1 good example of why to KEEP Super Delegates; John Edwards .... full stop

[uponit7771]

If Edwards had enough pledge delegates and his stupid affair was found out after primaries were over but before the convention then SDs would have to step in.

That's one of the best examples of why they should be kept...

Also, this SD issue sounds like a solution looking for a problem... much like conservatives "voter fraud" bullshit.

SDs haven't been an issue in this election or ones in the past AFAIK, they usually go with the popular vote and haven't changed that since they were created.


Keep the stop gap of the SD's... I know the RNC wishes they had

your take?


tia

[TwilightZone]

1. The GOP is definitely wishing they'd kept SDs similar to ours right about now.

Kind of ironic that they only recently (2012-2015) made some significant changes to how theirs work.

[peace13]

2. my take on the SD's?

I don't think candidates should be able to solicit the votes. Keep them if you want but they vote their conscience when needed. That seems fair. The SD thing has been a total distraction this year. And look, in the end none of it was necessary.

[scscholar]

3. Sanders is still making an issue of them despite...

as you pointed out, none of it was necessary, but that hasn't stopped him.

[peace13]

9. Seriously, you need to understand one thing .....

....there is no way I can defend against anything you say. The system here does not allow. I did not suggest where the problem was. You disgrace the spirit of the New DU.

[scscholar]

45. New DU?

I don't understand your point. Are you claiming we can't discuss making things better here now? What's the point if we are not allowed to discuss the issues. I think you're wrong.

[peace13]

49. Yes, when the system changed yesterday, the rules changed.

This morning I had a hide right out of the box. The tricky thing is that me, discussing this with you is actually a breach of the rules. I'm going to leave it at this. The good news is that the process allows you to petition the jury decision if you disagree with it. It looks like I passed because my hide has been removed. I did not receive a notification that it was removed, I just see that it was removed.

What this whole thing means is that some of us are at a disadvantage and that if we respond to anything 'Bernie' things could go poorly. And ...it does not necessarily have to be Bernie related. Check it out. I know Skinner is trying his hardest to keep this show on the road. My hat is off to him.

My best to you. Peace.

[scscholar]

51. It would be nice if they told us these rules!

I don't think you've said anything even approaching wrong, and I don't think I have either. I'm confused. Why will they not tell us what is going on?

[leftinportland]

52. After the new rules were in effect, anyone

logging in to the site was presented the rules which needed to be agreed to before proceeding to the site.

[peace13]

56. : ) thanks . My memory is short! nt

[peace13]

55. Here ya go. : )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10137292

[uponit7771]

5. That's true to, that's one reform that could be practical is they go with the PDs until something...

... goes awry

[The Wielding Truth]

28. What if they would appoint them right before the convention when everyone has heard from?

[uponit7771]

35. That sounds like something practical but hasn't mattered in the past seeing Clinton had most SDs in

... her corner in 08 and Obama won.

Again, I've not seen the SD's make a practical difference and I lean towards doing noting cause of that and the proposals sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

[Lord Magus]

61. That's the thing, there's nothing you can do to stop them from making endorsements.

That would run into 1st Amendment issues.

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[peace13]

10. I believe the proposed changes pertain to future elections.

Of course I could be wrong. I'm sure someone here will know.

[Eric J in MN]

15. The proposed changes are for next time. NT

NT

[peace13]

17. Thanks. nt

[stopbush]

32. IMO, any changes to the primary process should be made in the direction

of restricting voting in the same to voters who identify as Ds. There is no reason that I can think of to allow Rs and indies to interfere in how Ds pick our candidates.

Super delegates have never been an issue, and that includes this year's contests. No need to fix something that isn't broken.

[peggysue2]

41. Agreed!

In a perfect world where everyone played by the rules, opening all primaries would seem to be the way to go. But . . . politics and high jinks are linked. Registered Democrats have a right to choose their primary candidate as they see fit. I think it's suicide to open all primaries and dispose of super delegates. Because you could easily end up with . . . a Donald Trump. The current rules were put into place to avoid that very disaster.

So, you're right. Don't fix what ain't broke. Caucuses are another matter. But as I understand it that decision is at the state level.

[stevenleser]

46. I think Indies should vote but be tallied separately and not counted for delegates.

I would like to know what indies think but I do not want them choosing the nominee.

[onehandle]

7. The exact scenario that they exist for. Also, Trump was a Democrat at one point.

'Nuff said.

[John Poet]

8. Superdelegates should be prohibited from endorsing prior to

the end of the primaries, and that would solve much of my problem....

as opposed to this year, when 400 of them endorsed a candidate 6 months or more before a single vote had been cast. That's giving them MORE of a vote and more influence, and naturally resulted in the claims that the process is "rigged".

[Eric J in MN]

13. If an SD introduces a candidate at a rally

...with praise, the AP would probably count that the same as an endorsement.

[TwilightZone]

18. About 240 of them are members of Congress.

Are you suggesting that members of Congress not be allowed to endorse anyone prior to the end of the primaries?

[Bluenorthwest]

22. They should endorse three weeks prior to the primary in their own State, not a day sooner and

that endorsement should be as a member of Congress and not as an unpledged delegate. The vote as delegate should not be touted nor tallied with the pledged delegates.

[stevenleser]

47. Yeah, I disagree with any change. It didnt help the candidate some folks wanted this time

but that is not a reason to change how it works.

[geek tragedy]

11. I would counter that the voters stopped Papa John because they smelled a phony. nt

[Eric J in MN]

12. It's difficult to predict what will sink a candidate.

Bill Clinton won despite the Gennifer Flowers scandal.

John Kerry was defeated by bogus allegations that he lied about his Vietnam service.

We shouldn't have SDs second-guessing the votes of millions of people because of their hunches about which scandals can't be overcome.

In the 32 years we've had SDs, their only effect has been to help the AP to suppress the vote.

[stevenleser]

48. I disagree. This is a political party and it has elder statespeople. It's their job to do just that.

I also think your examples dont fit in to the discussion well.

Gennifer Flowers happened at the very start of the primaries. The voters decided they wanted Clinton despite that. Then at around the time the convention happened, Clinton was clearly experiencing an upswing in the polls versus Bush http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx#4 so should the superdelegates have stepped in and chosen someone else?

Swiftboat veterans for lies and smears aired their first ad August 5 2004, two weeks after the Democratic convention ended and Kerry was the nominee. There was nothing the superdelegates could do they had already voted. Moreover, the Swiftboaters ads didnt start taking an effect on Kerrys numbers for a few weeks. It was his lack of timely response that allowed them to do damage. So even if the ads first aired a week before the convention, the superdelegates wouldnt have had enough to go on to make a decision there.

The superdelegates are there for a candidate who secures enough delegates to win early or forces the other folks to drop out early and then has some bombshell thing happen between then and the convention where they become nonviable candidate. Or who in the minds of the folks who are the elected elder statespeople of the party, the candidate does not embody the values of the party.

[R.A. Ganoush]

53. I have to disagree with your verbiage but

Not necessarily with the message. A political party with"Elder Statespeople" sounds a bit too Soviet for my tastes.

[Whimsey]

59. Really?

An awful lot of the primary rhetoric sounded a bit too Soviet for my tastes.

[Eric J in MN]

62. The OP is based on a series of conditions.

What if
- John Edwards were the PD winner, and
- His affair became public during the six weeks between the end of primaries and the convention, and
- Another candidate was close enough in PDs for the SDs to swing the nomination, and
- The SDs did so, and
- Edwards would have lost the general election, but that other Democrat would have won despite Edwards' supporters feeling cheated by the SDs.

I say that Edwards should have been allowed to get the nomination if he'd won the PDs and felt he could overcome the scandal.

The Bill Clinton and John Kerry accusations also didn't originate between the end of primary voting and the convention, but I stand by my point that it's difficult to predict what accusations will sink a candidate.

[CrowCityDem]

14. They've never don't the 'wrong' thing, so we are trying to prevent an unlikely future.

Superdelegates know full well just how poorly it would be received if they overturned the results for anything but dire circumstances (like John Edwards).

[Seeinghope]

57. You think that John Edwards having an affair would justify SD to overturn a Primary Decision?

Jennifer Flowers didn't hurt Bill Clinton. The affair with Monica Lewinsky and then lying under oath brought impeachment to Bill Clinton. The impeachment, I believe, considered by the vast majority, a ridiculous tactic by the Republicans who were so desperate to get anything on Bill Clinton.

I really thought that the SD supported what their constituents ...(the people that put them into office)...chose. If there was truly some emergency like some kind of illness, disqualification and/or resignation of some sort then they could step in and act somewhat more independently. I thought that we had graduated from the back room deals that put our President of the United States in the White House. AND why oh why would anybody but elected currently serving officials be a SD?

I also believe that the SD should not be aligning themselves with any candidate months before the Primary even really begins. The SD votes can come in as the pledged delegates comes in or announced a few weeks before the state's primary. I don't see the point of dropping the total SD count for a candidate before the first Primary. The official process is suppose to have just started and the SD have already made up their minds? I know that they can change it but the process should at least be able to run it's course before their vote is noted and publicised. Just because I have chosen my candidate months before the day that I can actually vote doesn't mean that my decision magically should appear in a delegate count before my voting day. Why are their special circumstances for people elected by the people who are "Public Servants". It sounds back ass to me.

[CrowCityDem]

58. Yes, Edwards running a campaign based on lies about his character would be justifiable to overturn.

[Seeinghope]

66. Other candidates have had behaviours, lies and other actions that could call a candidates charachter

into question. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to allow SD judge what they determine to be lies concerning character. Their vote should only come into play, other than the normal use where it should be be used, is when there is a death, debilitating illness, foul play, criminal activity.....

The Supreme Court should be more proactive in the structure of our election process especially concerning the SD. We need laws to keep our political system free from biased insider influence. It is undermining the election process when we have our "party elders" cast their support months before the first pledged vote is cast.

[CrowCityDem]

67. The court has already ruled. Parties are free to make their own rules.

[apnu]

16. I don't have a problem ditching SuperDs, if the Dem primaries were all closed.

No need for Supers if all state democratic parties had closed primaries. Only party members should choose the nominee for the party. If indy's want a say in that, they should join the party and take part in running the party.

I don't think its hard to do or figure out. The Democratic Primary system is an overly-complicated hodgepodge.

[B Calm]

64. I wouldn't have a problem with closed primaries if the political party paid for the primary election

but they don't. Tax Payers pay for the primary elections and therefore they should be allowed to vote for the candidate that inspires them.

[Garrett78]

19. Pledged delegates can also prevent the presumed nominee from being nominated.

That's why all of the talk about the Republican Party nominating someone other than Trump is not unreasonable.

[Ash_F]

20. They did create an issue this election

By weighing in before the first vote was cast, they caused a bandwagon effect.

A lot of people liked Sanders policies but said they would not vote for him because they thought he had no chance of beating Clinton.

Everybody loves a winner.

[Garrett78]

23. I don't think most people, even now, know anything about superdelegates.

Hell, there are people who can't name the Vice President. I think a lot of people viewed Sanders as unelectable, but not because of superdelegates.

[Ash_F]

44. The fact that people don't know much about SD's is exactly why they are so powerful

Someone turns on the TV and sees one candidate with a huge lead on the charts in March, not realizing there hasn't been any voting.

People don't want to vote for someone that is going to lose. It doesn't feel good.

[Garrett78]

60. Vast majority of those who voted for Clinton voted for her because that's who they want nominated.

Or because they feel like Sanders would get his ass kicked in November.

Or both.

[Ash_F]

65. And the superdelegates going public before day 1 contributed to that feeling.

SDs have got to go.

[anigbrowl]

70. So waht?

I made my decision about supporting Hillary before she announced she was running. Of course I would have been open to switching it but as things turned out I never found a pressing need to do so. Why can't you accept that others' ideas might simply differ from yours? I noticed that she picked up a lot of superdelegate support very early on, but that came as no great surprise given her obvious strengths as a candidate.

Even insofar as SDs' choices influence the electorate, I don't see what your problem is with that. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to take that factor into account and weigh the endorsement of superdelegates as more or less important in their political decisions.

[Ash_F]

71. Counterpoint: I don't

[Bluenorthwest]

21. If that's the entire point of them, in case of scandal and emergency, then we should not hear

any endorsements or anything else out of them unless they are needed due to emergency. Using the fire extinguisher to water the lawn early in the season is a misuse of an emergency device. Using 'emergency delegates' on day one to stack the deck is a similar misuse.

Every contested cycle there are arguments about these unpledged delegates because they are not reserved for emergency they are deployed as campaign tools prior to any voter being able to vote.

[ibegurpard]

50. precisely

Superdelegate endorsements were actually being used in delegate totals before anyone had voted. That is wrong.

[Armstead]

24. Trump was the choice of the majority of GOP primary voters

If the GOP Bosses had been at all smart, they would have figured out a way to convince all those voters from giving their votes to Trump.

They didn't and therefore, the result of the votes stand, as they should. Trump sucks, but he won the votes.

Democracy is not always pretty.

[TwilightZone]

25. Plurality, not majority

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html

He didn't need a majority, partly because there were too many people in the race and partly because the anti-Trump vote didn't coalesce behind one candidate quickly enough (or at all).

If he'd won a majority, it would be even harder for the GOP to get rid of him than it already is. The rules changes from 2012-2015 are also working against them.

[Garrett78]

26. The fact that they didn't suggests the power to manipulate election results is limited.

In spite of all of the conspiracy theories to the contrary. I, mean, if ever there was an occasion to prevent someone from winning...

So, the GOP must rely on pledged delegates refusing to cast a vote for Trump, a path Democratic pledged delegates could have taken had Edwards been the presumed nominee in 2008. Pledged delegates are free to switch or abstain. I'm fine with doing away with superdelegates...and caucuses.

[immoderate]

30. Consider that bad as he is, they really had no one better.

I mean, who would they pick?

--imm

[Armstead]

37. Lindsey Graham at least would have been the most entertaining

Scott Walker would be the absolute worst. A horrible person and philosophy in a bland and boring package.

Ted Cruzzer would be Trump 2.

[Garrett78]

38. Sure they did. But the heads of the party don't get to pick who they want.

I know some believe a powerful cabal determines who the nominee of each party will be, but that just ain't so. There are many Republicans, including some in that crowded field of primary candidates, who would do better in November and cause less damage to the Republican Party label. But money and endorsements can only do so much.

Part of the problem was how crowded that field was. Too many Trump alternatives.

Another problem is that, for all of their complaining about Trump, the Republican Party gave rise to Trump and his supporters. He's the product of their own doing, thanks in large part to decades of pushing subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry.

So, either Trump gets nominated or enough delegates revolt to bring about a brokered convention. I'm not sure which is more likely at this point.

[immoderate]

42. I'm thinking: Christie, Walker, Perry, Jindal, Carson, Cruz,...

--imm

[Garrett78]

43. Most of those and some others would present a better option for the GOP.

Winning in November is unlikely, and the GOP knows that. But having someone who is more likely to follow the mainstream script helps preserve the brand. That's the big concern with Trump. Not that he'll lose, but that he'll harm the party long-term.

[TheKentuckian]

29. I think your conclusion disagrees with your argument

You essentially say that the Super delegates are just a rubber stamp for the popular vote while asserting they are to override the vote if there is a problem with the result of the popular vote even citing Trump as an example, Trump won so why would it be a good idea to subvert the vote?

Your case is inconsistent to the point of not having one.

[uponit7771]

31. No, a problem with the CANDIDATE not the vote seeing in my example the candidates problems

... were revealed after the votes.

So no... the candidate BECOMES an issues or has one that wasn't revealed to the voters then the SD's SHOULD step in as a stop gap.

That's easy...

Also, if the people choose and tRump and the SD's know there's an issue with him after he enters then yes... they should step in and state why.

There's an issue with tRump, he's got multiple law suites against him for trying to steal items or services from small contractors...

There's no way that guy is morally fit to become president

[karynnj]

33. Maybe they could work on a rule that does what actually happens except under rare circumstances

Maybe something like this:

Superdelegates are defined as they currently are, but are NOT voting members, unless they vote by -say - 90% to do so - and the guidance for that is that they would vote to do so if something happened changed making the candidate unacceptable. (optionally, they could even have the ability to also vote to free all pledged delegates. This would be for the same reason and would be used if there were a problem with a candidate - like Gore or Kerry - who earned enough pledged delegates that they did not need the superdelegates.)

Under this, the media and candidates would do what they do anyways -- work to gain pledged delegates. The superdelegates would be delegates to the convention, but it would be very rare for them to vote. ( This is not a real hardship, as the more influential of them could still have great influence if they opt to endorse. In 2008, the endorsements of people like Kerry, Kennedy, and Durbin made many people comfortable with voting for the young Obama.)

The threshold really should be high to trigger allowing the superdelegates to vote because the ONLY time they make a difference is when they change the result of the contests. Consider that in 2008, which was incredibly close, Nancy Pelosi led a group that committed to voting for the pledged delegate winner. As that group expanded, the likelihood that the superdelegates would narrowly favor the loser - throwing the nomination to him or her became very very unlikely.

[PragmaticLiberal]

34. I'm with you.

I'd like to reduce the number of SD's but to eliminate them entirely?

Nope.

[Octafish]

36. Edwards voted AGAINST repeal of Glass-Steagall.

If he'd become president, Washington might have used all that money from the bailout on making life better for ALL Americans.

As it was, the bailout mainly helped make the 1-percent very comfortable and the 1-percent of 1-percent very, very wealthy.

[mythology]

39. In a John Edwards situation

I'm not sure it would matter who was chosen as a replacement.

I would be fine with doing away with super delegates as part of the regular nominating process and having a group, probably some or all state party chairs and elected officials, having the power to chose a nominee in an instance where the one who received the delegate votes was unable or unwilling to run. That is to say if say a future nominee were to die after having the nomination, but not in the event that the nominee were to be polling poorly against the Republican nominee.

Currently I don't see a useful place for the super delegates as they end up supporting the delegate leader and it doesn't add anything.

[uponit7771]

40. True, for the last 4 elections dems have been choosing between great and damn good and best

... while the GOP has horrid and more horrid and Satan

[bravenak]

54. Absolutely

If the RNC had superdelegate they would not b in a world of hurt right now. If we ever get a evil populist dem we need a way to stop him or her before they kill our brand.

[Eric J in MN]

63. If Republicans had SDs and made Ted Cruz the nominee

...then Cruz would probably lose with many Trump supporters staying home.

[CobaltBlue]

68. uponit7771—Drop superdelegate system. Make all primaries—regardless the party—“Open”

Anything less is that of a political party saying they do not trust The People—which should also give The People no reason to trust a political party.

[Exilednight]

69. Based on you example, I would have never voted for another Democrat ever again. Bill had an affair,

Several in fact, and that didn't stop him o make SDs take pause.