to change their votes at that time -- then I'll care, and I wager a lot of us will care. We'll see how it plays out. |
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:24 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
90. You will when McDermott, Murray and Cantwell are pressured to see the error of their ways. n/t
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:54 AM
MoonRiver (34,931 posts)
173. Yeah, I'm waiting for that to happen...
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:02 PM
CalvinballPro (1,019 posts)
7. A super-delegate for Sanders from Nevada is on the record saying she won't vote as her state did.
This whole "vote the way your state did" literally only applies if your state voted for Bernie. If your state voted for Clinton, then the super-delegate is to ignore their voters and cast for Bernie anyway.
In other words, complete and utter hypocrisy from Mr Integrity. |
Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #7)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:03 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
8. Oh hell yeah
We see the different standards applied constantly
|
Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #7)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:03 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
69. Well Dr. Dean from Vermont has said the same thing...
...that he will vote as he sees fit, not according to the popular vote in Vermont, where Hillary Clinton was shut out entirely. So this is not all one-way, ya know.
Also, are you really implying that Sanders is responsible for that person's position? Your last sentence implies that, but I do not believe that to be the case. And if you are implying that, then presumably you also believe Clinton lacks integrity due to Dr. Dean's stance. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #69)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:25 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
91. No. I believe the poster was referring to the Bernie-supporters' ...
"vote the way the state votes" hypocrisy.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #91)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:32 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
98. Um, I'm one of those "Bernie-supporters"...
...and I am not in the least bit hypocritical with this. I don't care who they endorse now; but once at the convention I expect them to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, regardless of how their own stated voted.
Also: the poster I replied to was implying that Bernie has a direct hand in that superdelegate's position. If we are to assume that, then we can assume the same thing about Dr. Dean's position. If we cannot make that assumption (and I believe we cannot), then it is disingenuous to try and pin it on Bernie absence any evidence. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #98)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:43 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
104. Then, the hypocrite label does not apply to you ...
but there are plenty of examples of those that it would.
|
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #69)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:44 PM
CalvinballPro (1,019 posts)
123. I think Sanders is a hypocrite. He was against super-delegates, until he needed them.
Screw that guy.
|
Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #123)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:51 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
125. Link, please?
I have not seen Sanders come out against superdelegates. I've seen it from lots of his supporters, but not from him. I may have missed it though.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:04 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
9. Which is how superdelages work. Not how democracy works.
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:05 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
10. It is the system
Response to bravenak (Reply #10)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:08 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
16. It's the "system" than many of us want to rid ourselves of.
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #16)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:10 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
18. Not enough of 'us'
Response to bravenak (Reply #18)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:11 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
21. Yet.
Response to bravenak (Reply #10)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:27 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
30. Screw the system...it doesn't work for regular people, just elites.
Response to Punkingal (Reply #30)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:54 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
107. The DNC can change their rules. Just not midway through a Primary
Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1) You can work for future changes. Bernie knew the DNC Primary rules whe he jumped in the race. He too is attempting to create a false narrative, to change the rule mid way through th cycle. Really, super bad timing on that call for change.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #107)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:58 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
108. I understand the rules can't be changed now. But they need to be after this election.
This isn't a Bernie issue for me. It is a democracy issue, just like voter suppression.
|
Response to Punkingal (Reply #108)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:59 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
129. Democracy and the democratic rule of elections are a constitutional construct
DNC is not a government agency, and as such can make their own rules. For so much wailing and gnashing of teeth and calling for some implementation of democracy rules, it is plain silly.
Fwiw, GOP removed that individual unencumbered vote from their SuperDelegates. They changed the rules for Mittens (I think). I'd bet a million dollars they wish they had the DNC rules right mow. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #129)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:04 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
131. It can make it's own rules, sure.
And I guess it doesn't represent democrats? What we want doesn't matter?
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #107)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:29 AM
beedle (1,235 posts)
166. You mean
Like how they couldn't change the contribution rules? But did.
|
Response to beedle (Reply #166)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:26 AM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
167. Some rules are actually law...some are operational policy
I have not known either one to be changed mid way though an election cycle. Do you have an example and a link?
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #167)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:47 AM
beedle (1,235 posts)
169. here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
I guess there is a 'law' against changing things that might harm Hillary, but it's only an 'operational policy change' if it's changed to help her? Very convenient how that works. |
Response to beedle (Reply #169)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:15 AM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
170. Washington Post? Never mind, is does state it was a "guideline" for Obama's POTUS bid.....
“The guidelines that were previously in place at the DNC were guidelines that were instituted when Barack Obama, then Senator Obama, became the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Schultz said. “Those were guidelines that were modeled after his campaign for the presidency.”
That guideline was clarified and back to original policy almost a year ago, but Bernie is only recently complaining about it. It was never a law to be changed or a formal operational policy. Your snarky comment attempting to rephrase the reality of changing laws on a whim, doesn't make it so. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #170)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:42 AM
beedle (1,235 posts)
171. Bernie only recently complained about it
because it was done on the hush, and no one other than DWS, in-the-know lobbyists (ie: Hillary supporter lobbyists) and her cronies knew about the change until recently.
And as for the super delegates, you do realize that with the debacle that happened in 2008 that there were all kinds of delegate rules changes right up until Aug. So this tripe about delegate "rules" being set in stone, is just that, tripe. The biggest change came on May 31 as a result of the meeting of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which lessened the penalty initially imposed on Michigan and Florida. The party had excluded all delegates (including superdelegates) from either state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all these superdelegates (as well as the pledged delegates from those states) but with half a vote each.[25] That action added 55 superdelegates with 27.5 votes. The total number of superdelegates could continue to change until the beginning of the convention (Call to the Convention Section IV(C)(2)). On August 24th, the Democratic Party, at the request of Obama, awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida full voting rights.[26] |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:05 PM
unapatriciated (5,390 posts)
12. The candidate who wins the popular vote
will more than likely be our nominee, regardless of the super delegates. I have been voting since 1972 a good ten years before the emergence of super delegates. I have yet to see them go against the popular vote. There has always been speculation but that is all it is speculation.
|
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #12)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:06 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
13. Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
Response to bravenak (Reply #13)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:26 PM
unapatriciated (5,390 posts)
29. Only if you count Michigan and Obama was not even on the ballot.
kinda hard to know the true voter count of a state when only one name is on the ballot.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/ The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes. Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/seating-floridas-and-michigans-delegates/# |
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #29)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:28 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
32. Oh!! I remember why I considered it even now
Thanks.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #13)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:51 PM
Major Nikon (35,153 posts)
57. Results...
On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS "O",this person is just a troll. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be. Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them. Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given |
Response to Major Nikon (Reply #57)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:58 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
64. Thank you
Response to bravenak (Reply #64)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:58 PM
sheshe2 (69,936 posts)
137. What the hell????
You got alerted on for calling Obama O?
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Hell!!!! I have posted his name as BO. I sure wasn't talking about Body oder. I adore our President. ![]() Dear Goddess Bravenak, stalked much???????????? I loves ya babe! |
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #137)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:01 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
138. I'm sayin!
Sometime's you'll get a 7-0 leave when the jury did not agree. See it differently. But the alert made no sense at all.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #138)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:07 PM
sheshe2 (69,936 posts)
140. Ya know....
Sounds familiar to a member that was trying to get me a hide. They said the same think "O" ....will try to find it.
|
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #140)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:08 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
141. Might be the same person
Should send it in so they can cross check.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #141)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:10 PM
sheshe2 (69,936 posts)
143. I just went to look.
Will get back to you.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #141)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:19 PM
sheshe2 (69,936 posts)
144. Found it.
Will post you elsewhere.
Very similar. Hmmmnm. |
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #144)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 06:20 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
145. Ok. Hmmm. Mmmm hmmmm.
Response to bravenak (Reply #13)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:53 PM
seaglass (8,044 posts)
58. Again Bravenak - for transparency - in this case it looks like the alerter is being alerted
and also timed out from alerting
![]() On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post: Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS "O",this person is just a troll. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be. Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them. Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given |
Response to seaglass (Reply #58)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:57 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
62. Just getting obvious at this point. I can see what's going on.
Response to bravenak (Reply #62)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:02 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
68. At least it was 0-7. Incremental improvements.....
![]() |
Response to unapatriciated (Reply #12)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:09 PM
SidDithers (44,058 posts)
133. The candidate who wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee...
The popular vote has nothing to do with it.
Sid |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:08 PM
shraby (21,946 posts)
15. If superdelegates don't follow the way the people vote, it's time to chuck the superdelegate
system.
That's not how a democracy works. I never liked the idea of having them since I learned about them. They were set up specifically to thwart what the voters want in a candidate which in my mind is totally wrong. |
Response to shraby (Reply #15)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:11 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
20. They own their votes
It keeps the party from doing itself too much harm
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #20)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:29 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
34. Really? The party has done itself harm for many, many years.
so they need to give up that little experiment.
|
Response to Punkingal (Reply #34)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:31 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
36. The party is doing better than at many other times when we picked ideoligical purity
over Practical liberalism. We lost very badly trying to play oh so pure.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #36)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:42 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
46. Are you serious? The party is doing awful.
We don't have the Senate, we don't have the Congress, we lost a lot of state houses and state legislatures. It isn't about purity, by the way. It is about the standards of the Democratic party, which no longer seem to exist.
|
Response to Punkingal (Reply #46)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:46 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
51. What did we have after we lost so badly to Nixon and Reagan?
We had HELL. That's what the establishment is preventing.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #51)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:46 AM
ieoeja (9,748 posts)
168. What did we have? The House, Senate, and majority of Governors and States Legislatures.
Republicans have taken all that since the Clinton takeover of the Democratic Party. I knew you were a self-admitted troll and am looking forward to your big reveal on election night. But I did not realize you were so unknowledgeable. |
Response to Punkingal (Reply #46)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:00 PM
George II (60,004 posts)
162. If the Democratic Party is so damaged, why did Sanders choose to hitch his horse to this wagon?
Response to Punkingal (Reply #34)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:33 PM
Stallion (5,834 posts)
99. 2/3rd of the Registered Democrats in the "Party" Are Voting for Clinton
nm
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #20)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:36 PM
Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)
39. Not really. Only 20 Democratic Superdelegates are 'distinguished leaders' such as former Presidents
and VPs and Congressional Leaders, not simple Members. Those people have a vote that is their vote and they stand for no election. They fill no 'slot' allocated to such persons, so the passing of one does not cause the appointment of another.
The rest are all elected either to Governors offices or to the US Congress or to positions in the Party. All of them stand for election, each of them fills a slot that would be filled by anyone holding that office and anyone in that slot gets 'their' vote. 20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back. |
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #39)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:01 PM
TeeYiYi (8,028 posts)
67. Good post...
"20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back."
TYY ![]() |
Response to shraby (Reply #15)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:32 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
38. So, as noted above ...
have you written to Alan Grayson and the Nevada super-delegate to "follow the way the people vote(d)"?
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:11 PM
bunnies (15,859 posts)
19. Their votes are not owed to us,
And our votes are not owed to them. Works for me.
|
Response to bunnies (Reply #19)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:48 AM
beedle (1,235 posts)
172. they vote at the will of the party
their votes can be taken from then at any time. It's allowable and has been done before:
remember 2008? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#In_2008 So if 'rules are rules', the "ALL rules are rules' .. right? |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:12 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
22. Lee Fang @ The Intercept: Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination in Clinton's Favor.
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #22)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:15 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
24. I have no idea what that has to do with this
They did the same for Obama AGAINST Clinton last time.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #24)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:53 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
59. The point: Many superdelegates are lobbyists, not elected pols.
Their interests are not those of the American people.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #59)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:59 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
66. I really don't think that politicians have our best interests in mind either most times
Samesies. Depending on the issue.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #66)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:16 PM
rachacha (173 posts)
79. Right. Follow the money if you want to know who the super-constituents are.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:15 PM
HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)
23. Many of them are elected office-holders.
Voters are likely to remind them of unpopular endorsements.
|
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #23)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:17 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
25. Maybe.
Maybe not. They are party loyalists who will have establishment backing and assistance. Helps them to win if they have support.
|
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #23)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:20 PM
hack89 (38,578 posts)
26. Incumbents have such an advantage I suspect they are not concerned at all
especially with a "revolution " that can't even turn out to vote for their candidate.
|
Response to hack89 (Reply #26)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:24 PM
HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)
27. 75% of caucus goers yesterday called for a 'revolution'.
I imagine the superdelegates in WA, AK, and HI are aware of that.
|
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #27)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:32 PM
hack89 (38,578 posts)
37. But caucus goers as a percentage of GE election voters is tiny
lets not forget that simple fact.
|
Response to hack89 (Reply #26)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:12 PM
Henhouse (646 posts)
75. Sanders is the incumbent in this primary...you think he has the advantage? n/t
Response to Henhouse (Reply #75)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:31 PM
hack89 (38,578 posts)
97. No such thing.
He is a incumbent in the Senate. He is a losing candidate in the national primary that is ongoing. He will have no influence over super delegates after the convention. Neither will his supporters.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:28 PM
Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)
31. Of course they don't, they are free to be the first politicians in history to risk their own asses
for the advantage of another politician and they might do that. They also might all swear off money and become wandering balladeers. Could happen.
|
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #31)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:38 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
41. Isn't that, exactly, what DU:Bernie is asking of the Super-delegates? ...
AND wanting the super-delegates to do so for a politician that has, throughout his career, not shown them an ounce of loyalty or respect.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #41)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:49 PM
Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)
55. Not sure what you are attempting to say, but I think the superdelegates should vote for the
candidate nominated by the people in the primary process. I think they generally do so for the reasons I have explained.
People yap about the superdelegates every cycle, few understand how it words and a quick review of opinions on them from 2008 will of course demonstrate great reversals of opinion because in 2008 it was Obama challenging her massive Superdelegate lead. There is lots of material from Obama and his staff stating that the winner of the primary allotted delegates should be the nominee. Obama said "The American people are tired of politics that is dominated by the powerful, by the connected." I agree with Obama. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/obama-memo-to-superdelegates/ |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:37 PM
radical noodle (7,389 posts)
40. They have a right to vote for whomever they want
just as we do. Not only that, but Bernie has super delegates in states won by Hillary, do some of you really want them to support Hillary instead? There is a reason for these rules as Brave has so correctly stated.
|
Response to radical noodle (Reply #40)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:39 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
42. It seems that there are many double standards
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:39 PM
libtodeath (2,888 posts)
43. Thanks for promoting oligarghy instead of Democracy.
Response to bravenak (Reply #44)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:44 PM
libtodeath (2,888 posts)
49. Too bad you dont even like Hillary so snooze on.
Response to libtodeath (Reply #49)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:44 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
50. Caucused for her
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Reply #50)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:46 PM
libtodeath (2,888 posts)
52. Big deal.
A drum roll for you
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Reply #50)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:03 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
70. I'm SOOOO stealing that!
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #70)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:07 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
71. Ha! My favorite
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:40 PM
Vinca (45,487 posts)
45. That's what bothers me about superdelegates.
It seems they can just about nullify a popular vote in a state if they want to which leads to the question, why bother having a primary? Just round up the superdelegates in a room and have them vote. At least be honest about not having a democratic vote.
|
Response to Vinca (Reply #45)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:44 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
48. We are a representative democracy
It was set up like this for good reason I think. The best candidate will win the most delegates. Supers are pretty much tie breakers. The party decides the rules. If they see a candidate that they feel will not HELP the party, then they can try to put a stop to any damage they may cause by getting charge of it.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #48)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:34 PM
Vinca (45,487 posts)
120. But that is precisely the problem.
You may think one candidate might hurt the party and I might think another. Democracy is democracy is democracy. The funny thing is that I'm sure you would be arguing my point if Bernie had all the superdelegates.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:46 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
53. Interesting that you support the idea...
...that superdelegates should ignore the electorate in their own states. They were created specifically to tamp down insurgent candidates. It must be really irritating that it doesn't appear to be working this go-round.
As you should already know, historically superdelegates vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, once they get to the convention. If this year's bunch of SDs chooses to go against that, guaranteed there will be hell to pay. Like it or not, that would be an extremely divisive choice for the SDs to make, and it would tear the party apart IMO. Let's hope they choose wisely. Of course, if Hillary arrives with the majority of pledged delegates, I would not want to see Sanders winning due to superdelegates either -- although that is not only unlikely but preposterously unlikely. Still, process is important. Surely you can agree with that? |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #53)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:18 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
80. Have you called on Alan Grayson and the Nevada Super-delegate ...
to make your thoughts known?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:28 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
94. As I have said elsewhere...
...I really don't care who they endorse up until the convention. Given that we have superdelegates, they will endorse whoever they please, up until that time. Once a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, then I expect them to fall in line as they always have before and vote for that candidate. That includes the likely scenario where Hillary is the one who has the most pledged delegates -- at that point I do expect Alan Grayson and all the others to do the right thing and vote for Hillary.
I'm torn on whether we should have superdelegates or not. On the one hand, it is a way for the party establishment to put their thumb on the scale. It has allowed the MSM to skew the primary narrative by quietly including them in delegate totals. Only recently have they started being a bit more honest about pledged vs. unpledged delegates. On the other hand, I see what is happening in the Republican party, where Trump is almost certain to win the primary. It does seem prudent for a party to have some way of preventing an extremist demagogue from becoming that party's nominee. But then one has to ask, if the party's voters really have expressed a preference for an extremist demagogue, WTH is wrong with the party in the first place? In the case of the Republican party, we know it has encouraged this sort of divisive, nasty discourse for many years, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Let's hope that whoever we nominate wins! |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #94)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:35 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
100. Oh ... Okay. I must have miss re-read your post(s).
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:08 PM
JPnoodleman (454 posts)
73. Praise the glorious revolutionary DNC for ignoring stupid wrong voters... /s
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to bravenak (Reply #74)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:13 PM
JPnoodleman (454 posts)
76. Party can ignore sanders voters as they wish, they aren't entitled to our votes.
*shrug* If the message is my vote doesn't count, I will read that loud and clear.
|
Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #76)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:18 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
82. I think people need to learn how this works.
Response to bravenak (Reply #82)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:20 PM
JPnoodleman (454 posts)
86. How what works? Does the DNC or Hillary have some sacred divine right?
If you don't want to listen to people NOT praising the anointed one, maybe you should stop worrying what we think?
Seriously? Why do you give a shit about people whose opinion you consider worthless? |
Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #86)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:21 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
87. I do not care what most people here think
You can respond to my ops or not.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #82)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:42 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
102. Who made you the ultimate authority on these things?
![]() |
Response to Punkingal (Reply #102)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:43 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
105. What has my thinking things have to do with being the 'authority'?
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:13 PM
ThePhilosopher04 (1,732 posts)
77. They don't have to listen to anybody, but constituents of a given state or district ...
have the right to hold those SDs accountable if they vote against their wishes. And they should be held accountable.
|
Response to ThePhilosopher04 (Reply #77)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:15 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
78. They can try
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:18 PM
PufPuf23 (7,166 posts)
81. DU does not have to listen to Bravenak.
Superdelegates should represent the will and best interests of their constituents over and above maintaining their own privilege and power.
If not, they have a problem in character. |
Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #81)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:18 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
83. That is nowhere in the rules
Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #81)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 08:04 PM
mythology (9,527 posts)
163. The will of the people and the best interests of the people are not always easy to define
For example even in the deep red states, raising the minimum wage polls well and thus can be seen as the will of the people, who then vote for Republican candidates who run against raising the minimum wage, thus indicating that the people don't really care about the issue. Likewise, Congress as a whole has an abysmal approval rating, but everybody gets reelected.
And who defines what is in somebody's best interest? Can the super delegates decide it's in the people's best interest to vote for a particular candidate? |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:19 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
84. Is this attitude what brought you to Clinton, or the reverse?
Have you always been drawn to establishment, plutocratic governance, or did you abandon your previously held belief that democracy was generally a pretty good idea because it was incompatible with support for Clinton?
|
Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #84)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:22 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
88. Very personal
Response to bravenak (Reply #88)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:26 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
92. I'm genuinely curious.
I've always thought that autocracy was incompatible with being a democrat. Either that wasn't true, or something about Clinton is so compelling that it inspires people to abandon their beliefs.
|
Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #92)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:28 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
95. No. I just see how messy the whole thing is now.
Response to bravenak (Reply #95)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:29 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
96. Democracy is supposed to be messy. n/t
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:20 PM
Autumn (39,885 posts)
85. No they don't have to listen. I'm sure if they don't the voters will be happy to remind them.
Such desperation.
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:26 PM
Politicalboi (15,189 posts)
93. Bet most of Hillary's have been paid in some way
But if they ignore Bernie and he is the rightful winner in the end, they will be the ones to blame when she loses.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:40 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
101. Weird how some people still think the USA is a democracy.
Some myths are difficult to extinguish.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:49 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
106. I've tried to explain this over and over
The prevailing false talking point is that the SD vote the way of the majority of voters/poll participants. the primaries are so much more of a poll than an election.
One moe time: the SuperDelegates represent their own desires and reflect the desires of the DNC not necessarilymthe people casting a ballot. It very nice and much less messy when they align however. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #106)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:59 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
110. Thank you!!!!
Nobody cares. They will not listen.
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:59 PM
AZ Progressive (3,411 posts)
109. Reince Priebus approves of this thread
The best thing for the Democratic Party to Republicans is to appear to be the undemocratic party.
|
Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #109)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:35 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
157. Yeah no shit lol
We even have that kind of dynamic here in WA state.
Few years ago, WA voters passed a binding voter initiative to go to primary elections. The state Repubican party honored the vote and went to the primary, while the state Democratic party establishment sued for the right to go back to caucuses, and won. So now we have to listen to state-level Rs bloviate about how the Rs are more democratic than Democrats, and thanks to the idiocy and self-serving impulses of the Democratic party apparatus, they almost have a point. Blech. ![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:07 PM
MFM008 (18,795 posts)
111. Super delegates no different from elected delegates
My sons girlfriend volunteered to run for delegate out of 8 for Hillary Clinton and many people probably keep this pledge in mind They don't want to blow it off because someone elses supporters want them to. Our group elected 3 delegates and 2 alternates, people expect them to represent our votes. No its not the VOTERS in general, but 70 some people showed up for our district for both sides yesterday, the only people howling about delegate distribution were Sanders people even when 4 HRC voters were turned away for not making the 11AM cut off. If their votes would have been counted she would have won the district. She lost the 28th by 2. Can you >>> I M A G I N E<<< the screeching if those had been Sanders voters?? |
Response to MFM008 (Reply #111)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:16 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
112. I can imagine it
I watched them act the same way yesterday and try to get some of H's voters struck from the count after it had been certified.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:18 PM
blueintelligentsia (507 posts)
114. Is only you were born as Rubert Murdoch...n/t
Response to blueintelligentsia (Reply #114)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:20 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
116. I am too cute
Response to bravenak (Reply #116)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:22 PM
blueintelligentsia (507 posts)
136. Very cute...
![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:19 PM
NorthCarolina (11,197 posts)
115. Because, if they thwart the will of the voters, Democracy fails.
eom
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:38 PM
AzDar (14,023 posts)
121. How democratic!
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:52 PM
bkkyosemite (5,792 posts)
127. The vote should not be theirs! It should ONLY the peoples vote!
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:59 PM
liberalmuse (18,215 posts)
128. We need to do away with Superdelegates.
It's obvious most of your "representatives" are woefully out of touch and could care less about the will of the people, unless they're corporate lobbyists. Let the people pick their candidate, not these establishment dinosaurs.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:03 PM
George II (60,004 posts)
130. Here's my take on the superdelegates. As you rightly point out, they ARE the establishment....
...of the Democratic Party.
With Sanders berating and fighting THEIR party for decades, and essentially pointing out in each and every stump speech and rally that "the establishment is bad", I can't see many, if any, who have come out in support of Hillary Clinton changing at any time to support the candidate who has been insulting them since his campaign started. As the old saying goes, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", and Sanders has gone through gallons of vinegar while is supply of honey is still in his cupboard unopened. |
Response to George II (Reply #130)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:06 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
132. I agree with that.
And this method I see recently to get them in his side is not any better than what he has already been doing.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #132)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:11 PM
George II (60,004 posts)
134. It will only make matters worse with respect to superdelegates supporting him. Frankly....
....I'm happy to see that behavior. It means more delegates for Hillary Clinton.
|
Response to George II (Reply #134)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:15 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
135. It does help her out alot
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:16 PM
jfern (5,204 posts)
146. Half of superdelegates are white males.
So you're in favor of giving disproportionate power to white males?
|
Response to jfern (Reply #146)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:17 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
147. I did not do that. AMERICA did. Thank the nation for creating that by not allowing the rest of us to
Vote until recent history.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #147)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:20 PM
jfern (5,204 posts)
148. But you are defending superdelegates, which are half white males
Meanwhile, Bernie got 70% of the vote in Hawaii, which is about 11% white males.
|
Response to jfern (Reply #148)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:25 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
151. I'm interested in affirmative action
Response to bravenak (Reply #151)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:33 PM
jfern (5,204 posts)
154. So there aren't enough white males in the Democratic party so, they needed half the superdelegates?
Response to jfern (Reply #154)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:34 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
156. Unintelligible
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:24 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
149. That's how Republicans win elections
The Democratic establishment ignoring the will of we the people
|
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #149)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:25 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
150. We the other people like them
Response to bravenak (Reply #150)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:28 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
152. Divide and fail
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:31 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
153. I'm waiting until after June 7th before I start contacting local elected superdelegates
I've been on record before as saying that if Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, and supers give it to Hillary anyway, the party will have a 1968 problem on its hands.
It'd be hypocritical of me to demand that my local elected supers switch to Bernie at this point in time, before the full pledged delegate results are in. So I'll wait for CA, and the other states that vote that day, to have their say before I revisit these arguments. I did find the petulant demands from Hillary supporters that Bernie drop out during his best week of the primaries thus far amusing, can we please all get a chance to vote first! ![]() |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #153)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:33 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
155. That is a good idea.
We can just wait until somebody hits 2383
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #155)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:39 PM
strategery blunder (4,225 posts)
158. 2383 is majority of pledged+supers
This discussion really only becomes an issue if the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates doesn't get to 2383 on the pledged delegates alone, which has been my biggest fear this whole primary.
I've always dreaded what would happen if Bernie won the pledged delegates, but supers gave it to Hillary, but now with other Bernie supporters trying to flip the supers early, I must now consider what happens if the shoe is on the other foot. |
Response to strategery blunder (Reply #158)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:42 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
160. I am doing it this way because the contest is officially over at that point
Any supers still there at 2383 are not switching. But with all the closed primaries coming up, I am feeling confident that that day will come early.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:40 PM
Cha (268,477 posts)
159. Super Dels want the nominee who is going to be the best candidate in the GE and the best
President.. those who are pledged to Hillary know her and know she will be the best.
Mahalo, brave~ |
Response to Cha (Reply #159)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:43 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
161. Yep. They usually form relationships
They do not deal well with demands. They are there to help us win against reoublicans. Not many here seem to get that.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:39 AM
Gothmog (91,267 posts)
165. Sanders will not be successful in appealing to super delegates
I do not see Sanders being able to flip many super delegates.
|
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:32 PM
CoffeeCat (24,411 posts)
177. Super delegates are elites and party power brokers. The vast majority are the 1 percent...
...which is why Superdelegates suck and should be banned from our party.
The PEOPLE should decide the vote, not a bunch of party mucky mucks. I mean, Jesus--can the Democrats at least have their elections be as fair as the Republicans?!? Pretty sad, that this is where we are. |
Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #177)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:35 PM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
178. This is where we have been for a long time
I think you know that better than I.
|
Response to bravenak (Reply #178)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:48 PM
CoffeeCat (24,411 posts)
179. Yes, and maybe this election will help us screw our heads on straight.
Super delegates are a stupid idea.
Nothing we can do about it this cycle, but maybe we can all use common sense and become as fair minded as the Republicans. |
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:49 PM
Dem2 (8,067 posts)
180. Thus the "super"
I prefer "badass" myself.
|