So we dislike the Electoral College but LOVE Super Delegates??

[USALiberal]

Hmmmmm......Interesting!

[polichick]

1. imo both are meant to subvert the will of the people, even if once they...

had a different purpose.

[USALiberal]

6. I agree, but many here love super delegates! nt

[polichick]

9. DU's establishment bent is showing - to be expected I guess.

[Me.]

33. Ahem

BS is the very definition of Establishment and a member of the 1% as well as aa Super Delegate so I guess you have a bent for Establishment candidates as well as super delegates.

[polichick]

37. Bernie is not part of the status-quo protecting establishment...

You know, the ones losing their shit on TV because he’s in the lead.

[LanternWaste]

40. An Establishment, 30 year career politician cum millionaire is truly, a Man of the People.

[polichick]

42. HA! Sounds like you're talking about Joe.

[Me.]

45. Of Course He Is

For 30+ years millionaire BS has been receiving a nice fat government salary with little legislation to show for it. He also gets excellent health care, a driver and other amenities + 3 million a year to run his office and...has a nice big pension waiting for him not to mention the fact that he is a Super Delegate. He is the very definition of the Establishment. As for people on TV, he and his spend a lot of time on TV. Not to mention the scurrilous lies that have been spread by his campaign people.

[polichick]

50. If the establishment thought BS would protect the status quo...

they wouldn’t be freaking out. Get it?

[Me.]

60. They're Freaking, As You Say

because they're afraid he's a loser when it comes to the dump and then he'll have four more years to totally destroy this country. Get it?

[polichick]

64. Keep telling yourself that - they're banking on it.

[Me.]

65. I Think THey're Banking On History

Even though in the beginning he was treated as the second coming experts agree that his campaign was done by the end of April. Even though he stayed in and tried to play the role of spoiler and demanded changes to the rules which became what we have today. So I'm betting history will repeat itself and by the end of April he won't have a path to the nomination and it will then be necessary to ensure he doesn't have a chance to do what he did in '16. So two for months left for the BS supporters to live the dream.

[Celerity]

49. in terms of net worth, he is nowhere near the top 1%, to be fair

Sanders' toal net worth (depending on what you go by) 1.7 to 2, or 2.5 million USD or so. He has a couple good years (2016, 2017) due to book sales. He is still one of the least wealthy Senators. If he writes another book, he will surely go up again though.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quarter.asp

The minimum net worth of the top 1% was roughly $10.4 million, according to Forbes. The top 10%, on the other hand, has a net worth of about $1.2 million. The report also showed that the wealth of the middle class is also rising—about three times in nearly two decades. Assets for this group totaled between $10,000 and $100,000. Despite this, the wealth of the top 1% continues to go beyond that of the middle class. In fact, the top earners hold more wealth than the middle and upper-middle classes put together. This is due to a number of reasons including the fact that these people own more than 50% of the equity in both private and public companies. And they've also benefited from surges in the stock market. These gains help them reinvest their money back into exclusive investments like hedge funds and private equity.

In terms of income per year he made

2014 205,000
2015 240,000
2016 1.1m
2017 1.1m
2018 540,000
2019 ?

2015 and before he was never in the top 1% as a yearly earner, and as a 74 year old, in 2015 , his net worth was less than 750,000 USD


Here is the chart for yearly income and what it takes to qualify for different levels as of 2019 (so for the 2018 tax year)

[FBaggins]

54. Who do you believe won the Iowa caucuses? nt

[brush]

61. The sane repugs wish they had had superdelegates in 2016.

And btw, Sanders had a big hand in drawing up the present-day rules and shouldn't be complaining now.

[Recursion]

2. I think the past 4 years present a pretty good argument for smoke-filled rooms

Bring them back, I say. Maybe without the smoke this time.

[USALiberal]

8. So who should they have picked in 2016?? nt

[Beakybird]

12. Clinton, and Sanders and his troops should have shown complete unity.

[brutus smith]

30. They shouldn't have had to pick anyone. Joe should've ran then. He would be President Biden.

I'll leave it at that before I get "reprimanded" again.

[StevieM]

32. Joe would have been placed under FBI investigation, for some reason, during the 2016 election.

Whoever the Democrats ran was going to find themselves being publicly investigated by the FBI. And if Hillary didn't have her so-called private email server she would have been under FBI investigation for something else.

[ehrnst]

67. "Picked?" Thankfully no.

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020

[Walleye]

3. So we can change the rules in the middle of the election just by complaining?

[Squinch]

4. All this sudden hysteria over the new BS APPROVED superdelegate rules tells me one important thing:

BS's supporters are fully aware that he is not as popular as they are insisting he is.

If they believed he actually had a "revolutionary movement" behind him, they would consider this a moot point.

[Cha]

66. Thank you!

[WhereAmerica]

5. No, we dislike Electoral College minority-election, but love giving nomination to plurality winner

Right, Bernie?

[rampartc]

7. superdelegates are our elected govrtnors and congresscritters

and i'll reaffirm my opinion that we need as many of them as we can possibly elect.

[jimfields33]

28. Electoral college is the same

[PubliusEnigma]

10. We LOVE Democrats.

[Beakybird]

13. Voila! Exactly.

[myohmy2]

11. that's

...what it appears...

[Mike 03]

14. Rational self-preservation is kicking in

because no clear-thinking Democrat wants a horrific unspeakable disaster to befall the nation in November (Trump re-election, that is).

[PubliusEnigma]

17. It's a shame that some don't feel that urge for self-preservation and march gleefully off the cliff.

But we'll learn our lesson this time, right?

[USALiberal]

25. Explain "this time'! Hillary was the wrong choice? nt

[Jersey Devil]

15. Superdelegates are representative democracy, usually elected officials and they exist on all levels

Let's say there is a mess and no clear winner for a nomination at the county level. Then the superdelegates come in and clean up the mess so that the party is not destroyed. They are mayors, local elected council/board members, elected county officials, etc. They are usually based on how many elected Democratic officials there are in a town, county, etc.

So why should'nt a town with 5 elected Dems not have more to say about who is a nominee who will affect down ballot candidates than another town that has none and thus no superdelegates? We live in a representative democracy.

[ancianita]

16. Not really. They're not as fully representative as the state delegates from The People because

superdelegates CAN include non-elected lobbyists, too. That's a lot of potential quid pro quo influence to contest the duly elected state delegates' decisions.

It can very easily be less democratic than the party would have The People believe.

[Jersey Devil]

19. You have a point if what you say is factual

I would like to see a list of superdelegates and who they are. I am betting that a huge majority would be elected Democratic officials. That's what it was when I participated in county conventions in NJ. In that setup, each town got "delegates", who were local Dem Committee members and then 1 "bonus" delegate for each elected Dem in that jurisdiction. On the national level the superdelegates are US Senators, members of the House, etc. I doubt very much that they are lobbyists, but those holding non-elective office are probably people who have long been involved in party operations and campaigns.

Seeing a list would help.

[ancianita]

24. You think the superdelegate list will exist before the convention? It should. But I doubt it will.

[MineralMan]

63. Absolutely. Most of it already exists.

Elected Democratic House Members, Senators, and Governors are already on the list. All are super delegates. Members of the Democratic National Committee, for the most part, will be the same as they are right now. They are also super delegates. Former Democratic Presidents are all known to us. They are super delegates, along with some other Democratic dignitaries.

So, in reality, you could make up a list of super delegates today that would represent at least 90% of them. The only others will be those elected to be state Democratic Chairs and vice-chairs at this year's state conventions. Most of those will be the same people who already hold those positions. A few DNC members might change, but most of them will be the same, as well.

But, before the convention, the entire list of super delegates will be known.

[ancianita]

70. If that's true, why not do us all a favor & post superdelegate lists.I don't think you'll find them.

Superdelegates have diluted the democratic representation of the nominee selection. By design, through leadership's lack of trust in a collective decision. It's a sausage making process, not a transparent one.

Once the convention convenes, there'd better be recorded conversations between every state's delegations and their superdelegates. Past elections (of superdelegates) are no guarantee of future performance, as we've learned. And lobbyist superdelegates? Pffft

Good luck with the superdelegate lists.

[MineralMan]

74. See Post #53, below. It was posted there before you asked me.

[ancianita]

75. Thanks! I'm going to keep an eye on any changes.

[former9thward]

53. Here is the list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

[MineralMan]

73. Thanks.

[ehrnst]

68. "It can very easily be less democratic than the party would have The People believe."

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[boston bean]

18. Omg. This is getting exhausting.

Let me explain once again:

Candidate 1 has 30% delegates
Candidate 2 has 25%of delegates
Candidate 3 has 20% of delegates
Candidate 4 has 15% of delegates
Candidate 5 has 10% of delegates

That doesn’t mean the person with 30% of delegates is the winner of the majority of votes or delegates. Why because 70% of the delegates belong to someone else.

Listen the person has has 50%+ of the delegates will be the nominee.

It is nothing like the electoral college where winner of a particular state takes all electoral college votes of that state.

[MichMan]

20. What would be the rationale that those with only 20 % or 15% should be chosen?

They have even more people that didn't support them than the one with 30% .

[boston bean]

21. Because delegates for those candidates become unpledged and give their delegate to another candidate

[Hav]

23. Ranked choice voting, coalitions,

agreeing to work together to achieve common goals are examples for parties coming together or for the support of a 2nd or 3rd place candidate being higher.

But these strawmen against super delegates are just theater at this point. His followers seem to realize that Sanders did nothing to increase his support beyond his base of the previous primaries, in fact, he lost support. Winning through a contested convention without a majority might have been his only way to win and his followers have received their marching order to push for that.

[The Mouth]

55. One decent compromise

The person with the most delegates gets the superdelegates on the first ballot.

[showblue22]

22. It's a debate for another election not this one.

The rules for this election are already set and everyone must follow them.

[ancianita]

26. It's been debated after elections already, which tells you how far we get with it.

Gotta stick with the rules.

[samnsara]

27. cant we just elect the person who gets the MOST VOTES?

[jimfields33]

29. That used to be the desire

Not sure how that became horrible all of a sudden.

[ehrnst]

69. Beats me...

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[jcmaine72]

71. "Because it's okay when we do it"

That's the vibe one quickly gets from this thread.

[stopbush]

31. Yes, because super delegates help choose the nominee of the D Party,

as in political party. And the SCOTUS ruled in California v Jones that political parties can do whatever they want when it comes to choosing their candidates.

Let’s be clear: no one is being elected during a primary. Voters are given an opportunity to express their preference for a candidate. That opportunity is an opportunity given to them by the political parties. The Ds could choose their nominee using only super delegates if they wanted. They Ds could allow twelve men in a smoke-filled room to pick their nominee. The Ds could say that the millions of “votes” cast for a candidate will count only 25% towards selecting a candidate while super delegate votes will count 75%. It’s their political party. They can do whatever they want.

In short, primaries are not democratic processes. They are political processes. Always have been, always will be. Voter participation in the process is also political: it’s basic function is to engage people as voters before the GE, in hopes that they will vote in November for whoever is the candidate. It’s immaterial who gets the nomination.

Hubert Humphrey became the D nominee for president in 1968 without running in - let alone winning - a single primary.

[thesquanderer]

34. Not everyone here is against the electoral college.

It's complicated.

[ripcord]

35. Its going to be interesting if Bernie has a large lead going onto the convention and is rejected

I still don't see how the DNC telling the many young voters who are the real force behind Sanders that their opinions don't matter but be sure to vote for the candidate we screwed you over for in November is considered a winning strategy.

[Fran2020]

36. Makes NO sense at all. The establishment hates Bernie. The people love Bernie.

Let the people decide!

[HarlanPepper]

38. Bernie was for it before he was against it.

[polichick]

41. Political parties are about power for the party apparatus...

not about people power - sort of like religions are about the continuation of the power structure, not about the people silly enough to have faith in them.

[jcmaine72]

72. Kinda ironic and sad that someone would have to make an entreaty like this on

a Democratic forum populated by Democratic voters.

Funny how quickly Democracy and all things "Democratic" in the truest sense can fall out of fashion when someone not liked by the establishment becomes popular with the people.

[HarlanPepper]

39. Interesting. Sort of like people who claim to be supporters of one candidate

But are really supporting Someone else.

[SidDithers]

43. At this point I'm starting to believe that people are being intentionally obtuse...

about the candidate selection process.

Repeat after me:

A candidate needs 1990 delegates on the first ballot to become the nominee. If nobody has 1990 delegates, then superdelegates are allowed to vote, and now a candidate needs 2376 delegates to become the nominee. As candidates are eliminated on subsequent ballots, eventually a candidate will reach the required number of delegates. That may or may not be the one who was leading after the first ballot, and depends on where the delegates from eliminated candidates go.


Sid

[LanternWaste]

44. Ironically, this comes up only once every 4 years. Seems Righteous Rage is based on convenience

Hmmmmm......Interesting! Part II, The Apathy Strikes Back (as soon as convenient)

[William769]

46. Have always loved Superdelegates!

Like it or not, they will protect what will be projected to be the Democratic agenda that will run in November and yes I am fine with that.

[Codeine]

47. Party politics and an actual election

are two different things??

Hmmm. . . interesting.

[Kaleva]

48. I have no issues with the Electoral College

[bluedye33139]

51. Democrats choosing candidates--what's not to love?

If the superdelegates were somehow not connected to the party, or if they were not people who had demonstrated years of commitment, I wouldn't trust them.

However, ...

[Happy Hoosier]

52. Primaries are not, strictly speaking elections....

... they are in fact, in support of a party nomination process. That is a different thing entirely. Lots of folks forget that primaries are not Constitutional things. They are in support of party processes.

[doxyluv13]

56. Great point USALiberal

nt

[Faux pas]

57. I don't

it makes no sense to give anyone so much power in what should be a FAIR election. We have enough problems with the other side cheating.

[Bettie]

58. I don't "love" superdelegates

however, they are currently part of the process and the rules that everyone agreed to when they chose to run.

So, the process that is in place now should be followed.

That said, it would be unbelievably stupid to take the nomination from someone who was very close to 1991. If however, that person has, for example, under 1000 delegates, then it isn't as clear cut as some would like to believe.

[Midnightwalk]

59. It works like a parliamentary system

There’s no inherently fair way to decide who wins the nomination if no one wins the majority in the primary. At least without more detail.

Did the centrists all split their votes or would most have wanted their votes to go to bernie.

We didn’t ask for 2nd choices during the primaries so we don’t know. Both sides will continue to yell at each other that they know the intent.

It occurred to me last night that the result we all dread, where no one gets a majority is what happens in parliamentary systems when there isn’t an outright winner. Minority parties form a coalition government with one or more other parties.

Do people complain that parliamentary systems are not democratic?

[OliverQ]

62. I don't like Super delegates but the DNC refuse to get rid of them.

[aka-chmeee]

76. I'm confused...

You dislike the electoral college but apparently believe that a plurality should be enough at the Democratic Party Convention. If your candidate gets more than 50% on the first vote, there is no superdelegate vote. Perhaps Ranked Choice?