Super delegates have worked for the Dems in the past. Why all of a sudden the move to get rid

[glennward]

of them? I don't believe Bernie will be running for another election and what comes out of crowd could be another Trump-like figure on the left. They are a safety valve and if needed to protect the party i believe they would do the right thing taking into consideration ALL factors.

I think they need to be Democrats through at least two previous primaries if eligible to vote and had voted AND they should have been citizens of the US for at least 20 years.

[creon]

1. One can adjust

One can adjust the number of SDs and who is an SD; but they are to prevent a Trump like figure from getting the nomination. It is a safety valve of 'cooler heads'. SDs have never had a practical effect; we are fortunate that emergency has never arisen.

[still_one]

8. That is exactly what it is. Historically, the SD have always thrown support behind the candidate

who wins the most pledged delegates, and that won't change. That is what happened in 2008 between Clinton and Obama.

Another important function, whether intentional or not, is if the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is slightly short of the required delegates for the nomination, the SD step in, and it reduces the risk of a contested convention, and the chaos that would result

[merrily]

22. In this primary, several super delegates said they would not do that. Moreover, even if they

always go with the results of the vote, why have them?

Please see also Reply 29;

[Hortensis]

66. Several out of hundreds, and they didn't

actually have to come through.

One reason to have them is that Trump might have tried to run as a Democrat appealing to populist anti-establishment anger on the left. He wouldn't have done nearly as well with us, of course, but he might have knocked Bernie out or ended up dividing the delegate count so that the nomination went to the convention. In that case, we might conceivably have needed the superdelegates to protect the Democratic Party from offering a tRump to the nation for president.

The question is if, for instance, a far-left extremist candidate believed to be an electoral disaster in the making came to the convention with a majority of delegates, would the superdelegates use their power, and how bad would the situation have to be for the party, including down-ticket candidates, before they did? We don't know and the principle and practice are both against oversetting the popular vote.

Regarding the OP, I have no idea if it's a significant factor among others, or a nonfactor, but apparently the Democratic Black Caucus feels superdelegates help make up somewhat for under-representation elsewhere. (Oh, and I was happy to learn they are against open primaries because they would hurt minority Democrats.)

[merrily]

119. And hundreds didn't declare their intentions, so who knows what they would have done?

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth--they always go with the voters, but, if they don't, that's good too.

I don't see anything except "I'll defend whatever the party says I should want, even if I have to contradict myself to do so."

If the party decides to do away with them, will you protest that?

Why anyone wants their vote to count less than a lobbyist's or a Koch's in the little bit of democracy this country offers is beyond me.

[Hortensis]

139. Humility, Merrily. Lobbyists know best.

[merrily]

145. Heck, I'm so humble, I don't even capitalize my screen name.

Fsck lobbyists nominating the Democratic candidate for President, though.

[still_one]

68. A very few does occur now and then. A very few has also occurred with pledged delegates, but it has

never been a factor.

One positive aspect of SD is that if the person with the most pledged delegates is slightly short, the SD reduce the possibility of a contested election, and the potential chaos that could result.

[merrily]

118. History tells us that candidates chosen by party "leaders" don't do well in the general.

Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey

And again, if your only defense of the institution is that it never makes a difference, why have them at all?

And again, including the money people as SDs reeks.

Democracy vs. plutocracy and you guys are saying, "I'll take plutocracy, please." smh

Please see also Reply 119.

[still_one]

122. Super Delegates were introduced in 1984. The Humphrey Stevenson examples don't apply

The SD purpose was to facilitate an orderly process, and avert a crisis at the Convention.

[merrily]

129. Of course they apply. The principle is identical: chosen by party bigwigs, not primary voters.

Although, at least lobbyists were not involved then.

Point is, party bigwigs overrode the primary results--and that, btw, was the reason the institution of super delegates was created.


I never claimed super delegates chose Stevenson or Humphrey, nor would I have done that. I am quite aware of when super delegates were created-. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2210910


What crisis at a convention? That pledged delegates chosen by the parties in the states might, under some very rare circumstance, have to choose a nominee, instead of letting lobbyists and the likes of DWS chose? I don't consider the former a crisis. The latter I consider crap. Besides, even in the case of inability to choose a candidate, the party leaders are still free to make their case to the pledged delegates.

[still_one]

136. If enough Democrats feel that way, then the rules will change. The percentage of SD has

been decreasing, so things do change. For example, the primary winner take all was changed to a proportional allocation of delegates.

Contested Conventions have a lot of unknowns, and SD reduce the probability of that happening.

[merrily]

138. To my delight, several state conventions have voted against having super delegates.

I hope more will follow suit. We are more than enough of a plutocracy as it is.

[floriduck]

205. I think the definition of a super delegate should exclude non elected officials, especially lobbyist

Just my opinion, since their purpose is to help choose an elected or elected-to-be official.

[still_one]

206. I personally have no issue with that. Those are issues that will be brought up and debated by

Democrats I am sure

[uponit7771]

20. +1

[merrily]

41. I see no reason lobbyists should have more of a say than those who participate in the primary proces

It's bad enough lobbyists have more of a say in my government than I do.

Besides, aside from Trump, when was the other time Democrats--or even Republicans--nominated "a Trump like figure?"

Democracy is messy sometimes, but it still beats the heck out of anything else.

[Hortensis]

67. I agree. But we could always limit superdelegates

to elected officials who have been voted in by their constituents, so that this duty would simply be one among all the others they are elected for.

It used to be that many who work very hard for the party and are extremely knowledgeable and valuable were completely shut out of the convention, while amateurs flooded in. And so they were made eligible to be superdelegates. However, no matter how much they contribute, I agree that no one is entitled to more than the one vote all citizens should have.

[Chan790]

152. "work very hard for the party and are extremely knowledgeable and valuable were completely shut out"

That is, essentially, the will of the people. The candidates get to choose who the delegates are that represent them at the convention. Absent SDs, there is no role for those people who no candidate wants to represent them at the convention as a voting delegate. It's the way it should be...have you considered that for some of us shutting those people out is essentially a major benefit of this change?

There are a lot of truly-wrong-headed people in my home-state that have worked very hard and are extremely-knowledgeable about how to run the Democratic party into the ground (They were the same people coincidentally who publicly threatened to "destroy" anybody that had the nerve to primary our wildly-unpopular Democratic governor...he's less popular now. Dann Malloy only won reelection because the GOP nominee (Tom Foley) is every bit the fascist Trump dreams of being. We're going to almost-certainly lose the governorship of CT no matter who the GOP nominates in 2018 because of them.)...a not-minor motivating factor of my support for Sanders was forcibly ending the careers of some of them. I don't want them as delegates to the DNC and I certainly don't want them remaining delegates after I voted against the candidate they endorsed.

Good riddance to anti-Democratic convention practices and good riddance to rubbish party leaders. The real purpose of superdelegates is not anything mentioned thus far...it's to subvert any movement or effort to reform or move the party away from the interests of the establishment. They exist to prevent the electorate from throwing them and the candidates they support out on their asses.

No superdelegates ever again. "No Gods! No Masters!" Our party as an electorate, our party alone!

[Hortensis]

153. One of the reasons we have superdelegates is

Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

to have "No Gods. No Masters." The average voter usually can be easily lead around by the nose by any group that puts enough money into the task. That's just reality.

The biggest danger in democracy is that its voters may vote its destruction, and that starts by voting themselves a master. It's not like it's never happened. It's happened a number of times.

The superdelegate system can be improved. It can be done away with and replaced with something else. But we need some kind of safeguard that might be able to protect against everything from the election of a Trump to a Hitler.

[swhisper1]

70. non should be lobbyists or people working for think tanks, or banks, anyone not serving the public

otherwise, why bother to vote? None should declare their candidate before the convention to avoid influencing the masses. Our party would not let a racist gain any momentum, republicans will, and has.

[Silver_Witch]

102. This Merrily - this and this only!!!

[bonemachine]

56. When you say "never had a practical effect"

do you honestly believe that the perception that Clinton was 400+ delegates ahead before a single vote was even cast did not have effect on how this primary played out?

Because, uh... It did.

[DLCWIdem]

93. I disagree

IMO, although democrats knew that many SD's preferred Clinton at the start, they also knew that they could change if Sanders started winning, like what happened in 2008. Most news stations kept a pledge delegate count and a SD count separating the counts. For ex, 1000pd + 400SD. In addition, even if Bernie supporters knew that SD's might prefer Clinton, that didn't stop them from voting. If he had the numbers, like Obama did, he would have won.

[Garrett78]

95. If anything, it would have helped Sanders in an anti-establishment climate.

But I doubt very many people were influenced one way or the other. People vote for who they support. Simple as that.

[bonemachine]

127. remember

When we talk about what "democrats knew", it's easy to imagine most voters as folks like us. But you and I and everyone here has self selected to participate in politcal discourse on the regular, and figuring that the average voter thinks like the average DUer is a questionable assumption at best.

[Silver_Witch]

103. The effect was Huge!

And although I have much more I would like to say on this subject I elect to remain silent.

[avaistheone1]

126. The republic has been able to survive nicely prior to 1984 without super delegates and

many historians would argue the quality of presidential candidates was much better prior to the injection of the super delegates.

[redgreenandblue]

2. Democracy?

Why have elections in the first place if a small number of insiders can overturn them?

[merrily]

16. +1

[uponit7771]

19. DNC isn't a democracy and super delegates haven't shown to be anti democratic so why the push?

[Silver_Witch]

105. And now the DNC is not a democracy - what path are we taking?

[avaistheone1]

128. ^^^^^THIS

[Exilednight]

149. then we should change our name. why call ourselves the Democratic Party if we're not democratic?

[uponit7771]

171. Cause its a political party and not a government? ... wow, come on people lets no just talk at

... each other for points or somthing

[Exilednight]

172. Names have meaning.

[uponit7771]

173. So there's a plural process that's involved and mob rule isn't allowed... again, a solution looking

... for a problem is usually someone trying to get over.

[Exilednight]

174. There is a problem with the SD format.

It gives an unfair advantage before the first vote is even cast to the person who already has SDs in their pocket.

[uponit7771]

175. Like it did in 08 with the long shot black guy? Come on people, these positions are weak I'd be

... disappointed if the DNC changed anything substanative so a couple of whiners can sooth their egos

[Exilednight]

182. Anyone who actually paid attention knew that Obama was not

A long shot. He had a lot of advantages that the public was not aware of.

[uponit7771]

185. "...Obama was not a long shot..." is the opposite of reality relative the facts in 08. Come on..

... if we have to talk from a point of whether the sky is blue or grass is green then its hard to have conversations.

[Exilednight]

186. Alright, let's look at the facts

1. Obama positioned himself as an outsider, but filled his staff with insiders.

2. David Axelrod who had a long list of achievements within the Democratic political sphere, including Harold Washington of Chicago, Dennis Archer of Detroit, Mayor Williams of D.C., Rham Emanuel, and worked on the 2004 campaign of John Edwards. He also had close ties to the Clintons prior to the 2008 campaign.

3. David Plouffe who was the DCCC's Executive Director where he oversaw Democrats winning back the House, and he also ran the Decal Patrick campaign in 2006 with Axelrod.

4. Pete Rouse who worked for Senator Daschle startin in 1978, and stayed until 2004 when Daschle lost, but Axelrod and Plouffe persuaded the longest serving Senator Chief of Staff to stay and work for Obama.

5. In 2004 Obama delivered the DNC keynote address that was watched by nearly 30 million people live, thus making him a household name.

6. Team Obama understood the power of new media. While Hillary was busy running an AOL dial up campaign, Obama was busy running a high-speed Facebook campaign. They understood the power of collecting email addresses and posting updates on Facebook.

That's just off the top of my head.

[uponit7771]

187. 1. Does NOT change the FACT the he was a long shot AND black relative to HRC political CONNECTIONS..

...
2. see 1,
3. see 1,
4. see 1,
5. Still see 1, many KN speakers don't win against established party machines, if you have proof o the contrary I'd like to see it
6. I'll give a little on this one but his understanding gave him a slight edge not a gating one and tRump is openly stoking racism which works with people who are closeted racist or tolerate racism.

So instead of concentrating on his staff which could have been 100 year Washington insiders OBAMA ... himself... WAS NOT a Washington insider relative to Clinton... even if he had Abe Lincoln as his VP pick DURING the primary he was from the "unknown" relative to Clinton

He DID NOT... have her connections and to this day still doesn't seeing they openly admit they didn't have the friends she did in Washington when they got to the White House (except for Clinton herself).

oh...

AND HE'S BLACK...

There's no progressive that's going to think for a single second that his skin color was LESS of a liability than Clinton's skin color EVEN IN THE DNC.

The left thinks we're as progressive racially as we should be.... WE'RE NOT, we're just as not openly horrible xenophobic as the DNC and openly willing to suppress people.

1. Obama himself did NOT have the level of connections Clinton did, not even close
2. Obama is black, a political liability even in the DNC... not a YUUUUUGE liability but a libility nevertheless

[Exilednight]

188. Ignoring facts doesn't change them.

Obama didn't need the personal political connections since his team did. Landing the former executive director of DCCC was a big plus, especially since Plouffe set campaign raising records. The access to Plouffe's Rolodex of donors was a gigantic advantage.

Rouse was often routes as the 101st Senator due to his inside connections and ability to read the tea leaves. Rouse doesn't get enough credit for what he did and what he knows.

Axelrod was a genius messenger. He kept the message positive and developed the "only in America is my story possible" narrative that turned Obama's skin color into a plus.

Granted, not many KN speakers make a splash, but Obama's KN was the only thing pundits were talking about the next day. It put him on the map. As soon as I saw I knew Kerry lost the election and Obama would win in 2008.

Politics is an inside game.

[uponit7771]

191. "Obama didn't need the personal political connections since his team did"... We disagree here ...

My Counter on point one

1. Clinton HERSELF had the personal connections and THAT was her edge, she did NOT have the connections via proxy... SHE knew the people to directly go to for whatever in Washington HERSELF. She had the relationships... NOT HER crew. Obama not having the connections and relationships IS NOT ... IS NOT a political advantage seeing at best we can agree that he was nearly dependent 100% on other people... Clinton did NOT have this obstacle

2. All the points with "connections" are anecdotal at best, there's NOTHING empirical about them the one thing is empirical is that she had WAY more time and experience with Washington. Who Obama's staff knew vs who she knew can NOT be proven, what can be proven is the number of years relative to WH and Washington people HERSELF.

My Counter on point two " turned Obama's skin color into a plus... "

1. Red Herring, what his skin color was turned INTO isn't the issue, THAT it was a political liability AT ALL is the issue. Your counter point intimates at least a minimal amount of agreement on the fact that it WAS... WAS a political liability in ANY DEGREE seeing it had to be "turned"... whatsoever.

Obama had more obstacles on the way to the white house .... and ... and started out with the SD's against him

[Exilednight]

193. Empirical evidence shows otherwise.

1. Hillary's insider status hurt her. Poll after poll showed the country wanted someone that they viewed as an outsider. Rouse made a decision early on to keep to Obama out of the the Washington elite political circles, but behind the scenes he was quietly cultivating support from those same people. Hillary started out with a strong SD lead, but it was never guaranteed. Rouse convinced SDs to support Obama if he reached certain thresholds in the PD count.

2. There's nothing anecdotal about those connections. These were all seasoned veterans who knew the other players. The one thing Obama benefited from was a crowded Demo article field. If the election started out with only Obama and Hillary as the two choices, Hillary would have won, but everybody knew after the 2004 loss that it was going to be a large field.

After his purple state speech, his skin color was not problem that had to be overcome. Plouffe and Axelrod knew what voters to target. Those that saw race as an issue were automatically knocked off the list. Gen Xers and millennials were their targets along with POC.

One of the more interesting polls I saw was mid 2007 where they polled young people and asked two questions.

1. If Hillary became President do they believe they could become President?

2. If Obama became President do they believe they could become President?

There wasn't a huge gender divide among either candidate, as long as they were white. Obama becoming President made everyone feel like they had a chance.

In contrast, Hillary being President only influenced white girls.

[uponit7771]

194. 1. Red Herring, we're not just talking about insider status we're talking empirically she had more..

... experience in Washington, it's operations and it's people than Obama had making her the better candidate ... based on experience.

Even if Obama had insider staff that doesn't nullify that HE wasn't an insider and SHE was giving the leg up to Clinton EMPIRICALLY speaking.

After his purple state speech, his skin color was not problem that had to be overcome

This statement goes counter to reality on Earth, there's no one seriously racially progressive is going to claim that the obstacle of Obama being black in 08 was nullified by a speech.

Even so, you STILL intimate that it was an obstacle at all!!

That goes to my position "... and he was black..." as an obstacle he had to overcome in 08 primaries.

Regardless, EMPIRICALLY Obama had LESS Washington experience and he was black giving him a longer shot due to more tangible obstacles than Hillary had... and THE PD's against him from the beginning

Obama won despite all of this

[Exilednight]

203. if elections were about resumes, then

Bill Richardson would have won hands down.

Every poll showed that Americans by majority did not want a Washington insider. Her experience was a detriment, not an asset.

His race he used a to his favor. People voted for him just because he was African American, and some people voted against him because of it. Bit they weren't going to vote for the Democratic nominee that year whomever we elected. Obama never viewed his race as a negative, it was projected upon him as being negative.

[uponit7771]

208. 1. Strawman, I didn't narrow her advantage to just experience, 2. Red Herring, we're talking about..

... the dem primary and also another Red Herring in saying people voted for him because he was black. That's a known know but in this context we're talking about MOST PEOPLE not the few did NOT vote for Obama cause he was black.

There's no empirical case that can be made socially IN THE DNC PRIMARY that Obama's skin color was NOT an obstacle for him to over come... that along makes him a longer shot than Clinton.

Add on top of that his middle name was freakin HUSSEIN ... all kinds of cultural aspects for him to overcome.

Obama never viewed his race as a negative, it was projected upon him as being negative.

Not relevant to what society inside the DNC primary projected, Obama's CULTURE was to be overcome in the DNC primary.

[Exilednight]

209. There's plenty of empirical evidence. Polls that asked every kind

Of possible question about race, speaking style (which was another big advantage for Obama), likeability, admiration, etc, etc, etc..

All of these things have been measured and studied, and the outcome was predicted quite early by insiders.

Because you choose to remain ignorant to the facts and actually learn something, nothing I am going to say will change your mind.

I find it tiresome that people who watch C-Span and MSNBC and the host of other political shows believe they have an understanding of how things work inside the beltway. I've worked on Senatorial campaigns where I had access to the campaign manager, I've worked in Senate offices, and the first thing I realized is the disconnect between pols in Washington and people in their he states on how things get done.

[uponit7771]

210. Link and quote any of it saying of the aspects you just outlined from black me in the DNC is viewed

... positively.

Again, you're going to continue making a non reality argument about Obama's color and culture NOT... NOT being an obstacle in 08 is not close to reality..

It was

I find it tiresome when people say the opposite of reality that blank men generally in America are viewed positively and that his skin color isn't something to overcome in the DEM primary.

It was never an advantage... NEVER ... you even indicate that your self that a speech helped him in some way with that aspect... his skin color doesn't need help if it wasn't a henderance

[Exilednight]

211. As I stated above, educate yourself.

I'm not doing it for you. You have tons of info at your disposal via the internet.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

192. One Advantage

is that he was actually a established member of the Democratic Party, which probably put him in a better position than Sanders this year. OTOH as I recall, Hillary was very clearly favored to win at the outset in 2008, though her fortunes reversed as the primaries began and SDs gradually shifted over to Obama as he racked up primary wins. It was still a pretty tight primary fight all the way to the end and Hillary didn't lose to Obama by as significant an amount as Bernie did to her this year. I disagree with your assertion that Obama wasn't a long shot in 2008 as he had only been a US Senator for 4 years, was not widely known outside of Illinois, and questions were frequently raised about his relative youth and inexperience (all of which have, of course, since been put to rest). Not to mention the fact that his middle name happened to be same as the last name of the Iraqi dictator we removed from power just in 2003. He wasn't a shoo-in by any means IMHO but he certainly rose to the occasion.

[uponit7771]

195. +1, "his middle name happened to be same as the last name of the Iraqi dictator we removed"

I don't know why the attempts by multiple posters to minimize what Obama had accomplished beating Hillary in 08.

[HereSince1628]

3. That argument seems hollow to me...what I want to know is why African Americans

want to keep superdelegates.

I think there is an argument there that I'd like to have a chance to understand.

[justiceischeap]

10. From what I understood from the recent article

is that Super Delegates give them some sort of power within the nominating process that they previously didn't (or couldn't) have. I would think the "evil" Super D's probably hold some say in what becomes part of the Democratic Party platform. If that is true, then, if I were them, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep the Super D's too.

[merrily]

21. Whether they would fight to keep their special status is a different issue from whether they should

have special powers in the first instance.

[uponit7771]

23. PoC don't want SDs to keep "special status" that's another bullshit ass'd meme to disparage ...

... peoples intentions.

The reason was spelled out clearly, to be represented and not have to run against redistricts than can instantly become mostly non poc and poc not being represented in the SD count.

Whatever, some here seem to be hell bent on being intolerant of diversity in the power structure in the DNC... fuck em

[merrily]

29. I did not say POC want them and my post had nothing to do with that.

I don't know what this part of your post means:

The reason was spelled out clearly, to be represented and not have to run against redistricts than can instantly become mostly non poc and poc not being represented in the SD count.

However, I can tell you which reason was actually given when super delegates were first proposed, after the 1972 election and again when they were actually created, after the 1984 election. That reason was to alter the results of a primary if they felt the voters had made a bad choice.

[uponit7771]

32. PoC were part of the subject of the post you were responding to and you said "they" meaning the

... subject, spell it out next time please to avoid the confusion.

Either way, this has been talked about up and down and some folk are either trying to play dumb or have poor listening skills.

That reason was to alter the results of a primary if they felt the voters had made a bad choice.

Which after tRump and the RNC I whole heartedly agree with seeing some states have open primaries and rat fucking can ensue.

There was NO complaints of SDs in the beginning of this primary season and they're NOT playing a factor now....

again... like winger "voter fraud" this is a solution looking for a problem... and that's when folk bullshit detectors go to 10

[merrily]

35. No, I replied to post 10, made no mention of people of color and "they" referred to super delegates.

If you looked at post 10 and then my reply 21 to post 10, what I meant was very clear. In fact, even if you read my reply 21, it was clear "they" did not refer to people of color. I did not need to spell out anything. You, however, needed to follow the subthread and read my Reply 21 for menaing.. Also very clear: post 3, which I did not make was the post that mentioned people of color, yet you replied to me about that topic.

There was NO complaints of SDs in the beginning of this primary season

Untrue. I, for one, have for years objected to the existence of super delegates, including throughout this primary season. I object because the institution is undemocratic, regardless of whether they are voting for or against my preferred candidate. And, when I found out lobbyists and other big donors get to be super delegates, I objected even more.

[uponit7771]

42. Again, the post you responded to DID mention PoC in reference to SD.... EITHER WAY....

I just though of this line FOR SD's

John Edwards... full stop

[merrily]

43. Again, my Reply 21 clearly had nothing to do with people of color, but Post #3 did.

If you wanted to discuss people of color, Post 3 was clearly the one to which you should have replied about that subject, not mine.

[uponit7771]

49. ok... ok.. what about John Edwards... if there were no SD's and Edwards would have enough PD's to

... win who would step in to take him out of centention?

no one... it would involve messy rules changes which what the RNC might have to go through if they decide not keep Trump

what do you think?

tia

[DisgustipatedinCA]

120. "Fuck em"? You made clear that you're talking about DU members. Which ones?

The poster you're responding to, or someone else? I had thought the personal attacks were over. We'll see how the new rules work out.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. If the purpose of keeping the Super D's is to allow greater minority coalition imput

into the platform, then perhaps it should be structured that way more implicitly. I'm all for that. We need that and it should be continued and even expanded because we have no Democratic party without strong, robust, and meaningful diversity.

I would actually prefer to eliminate the Supers as electors mostly because I would like to see the whining and bitching and crying about them every 4 to 8 years stop.

As for the "Trump" argument - even so-called bound delegates have the option of changing their vote and becoming "faithless" delegates. First of all I have faith in Democrats and Democratic voters. I foresee no instance where we would be in danger of electing a nominee who would truly be a threat to our country, such as Trump. To my mind, there is no other ethical argument for overturning the will of the voters. The nominee would have to present a grave and obvious threat to the country. It can't simply be about "winning." If we did elect such a person, I have faith our electors at the convention would have at least as much, if not more wisdom than the party officials that make up the Super Delegate system now.

[uponit7771]

33. The SD "issue" is a solution looking for a problem, there's been no issues with the SDs so far and

... they've not played a factor in this election either.

It's like winger voter fraud crap

[bonemachine]

55. Do you honestly believe

that the perception that Clinton was 400+ delegates ahead before a single vote was even cast did not have effect on how this primary played out?

Because, uh... It did.

[uponit7771]

58. Nope, not at all to those who pay even half ass'd attention to the 08 election or even think about..

... the rules.

If they don't that's their fault, there's a good reason to have them ...

Now, one rule change could be to not have them weigh until later in the process...

Maybe that...

But to take them out doesn't sound like its in the best interest of the DNC process

[bonemachine]

61. Let's be honest here

Your qualification that that perception didn't effect "those who pay even half ass'd attention to the 08 election or even think about... the rules" leaves out a pretty significant portion of the electorate and, by definition, the people who would, in fact, have their choices swayed by the perception that Hillary was a done deal.

[DLCWIdem]

97. Are you telling me that people did not vote because they believed that Clinton already won

Because even though she was declared winner by AP people still went out to vote for Sanders in CA. Do you know anyone who didn't vote because it was a done deal. Or have any stats on people who didn't vote because Clinton already " had it in the bag".

[bonemachine]

125. yes

I would venture that the effect was twofold. Early in the race before Michigan, Clinton was seen as a done deal and folks who perhaps viewed them both positively were swayed toward Clinton as the ineveitable choice. Later in the race, the image of inevitability served to discourage Sanders supporters who saw the writing on the wall and chose not to stand in line for hours to vote or caucus for a lost cause.

[avaistheone1]

130. I agree.

People get really turned off by this activity. When a super delegate can overrule the will of thousand of voters it clearly is dis-empowering to say the least.

[DLCWIdem]

163. it didn't seem to lessen the ferver in CA have you heard of many stories where

A Bernie supporter was discouraged from voting because he was losing

[bonemachine]

167. unfortunately

It's very difficult to count folks who don't vote

[Maru Kitteh]

72. You're right. No election has ever been carried by SuperD's against the will of the people

I guess I'm just hoping for a solution where losing campaigns can't flog Super-D's around and use them as a lame excuse for losing every 4-8 years and then, more importantly, use them to divide the party, create confusion or uncertainty.

With large states that Hillary won like California joining the call for change, I believe change to the Super-D system is coming. I would like to see that done in a way that maximizes the power of minority/diversity coalitions while eliminating the kind of electoral grey zone they create between Democratic voters and the nomination. As I said before, I trust Democrats and Democratic voters.

Along those lines, I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change whereby states with closed primaries are rewarded with a higher proportion of delegates than those with open primaries or caucuses. Caucuses honestly, should just go away. This would help to protect minority representation, nationwide, from the bottom up rather than the top down. I think it's important that we make sure that change is done in a way that preserves the strength of our diversity, and anything we do from the bottom up will ultimately be stronger.

[pnwmom]

53. This is the first election where I've seen a big fuss about super delegates. n/t

[karynnj]

82. Actually, I think that 2008 was

After Clinton did less well than anticipated on SuperTuesday, it was floated that the superdelegates could tip the nomination to the loser if they thought she was more qualified and had won the "popular vote" -- something that does not really exist in the primaries.

Then for this year, the one speaking superdelegates FIRST was the Clinton team who immediately had a huge number of superdelegates who endorsed her -- who the media counted as HRC delegates.

I don't think I even heard the word in the 1992, 2000 or 2004 campaigns. (It actually was an issue in 1985 - where it was thought if Hart pulled ahead -- they would back Mondale disproportionately.)

[pnwmom]

84. It was "floated." And that was the end of that. This is the first year

lots of people have been strongly objecting to the very existence of super delegates.

And it is pretty hypocritical because many of the same people aren't complaining about caucuses at all.

[karynnj]

85. It was spoken of from February thru June

In fact, it was a more credible threat that year.

This year, what was weird is that the Clinton people used it from the beginning even though she polled at 60 to even 70 percent against no strong opposition. Even here in Burlington VT, no one thought Bernie would get much above 5%. There was, in fact, little chance that HRC would not win the majority of the pledged delegates. It was a shock that he ended up with about 1,900.

Where in 2008, seemed credible that the party would favor HRC over Obama -- it never seemed likely that Democratic party officials and other super delegates would give the nomination to Sanders if Clinton had the majority of pledged delegates - barring some incredibly unlikely catastrophe.

[pnwmom]

89. Who was arguing then that the system of super delegates should be ended?

That's what's happening now.

[karynnj]

90. I agree there was not the same discussion - mostly because very quickly many people made it clear

that the winner of the popular vote would be the nominee. Nancy Pelosi led in withholding any endorsement - saying she would go with the national popular vote winner. Many joined her. In addition, the endorsements were not far from 50/50. With the Pelosi group as large as it became - even if those who endorsed stayed with their candidate (and prominent Obama ones including Kerry and Kennedy said that the superdelegates would not give the race to the loser.) - it was clear that the superdelegates would not put their thumb on the scale.

The reason it is happening now this year is that - for some reason - Clinton/media added her huge number of superdelegates. Imagine Sanders had been more viable and the numbers looked more like Clinton/Obama and there was a chance he could pull ahead at the end. Imagine too that the super delegates stay disproportionately with Clinton. Imagine he ended up with say 50 more pledged delegates than she did -- but she had 200 more superdelegates. Under the current rules -- she becomes the nominee.

That scenario - in the future (it did not happen this year) is the reason it is still spoken of.

(There also was the absolutely idiotic (in my opinion) idea that the superdelegates could swing the race to Sanders -- which was rather weird.)

[Silver_Witch]

106. Guess it shouldn't have been floated in 08...

Odd how things can come back to bite one. We got a taste of the danger in 08 and now this year we can see how dangerous Super Delegates really are. Had they not declared their loyalty to one candidate before the primaries had even begun - perhaps the conversation would not be going on now. But they did vouch their vote for the candidate and did influence the race.

How many times did the Hillary supporters repeat they had the super delegates declarations before primaries were even voted in?

Super Delegates are not sound democratic principle. The people are the one who vote and they have that right and need that right and should never be "out voted" by people who are privileged.

[xmas74]

207. They never complain about caucuses.

A friend living in Iowa would have loved to participate in the caucus, except she's a single mom working two jobs. She said she missed Missouri in that respect. At least during a primary she could go to the polls and vote and had to be allowed time to do so. She asked off for the caucus and was informed that she couldn't have it but time would be allowed during the GE.

She loves living in Iowa but feels it's unfair that a longtime Democrat couldn't participate in the process while the young and retirees (those who had more flexible schedules ) could. She felt totally shut out of the process.

[HereSince1628]

31. I'm sure it's something to do with representaiton but I'd be surprised

if it was about something as toothless as the party platform for an election cycle

At conventions, more than the platform is dealt with, and people who need delegate support are willing to trade to get it.

I really don't know what the specifics of that might be or what in the past has led to a commitment to the system

[glennward]

27. Ask President Obama. nt

[DLCWIdem]

96. check the thread about CBC sending letter to Sanders in GDP

I can't find the tread but there is a very detailed explanation, without snark, in that thread. Something about making sure AA who are traditionally underrepresented are able to be represented because they live in areas like the South GOP strongholds. Kind of like there are not many democratic representatives in Southern states. Please see the thread for a fully developed explanation. Unfortunately i forgot to bookmark it.

[DLCWIdem]

98. This post was supposed to be in response to.post 3

[djean111]

4. Well, then - why have primaries at all?

Just have the super delegates decide!
Makes the whole primary thing seem like a big waste of money, if the outcome is changeable at will.

[uponit7771]

25. That's been spelled out ad nausea already, to prevent the Trumps... period

[Silver_Witch]

107. Democrats would never have a Trump...

Unless you are implying Hillary is Trump like or could be or that we need to protect ourselves from the likes of that?

[uponit7771]

112. False, John Edwards... if he had won PDs and had not been to convention SDs would have to step in

[DLCWIdem]

180. About 20 years ago

A friend of mine was taking a class on hate groups and he was telling me that one of the bigwigs in the Socialist party was also a bigwig in the KKK. So you see I believe it is possible for a Trump like person to be a democrat.

[Silver_Witch]

189. Antidotal evidence sorry!

Someone once said does not mean we need a safeguard from the members of the party! I know there might be a chance someday of something happening - it is okay though to just sit with it and like it right itself!!

[DLCWIdem]

190. I was just responding to the statement that it could never happen

[Kentonio]

197. Prevent how?

If the Democratic party ever vote in a Trump, it will be because millions of Democrats voted for him in the primaries. If that actually happens, then who on earth are the SDs to override the will of the voting public and tell them they can't have who they voted for? It's utterly undemocratic, and if it ever happened would result in a Republican landslide anyway.

[uponit7771]

201. By overriding the PD vote which is exactly what the RNC PDs are going to pull at the convention

[Kentonio]

204. Overriding the PD vote would immediately hand the election to the Republicans anyway.

So what is the point?

[RobertEarl]

5. If Bernie had 2027 delegates

The discussion would be completely flipped with those now in opposition firmly in favor.

What the crime is, is that so many super delegates committed to vote for HRC before the first public vote was cast, even before anyone else even ran.

If anything is done it should be that supers are not allowed to commit until all but the first vote is taken at the convention.

Committing ahead of time like some 400 did, should be grounds for dismissal.

[uponit7771]

26. ++++++++++++++DING DING DING !! Thread winnah+++++++++++++++++++++

[-none]

63. What you said! Plus not being allowed to count the Super delegates until the convention.

Lining up and counting the Super delegates up front, from the beginning, is stacking the deck.
We need to get rid of the delegates altogether and have directing voting in open primaries. Paper ballots and no touch screen voting machines.
Give the power to the People by taking it away from the party. The Party should be responsive to the people, not as we have now, the party itself campaigning for their chosen candidate in the primary, while working against the rest of the candidates. The party has to be neutral, impartial for all candidates running.

[Silver_Witch]

109. Excellent post...excellent ideas.

You do know that Benjamin was one of the founding fathers who feared the "rabble" most and was the impetus for giving only land owners the vote when the country was first founded. Many of the founding fathers feared the common man.

[-none]

157. Well yeah, but nobody's perfect.

You need to remember where those guys came from. Your strata level in each class was important back then. You gotta give them credit for not setting up a kingdom, with an inherited royalty. Some wanted to do that, with George Washington as the first king, for that was all they knew.

[glennward]

30. "Commit?" They are still free to change even if they committed before hand...and they would if

they thought it was the right thing to do. They committed to her but they are not bound. They are a safety valve the value of which is not apparent, yet, because by good fortune, their use outside the leader in elected delegates and popular vote has not been necessary to date.

[RobertEarl]

92. So you condone the 'before' commit?

I don't. I think it very anti-democratic.

Time and again those 400 were counted in HRC's column in press report after press report. So it was all a big damn lie, And you condone that? Seems you do.

[DLCWIdem]

104. they were separated though

Only RW outlets put them together and MJ. Otherwise they 2 were separate counts.

Ex

1500 PD + 360 SD = 1860

RW sources were putting them together to drive the message that she was winning only because of super delegates.

[RobertEarl]

115. PBS is right-wing?

CNN? ABC? Etc.....

Really, your argument is baseless. I can't believe you even posted that.

[DLCWIdem]

164. the counts I saw separated pledge and super delegates.

[eastwestdem]

52. When they committed, Hillary was the only viable candidate who had declared. What doesn't make

sense about this? Even once Sanders got into the race, no one thought he would make much of an impact. The supers were free to change their commitment at any time.

[WhiteTara]

69. There was no problem noted when Bernie used his SD vote

to support Obama and tell Hillary to get out of the race. She did drop out and there was NO discussion of SDs being evil and should be eliminated. But this is now a huge discussion. What's different?

[RobertEarl]

91. He did not

Not commit before the race even began.

He did it when the race had been run. This time 400 committed before the race began. Have you got that yet? Do you understand the difference in before and after? Look at a dictionary, ya know they have them everywhere, even online.

[WhiteTara]

170. You seem really worked up. I didn't say

Bernie gave his vote in the beginning, but before the convention. There really is no reason to throw in snark.

[swhisper1]

71. Thats not true. If I was Hillary, I would have told my SGs to be silent until the convention

[BzaDem]

99. Ideally super-delegates wouldn't be reported in the totals until their states vote.

That seems like a nice middle ground. You wouldn't have one candidate with a huge lead in advance, and we also wouldn't have to pretend we dont know the outcome until the convention in cases where it is clear beforehand.

Take a look at 2008 for example. Hillary had a huge lead then, which started changing as the votes came in. This lead to misleading reporting until the supers started changing their votes. Under this new system, most of the supers who committed before the first vote was cast probably wouldn't have committed at all, until the end of voting neared (since it was so close). There almost certainly would not have been such a lopsided tally in her favor. Most supers committed to Hillary when it was assumed she would have won in a landslide.

Waiting until the convention would probably be worse than what we have today. Again, see 2008. Would we really want to have to pretend Obama wasnt going to be the nominee until the convention, even if it was clear beforehand?

The other nice thing about waiting until the state votes is that it makes it slightly harder to justify a vote against the clear will of the people in the state. I still think the ability to go against the voters could sometimes be a good thing (witness Trump, who didn't even win a majority of votes), but it should be a rare, last resort choice. Making supers wait until the votes are in would focus everyone's mind on the super going against the state, slightly raising the political cost of doing so (which I think is good).

Unfortunately, there is really no way to enforce a rule about when people can commit. The only way it would work is if the media agreed to change how it reported progress throughout the primary.

[RobertEarl]

116. State by state is a great idea!

As for committing ahead of time, doing so would result in losing your position to vote. We are not allowed to sell our votes, SD's look like they are selling by committing ahead of their state's vote.

I had to laugh when the media finally responded, about the first of May, to the Bernie campaign's five months advice that lumping votes was not correct. That's about when the DNC finally gave in and told the media no, don't do that. Only took the DNC five months!

[DLCWIdem]

183. sooner than that before April and NY

Besides at the end of March was when Bernies campaign started floating the idea of flipping the delegates to overturn the popular vote. I remember specifically because thats when I decided to go for Hillary. Before that I was undecided.

[bunnies]

6. Not everyone believes that the votes of insiders and lobbyists

should carry more weight than a vote of a regular person.

[unblock]

7. it's interesting how republicans would kill for a super-delegate system right now....

while we're complaining about having one.

[cloudythescribbler]

11. what do you mean by "WORKED"? -- afaik they haven't made a reported outcome difference

The main difference I can see in the over 30 years that there have been superdelegates is possibly in the various issues like platform (eg 'no first use') that get voted on in the Convention. In that context, they would tend to uphold establishment notions (eg NOT including no first use of nuclear weapons in the platform) as against the grassroots

At the VERY least all lobbyists and others nonelected should be excluded. also the weight of the delegates could be diluted after reducing their number by increasing the overall number of pledged delegates

as for a "Trump" like candidate on the Left, I think that concern is misplaced. It may be that a left-leaning populist candidate would win the nomination, and many in the mainstream media would so TAG them, because of the tilt against populist progressivism overall. On the other hand, a candidate on the "left" whose devotion to small-d democracy is in doubt is hardly likely to be prevented from being a danger by superdelegates.

I am more worried by far about oligarchy in the Democratic Party than excesses of democracy, especially from what I have seen happening in the Party over the past 30 years.

I also oppose "closed" primaries, even though it is NOT essential to let those registered in other actual parties (like the GOP) to vote in the Democratic primaries

[pnwmom]

54. Trump himself has been a Dem in the past and could have re-invented himself

once again.

There is no guarantee that we would never have a crazy person running for the nomination who, for armed with enough money or fame, would have a chance.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. This is puzzling to me, too. But I have my theories. eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. To make the Democratic Party live up to its name.

[Armstead]

14. Oh c'mon..."Another Trumplike figure from the left"?

[Beacool]

15. Because they didn't favor Sanders and he's throwing a fit over them and closed primaries.

Never mind that the most undemocratic process are the caucuses. If he's so concerned about making the nominating process fairer, he should demand that they also get rid of caucuses.

I'm against open primaries where anyone can vote and cause mischief, such as Republicans voting for the candidate who they deem weakest against their own candidate. IMO, all primaries should be closed. People should have some skin in the game and join a party if they want to vote on who should be the nominee of that party.

As for super delegates, I can take them or leave them. The important fact is that, since the 1984 campaign, they have never subverted the will of the people and have always switched to the candidate who ended with the most pledged delegates. Regardless of who they originally supported at the beginning of the primaries. The clear example was 2008. The majority of super delegates initially favored Hillary, but switched to Obama when he ended the primary season with a 102 pledged delegate lead.

[uponit7771]

17. +1, I don't see the problem that's being solved with getting rid of them

[SoLeftIAmRight]

110. lol

i am shocked

[liberal N proud]

18. Getting rid of the Super Delegates is a very dangerous move

It exposes the process to a Trump-like candidate to run roughshod over the process and WHAM, you have a real problem for the country and the Democrats.

Why would they take away a safety net? Because a small group who were just joined the party were upset because they couldn't let "EVERYONE" vote in the Parties process of choosing a candidate?

[geek tragedy]

28. they feed misperceptions and distrust of the process.

Keep the closed primaries, ditch superdelegates and caucuses.

[uponit7771]

34. To people who are already distrusting of the process, keep them to keep tRumps out ...

... of the equation

[geek tragedy]

37. a Trump would never fly with our party.

Democrats don't support candidates who lack a history with the party and the cause. Labor unions wouldn't, African-Americans and Latinos wouldn't, etc.

Our party has its flaws, but we're not a giant pyramid scheme like the GOP is.

I can see reducing the number or something like that as opposed to getting rid of them. Maybe just governors and members of Congress.

[uponit7771]

39. That's not true at all... some VERSION of tRump would have a lot of support and also if Edwards...

... for instance had the nom and was found to break laws or some shit the SDs would be needed to boot him out.

Keep the SD's, they've not been a problem and they're good insurance

[geek tragedy]

44. Edwards never had a chance, because the base of our party

saw right through his phony act.

Superdelegates can be replaced with a rule at the beginning of a convention--if need be--that pledged delegates can vote their conscience.

it's hard to imagine a scenario where superdelegates come into play where we aren't f@cked.

[uponit7771]

45. Not the point, IF... IF... Edwards would've had enough PDS and it the affair situation was found

... out BEFORE the convention the SD's would have to step in.

Without them messy rule changes take over

[geek tragedy]

47. part of being a democracy is letting the voters screw up.

the closest thing we had to Trump was Kucinich, and he amounted to nothing.

Our party doesn't buy demagogues/angry white guy populists with no resume.

[uponit7771]

50. The DNC isn't a democracy, its a political party that wants to represent democracy and even in a...

.. demcracy the elected can be recalled.

Take out the PDs and that's damn near impossible without another campaign...

Keep them, I'm about to OP this point... Edwards is a good reason to keep the PD's... I know the RNC wish's they had them

[DLCWIdem]

162. most of the misconceptions this time

Were fueled because some outlets wanted to say that Clinton was only winning by Super delegates. I don't know how many times people on Fox news kept on saying oh the total is such and such and she is so far ahead then someone would say that is because she has all the super delegates. If the person was a Clinton supporter then they might say she is far ahead with the pledge delegates, but that was drowned out by the super delegate narrative. It was not until Clinton had her confrontation with protesters (she wins, we lose) when she pointed out the differences in popular vote, that the only winning with super delegates narrative was drowned out by the truth.

[geek tragedy]

166. we should assume the media--and the candidate who's behind--will pull this

every election cycle if given a chance

[Eric J in MN]

36. The AP wouldn't have called the election the night before

...the final six states voted if there were no SDs. The existence of SDs suppressed the vote.

One option is abolishing SDs.

Another option would be to require them to vote with the PD winner on the first ballot. Then if no one has a majority, let them vote for anyone on the second ballot.

[bettyellen]

48. The math would have been the same, so I think they would have "projected" HRC as winner no matter

We had the SDs or not. She was winning by every other metric.

[Eric J in MN]

57. If there were no SDs then there would have been no way

...to declare a candidate had a majority the night before the final states voted.

[bettyellen]

81. Sure there would- if the candidate has a big enough lead that the other person needs 80% to rebound

Then they are going to call it. The count needed would just be lower without SDs.

[Eric J in MN]

137. The AP calls states based on likelihood.

The AP calls a nomination contest over by adding PDs and SDs and waiting until they add up to a majority of total delegates.

Without SDs, that number wouldn't have been reached before the final day of voting in states.

[bettyellen]

155. Without the SDs the number would have been smaller,

And I believe she would have reached it?

[Lil Missy]

87. No they didn't supress the vote. Hillary was ahead by every measure.

[Eric J in MN]

140. She had more absentee votes

...since her voters are older on average and older voters are more likely to vote absentee.

The number of Election Day voters in CA was smaller than had been predicted. HRC was polling 2 points ahead of Sanders and won CA by 9 points.

[RAFisher]

38. I thought they should have eliminated them after 2008

What's the point of them? Trump has a 66% approval rating among Republicans. Yeah he is despised by the general electorate but the GOP voters like him. You think if the GOP had super delegates they'd try to derail him? I don't think so. The GOP voters like him and he's still polling in single digits behind Clinton. What's Clinton's approval rating amount Democrats? About the same? What metric do we go by? I voted for Sanders but I concede that Clinton rightfully won.

Maybe in a very competitive 3 or 4 person race where each had say 35%, 34%, and 31% of the delegates. Then I could see the supers intervening. Even then they might go with the person with the most popular votes. ( I know caucuses mess up the popular vote totals)

[uponit7771]

40. John Edwards... full stop

[Eric J in MN]

59. If there were no SDs and John Edwards thought

...he was too scandal-tainted to win, then he could have released his PDs.

[uponit7771]

60. and if he didn't? tia... Yeap, a big mess... I wouldn't trust unscrupulous people to release power

[avaistheone1]

134. And the DNC which make up many of this year's superdelegates are not unscrupulous people?

HAH!

Sorry our democracy was not up designed to be up for grabs by the superdelegates.

[bettyellen]

46. I'd rather they focus on real voter disenfranchisement... Why don't they?

[uponit7771]

51. I 100% agree but's it not a "they" who wants to change the way the DNC selects its candidates today

[Capt. Obvious]

62. "I think they need to be Democrats..."

Nonsense. Super Delegate positions should be open to all who can raise enough money.

[anigbrowl]

64. should have been citizens of the US for at least 20 years

So basically you want it to be harder to be a superdelegate than a member of Congress? You can be elected a Senator after you've been a citizen for 9 years, or a Representative after being a citizen for 7. While this immigrant has no plans to run for office, I reject your weird xenophobic requirements and urge you to reflect on the fact that I am a foreigner and yet I seem to have a better grasp of the Constitution than you do.

[LanternWaste]

65. If the conversations against the established practice had happened during the off-season

If the conversations against the established practice had happened during the off-season, the arguments would seem more sincere and less self-serving.

That 90% of the SD discussions happened only after they began to move in one or another direction, doing precisely what they were established to do, and within the means and the scope of their obligations, compels me to believe that that this "concern" is due to the particular leanings of the delegates in this particular election rather than the actual substance or justification of their existence in and of itself.

Had the discussions been taking place with the same consistency during off-election years-- in 2014, 2013, 2007, 2003, I'd easily place both my faith and my trust in the sincerity of the discussion as a genuine concern. As it is now, it comes across as little more than a straw-man used to rationalize less-than-stellar performance of a candidate.

[DLCWIdem]

108. Maybe as suggested by John Oliver we should revisit this in 6 months after election

Pick a date.

[DLCWIdem]

168. I agree somewhat

What I have seen in this thread was as you said as to these arguements being self serving. Many of these posters were lobbying for the super delegates to vote with Sanders and overturn the " will of the voters." It may look like I am for super delegates but I actually don't have a firm opinion either way. I just think that some of the reasons given are a little bogus. First, I can see the John Edwards or Trump arguement but I also would have been upset if the supeers had flipped to Sanders. Maybe we should think about changing the system but perhaps it should wait until cooler heads prevail. Maybe we should revisit this in say a year, see if this issue is still germaine.

[seabeckind]

73. Distilling this thread...

so the reason we need to keep the SDs is the fear that someday we may be faced with a Trump-like emergency and need to override the will of the people who identify themselves as democrats?

Ignoring one of the basic tenets of the democratic party, which has been too fight for those little people who had so little say in the control over their lives (perhaps a review of FDRs second bill of rights might be in order -- in fact that speech is excellent reading)

does anyone consider that Trump came to be a threat to the RNC and country because of the very lousy field of non-Trump republican candidates?

So if the republicans had SDs, they could offer those who looked at the field and decided that Trump was better than any of the rest, an alternative to him in that lousy field?

So I might ask: why would that be an improvement? A less batshit crazy? Like Cruz?

Is this seriously being considered? Seriously?

The most effective defense against a candidate like Trump is a candidate who so far exceeds Trump that he could never get to where he did.

IOW, as long as the democratic candidates are of a quality and respond to the opinions of the people they represent, there is no way we could have a Trump.

So why do we need SDs?

As far as the closed vs open primaries? That gets into the playing offense vs defense. We should embrace open primaries with enthusiasm because then we can be the gop spoilers. All we have to do is ensure that our worstest candidate is 1000% better than their best, any day of the week and twice on the weekend.

[randome]

74. Why do we need SDs? It's a question that doesn't even need to be answered currently.

With everything else on our plate, why spend more than 5 minutes on trying to fix something that isn't broken? Put it on the list of priorities, sure, but way, way down on that list.

I can't believe the time and energy is being spent on this.

[seabeckind]

75. Because there are many people who see it as broken.

Perhaps they are right.

“If not us, who? If not now, when?” ― John F. Kennedy

[randome]

79. Sure, they may be right. I just don't see it, though.

I think we have far more important things to spend time on than the minutia of intra-party dynamics.

[glowing]

76. Why is anyone discussing this, I thought the primary was over

for DU?

[Kentonio]

198. There will be future primaries. It would be good to avoid this stuff happening again in future.

[TheFarseer]

77. Get rid of superdelegates

I don't agree with party elites having the power to overturn millions of votes. If you are going to have the, it should only be elected senators and definitely not a bunch of hack party chairpeople that have not been elected to anything of any significance.

[Thinkingabout]

78. The Super Delegates has been a part of the DNC primary since 1983, after seeing the

problems the GOP is currently having I doubt the Super Delegates are going away. I like the idea and the reason for the Super Delegates. This was not a surprise element when the 2016 DNC primary began. The Super Delegates are not bound by the vote in the states, if so they would not serve any purpose.

[Silver_Witch]

111. And for years before they did not exist...why in 83?

Because the fear of the common voter grew. The DNC does not trust the party members - so they had to insert a "saftey". Are you afraid of the members of our party? So afraid that you have to have a "protection" to make sure we don't vote for our own best interest?

[Thinkingabout]

114. How many years has there been primaries in the DNC? Maybe Mr Devine can provide more information

in the planning and implementing of the Super Delegates, he was on the planning phase.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. The unpledged delegates have abused their positions and candidates have deployed them as

electoral devices. This makes your premise that they exist only for emergencies laughable. If they are there for 'insurance' let them stay out of the process unless the house is on fire. If they are going to be a regular part of the whole selection/election show then stop claiming they are only for emergencies. Pick one, hold to it. This is bullshit.

[Vinca]

83. They need to go.

I never thought much about it until this election and it just isn't fair that a state can vote by a large majority for one candidate, but the superdelegates can cast their votes for another candidate. Each superdelegate vote negates thousands of voters. There is no point in showing up to vote if it's going to be cancelled out. If superdelegates were mandated to vote as the majority of their state votes, that might be different. I remember hearing Donna Brazile on CNN mentioning that she had been a superdelegate for more than 20 years. Sorry, but that isn't right. No one should have that much power for decades on end.

[randome]

88. Each superdelegate vote POTENTIALLY negates thousands of voters.

It has never happened, which is why I don't understand spending time and energy on something that isn't broken. What happened to push income inequality and discrimination concerns onto the back burner?

[avaistheone1]

133. Precisely. And that clearly negates the core principle of our democracy of one person one vote.

Super delegates should be totally removed from the electoral process.

[randome]

147. I don't have a problem with that. Not at all. But why isn't this way down on the list of priorities?

Why is this suddenly the #1 issue that needs to be addressed before income inequality, discrimination, etc.?

[Kentonio]

199. Because this is a fairly small procedural change that could be fixed fairly simply.

There is no reason to put it off until we have a utopia.

[Vinca]

146. It's going to happen at the convention this year.

People who voted for Sanders will watch as most of the superdelegates from the states he won will vote for Hillary. That means there was no reason for those Sanders voters to get out of bed and stand in line, sometimes for hours, to vote.

[randome]

148. With the superdelegates removed from the equation, Clinton would still win.

Delegates, super or not, simply follow the lead of the voters. All of our votes mattered in the process.

[Vinca]

150. That still doesn't change the fact voters are being disenfranchised.

Just for the sake of appearing democratic, we need to do away with them before the next election.

[randome]

156. No one is being disenfranchised. There is the POTENTIAL for disenfranchisement, I agree.

Triage should apply in this situation. You fix the important things first then you get down to the boring, bureaucratic party stuff. It's like no one is paying attention to what's been going on during the Primary. Instead of addressing the real problems, the first thing we spend political capital on is something that affects exactly zero people?

I don't get it.

[Vinca]

179. If the status of Hillary and Bernie were reversed, you would definitely get it.

[DLCWIdem]

184. Since Bernie tried to flip the supers to overturn the vote he obviously thought SD were okay?

[Kentonio]

200. Think of it like this..

It's like saying you don't have time to stop and tie your shoelaces because you have to go out and get a job. Just because there are enormous challenges to face, doesn't mean we should ignore all the small improvements we can make along the way. It's not either/or, and things like this would help unify the party even more.

[demwing]

86. If SDs vote with the populus, they're redundant

If they vote against the populus, they're anti-democratic.
Since they serve no legitimate purpose, and often piss off voters, why bother?

[DemonGoddess]

94. Super Delegates are a safety valve

full stop. They also ALLOW the minority caucuses who are serving in Congress to be represented at the national level.

I understand full well why the CBC wants to keep them. I do too. They have never overturned the will of the people. That is not what they're for.

[Eric J in MN]

141. Serving in Congress is representing at the national level. NT

NT

[DemonGoddess]

176. and you just made their point

They WANT to not be diluted within the PARTY at the national level, such as at the convention. Minorities are seriously under represented as it is.

[AgingAmerican]

100. Because they exist to guarentee an outcome the system agrees with

And the electorate in general is sick and tired of being screwed over by the system.

[Silver_Witch]

101. Super D's are insiders, lobbist and people the DNC wants to buy

They are not there to protect anyone or stop anything. They are there to assure the corporate dems get their way.

[avaistheone1]

132. Indeed. I am shocked at how many super delegates are actually DNC people this year.

Yuck.

[choie]

113. Worked for whom?

The establishment?

[alain2112]

117. I have no issues with a small number of ex officio delegates to the convention

Presidents and Governors and Senators and Representatives, they have all demonstrated their commitment to the good of the Party.

It may be wise to select a larger number of pleged delegates, so as to dilute the influence of the superdelegates, but that is a separate matter.

[avaistheone1]

124. I think alot of people would disagree that these ex officials

have demonstrated their commitment to the good of the party.

[alain2112]

131. I meant "ex officio" in the sense of "by virtue of holding office."

In any particular case one can argue that the voters made a poor choice, but I say that - taken as a whole - our elected officials represent a pretty good description of what the Party is, today. You may be unhappy that this presents a brake on your intention to change the Party, but 1) that is pretty much the nature of electoral politics and 2) simple disagreement is not proof of bad faith.

[The Second Stone]

121. As long as they are elected people with a constituency they are responsible to

that works for me. So no former presidents, former vice-presidents and former distinguished party leaders. That is 20 at last count that I think should be eliminated. Only those that have a constituency that can elect or remove them at the next election.

[Eric J in MN]

142. The majority of SDs are there as party officials

...without having been elected to Congress or the presidency or a governorship.

[The Second Stone]

165. DNC members are elected by state parties

and are activists with a constituency.

[avaistheone1]

123. The super delegates should be dumped for once and for all.

I think the practice is an undermining of democracy and of the electoral process.

One person, one vote” is a core principle of the Constitution. Super delegates subvert this principle.

[Ken Burch]

135. What difference does it make how long VOTERS have been citizens?

I truly hope you aren't arguing that naturalized citizens should have to go through a long period of not being considered "American enough" to help elect a president.

That is a "nativist" idea that is actually not far from the thinking of the "Know Nothing Party" of the 1840's, a party whose supporters treated Catholic immigrants the way Trump supporters treat Latinos and Muslims today.

Even of the idea wasn't somewhere between anti-democracy and bigotry how would poll workers even check how long people had been citizens without massively increasing everyone's wait times on Election Day, and therefore massively reducing voter turnout due to voters giving up and going home without voting?

[B Calm]

143. What did we do before we had Super Delegates?

[merrily]

151. The correct answer depends on how far before you mean.

In truth, party bosses and even mob bosses were involved in choosing the nominee at times. At one point, only a few states even had primaries. Estes Kefauver won every primary there was, but Truman and party bosses were furious with him because his hearings on the mob had revealed that some big city Democratic bosses and mob bosses were connected. So, despite the primaries, they dumped Kefauver and picked Stevenson at the convention. Truman was furious because Stevenson wasn't sure he wanted the job, but he accepted--and lost the general to WWII/NATO hero and President of Columbia University Eisenhower.

[yeoman6987]

144. The only change I'd like to see is barring superdelegates from endorsing at all

until the convention.

[Her Sister]

196. This!

Sen. Sanders has been 25 years plus in Government. Did he protest the Super Delegates before?

Heck, he was a Super Delegate in 2008 and in 2016. Tad Devine help create the Super Delegates!

As a DEM am for the Super Delegates. If we had a vote I'd vote for them and against caucuses!

Fact is, HRC won all pertinent metrics. Geesh!

[jzodda]

158. They have too much influence

No need for 700 of them. I would cut that to less than half.

Sitting members of Congress, the President and his cabinet and top officials of the party, and sitting governors.

That should put the number at a more manageable 300-350 thereby lessening their influence but keeping party leaders unbound.

[Trajan]

159. What kind of anti-democratic nonsense is this?

You are promoting the usage of corporate lobbyists as as replacement for Democratic Party voters?

FUCK THAT ....

All DUers who promote anti-democratic policies gets fucking blocked ... No ifs, ands or buts ....

Mr. Brock can take a Flying Fuck at a Rolling Donut ...

[randome]

160. Not all superdelegates are lobbyists and not all lobbyists are evil.

Some represent Planned Parenthood, etc.

[Sunlei]

161. because the Republicans have a Major disaster it looks better if the Ds have a bit of troubles.

Once we get through our convention process we'll be fine, everything will shake out nice & fair.

For Republicans anything could happen at their convention, even their frontrunner is to afraid to attend in person...he'd rather pre-record his speeches like a TV reality show.

[Xyzse]

169. In 08, even Obama pushed for a reformation on the Super Delegate System.

During this time, there was some push as well, however what Bernie requested was that Super Delegates should not promote who they are voting for until much later since that influences the votes of voters.

I consider that as a reasonable request as it is best not to have them sway voters early to allow them to make decisions for themselves.

The attacks on Sanders saying that he wanted to dissolve the Super Delegate System was a gross mischaracterization of what he was asking for to begin with. I mean, looking at his statements in context when listening to his statements is a far cry to what the mainstream media mentions, which unfortunately propagates that misconception.

I tend to agree however that the Super Delegate system is somewhat needed. I just don't think them promoting who they would vote for early is conducive to a proper Democracy. This is particularly true, as to the fact that they should generally be going with the popular vote any how.

[Orsino]

177. Perhaps we should just stop them declaring before a certain point in the campaign.

Preferably after a few ballots have been counted.

But I'm fine with the concept of supers, though I'd be hard-pressed to say just what about them has "worked." They're just there as the voice of the Establishment, to prevent our getting too frisky with this democracy thing. It's only because of Sanders that we are paying so much attention, and I think he's correct to note that many big-footed this year's primary before many of us had begun to get to know all the candidates.

[The Second Stone]

178. I think the OP makes a good point. Yes, it needs a slight tweek

but there are people who don't like superdelegates because they don't understand that all but 20 of them are elected (public office or party office, but elected by Democrats) and are unhappy about the possible outcome. I think 2008 demonstrated how well they work, as they changed when a mainstream candidate overtook the insider favorite, and the Clinton supporters changed and went with Obama as the public did.

The people who want the change are basically party outsiders who think that the mere knowledge that an outsider will have an initial uphill battle will discourage non-Democrats from claiming to be Democrats without ever having walked the walk of helping the party.

Two outsiders ran in this cycle, one in each party. Trump, the one who ran on the Republican side, demagogued the whole race and it wasn't even close towards the end. Superdelegates would not have mattered if the Republicans had more of them due to their required voting.

[Puglover]

181. I'll give you two great reasons.

Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. My state (MN) voted for Bernie overwhelmingly.

Both Franken and Klobuchar pledged to Clinton.

[liberal N proud]

202. Because one Trump is not enough

Dumping the Super Delegates is a self destructive move. With them gone, another Trump could do the same thing to the Democratic party.

[ozone_man]

212. They're undemocratic

a resistance to change. One man/woman one vote is what Democracy us about, not party machine politics, like Tamany Hall. Let's end this perversion.