2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEastern Washington superdelegate throws her support behind Clinton
SPOKANE, Wash. - Now that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee, Washington State superdelegates are beginning to throw their support behind her.
Eastern Washington's only superdelegate, Valerie Brady Rongey, announced Sunday she is endorsing Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
"Regardless of caucus or primary results, we know that Washington State will be well represented and well respected by a President Hillary Clinton," she said in a statement.
Rongey is the Vice Chair for the Spokane County DNC. She had refrained from making her endorsement until the State Party processes were completed.
"But I have been working passionately for the Hillary Clinton campaign at a very Grassroots level in Eastern Washington," Rongey said.
Rongey said she looks forward to working with the entire Washington State delegation in Philadelphia at the Democratic National Convention July 25-28.
http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/eastern-washington-superdelegate-throws-her-support-behind-clinton/40127556
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)It's over.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)MFM008
(19,808 posts)Spleen on super delegate Web site's
Now people just hate them because they're Democrats and that's the norm.
At least from Eastern Washington.
George Eliot
(701 posts)she may have worked for Hillary but she waited for the people to decide. I think that's what they all should have done.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)She decided to override the opinions of the people after they had decided.
It seems to me like she is undermining the democratic base in hr area. In effect she is abandoning them.
If the process is already decided, why didn't she wait until after the first ballot at the convention? She would satisfy any obligation she might have toward her neighbors and Hillary would still be the nominee.
Don't you see that her actions reinforce the establishment accusation?
Probably not.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)But since no pledged delegates are attached to the Washington primary, we're supposed to pretend it doesn't reflect the beliefs of the people who voted in it?
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Washington is a caucus state.
No matter how much you stamp your foot and say it ain't fair.
That woman was most likely at the caucus in her area. She probably set it up. And couldn't convince the people face to face.
I know, we'll do a do over and pretend it was binding.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Who are you to say that the 800,000 people who voted in that primary "don't count" just because there were no pledged delegates attached to their vote?
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Psychological projection is a real thing.
I really enjoy the change of words in these comments. Nobody said the people didn't count.
The statement was that the process didn't count.
I'm really enjoying these last few hours.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)I think the DNC would be better served by working to change the red areas of Washington blue.
Swinging a superdelegate, the vice chair of the very party whose duty it is to do that in her area, seems like a waste of an effort. Maybe she ought to be replaced with someone who might do better job. Perhaps someone who is more likely to represent the views of her people. Maybe she has different goals.
Some of those blue areas on these maps are very precarious. You might note the changes in the maps.
2012:
2008:
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)It is local and state parties that have the main responsibility. It appears that none of the congressional districts held by a Republican has a chance to go Democratic. Republicans won their districts by least a 60-40 margin. The 4th district looks totally futile as the top two primary winners were Republican. That is likely because it is a larger area that does not have much density.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)How can she generate party loyalty when the face of the party in that area abandons their choice and goes with the national?
You don't think anyone notices that?
She didn't have to do a dam thing. Nothing. Let the first vote happen and sit it out. Then go Hillary.
And people wonder why independents think both parties stink?
I sure don't.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)The only ones that might pay that much attention to her would be Spokane Democrats. You probably didn't even know the DNC members for your state before this. And you won't be able to have a vote on the matter when there are new elections for those positions. The remaining unpledged delegates that haven't decided likely will go for Clinton too. The same is likely in Indiana.
She is demonstrating party loyalty. Not the way you want it. And it won't be the way you want as the rules state that she gets to decide who to support. When they had a primary held later the voters voted Clinton over Sanders. Which was more representative of the will of the people than a caucus.
Those independents didn't have the conviction to identify as Democrat let alone Republican. If they really thought both parties stink they wouldn't ever vote. People would be wrong to think that an organization will or should represent everything they believe in. It doesn't happen. Even small groups don't agree on everything.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)I worry that you might injure yourself.
BTW, the Spokane democrats are exactly the ones who would notice this. Which is the point.
She is demonstrating loyalty to a person who was NOT selected by said democrats.
(added) One of her duties in the party is to attract new democrats. Convince independents to join the party.
Nice example. I screwed over those other folks but I'm behind (what?) all the way.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Heaven forbid someone should question the nobility.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)This woman is their organizer.