General Discussion

Dave Starsky

(5,914 posts)

72. I agree that it was paranoid bullshit.

Reply to Adrahil (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 27, 2018, 12:57 PM

Aug 2018

But at least it eliminates the argument about it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

241 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What exactly was the point of the DNC rule change for superdelegates? [View all] LiberalFighter Aug 2018 OP

Superdelegates are an affront to democracy and should be eliminated. CentralMass Aug 2018 #1

As noted in the OP, no "affront" happened. themaguffin Aug 2018 #68

"Yes, officer, I did shoot at the man who annoyed me...but I missed, so what's your problem, huh?" FiveGoodMen Aug 2018 #230

That is an illogical response, but whateve's. I don't go to Pizzagatetown. themaguffin Aug 2018 #233

Now let's end open primaries and caucuses. Adrahil Aug 2018 #75

actually i LIKE our caucuses as long as they are not 'taken over' samnsara Aug 2018 #76

Caucuses usually attract only 1/4 of what primaries do. Adrahil Aug 2018 #77

No, caucuses are very restricting. LisaM Aug 2018 #82

No caucuses and winner takes all primaries...so we don't have close elections that could cause heaps Demsrule86 Aug 2018 #188

I believe states like CO, KS, MN (others?) are moving away from caucuses to primaries. LonePirate Aug 2018 #146

Colorado has moved to open primaries SkyDancer Aug 2018 #169

Yes, absolutely, which is why super delegates should be eliminated altogether. InAbLuEsTaTe Aug 2018 #103

Nope...not unless you went to winner takes all primaries. Demsrule86 Aug 2018 #189

Bullshit. Did I mention, bullshit? stopbush Aug 2018 #112

And, in addition, bullshit! Entirely agree. We should be able to understand what Atticus Aug 2018 #145

This, just this! redstatebluegirl Aug 2018 #203

Werd. NT Adrahil Aug 2018 #149

It will change media coverage, for one thing. femmedem Aug 2018 #2

The media will still make it clear who those superdelegates are endorsing. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #15

You're right, the media will do this. That of course sucks, and the media of course, for the most JCanete Aug 2018 #62

I don't have anything against endorsements. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #74

hehe..I don't have anything against endorsements. that isn't what we were talking about. JCanete Aug 2018 #81

What I mean is I have no problem with media pointing out that so-and-so has X number of endorsements Garrett78 Aug 2018 #88

Again, superdelegate endorsements aren't pointed out by the media as endorsements, but AS votes. JCanete Aug 2018 #94

Now, they will be pointed out as endorsements and not unpledged delegates, which was my point. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #95

I see, except that its not all that it changes since right here you say that now they will be JCanete Aug 2018 #96

I think the impact will be far from big. It won't amount to much at all. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #102

I don't think you'll see him put up a fight about caucuses. I won't argue against undoing them JCanete Aug 2018 #105

They are incredibly disenfranchising. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #109

I don't think he ever believed that and simply, because of our good ol media, had to make a JCanete Aug 2018 #113

Trying to remove arrow from Bernie's quiver. Sneederbunk Aug 2018 #3

How does this hurt Bernie? It helps him. Dave Starsky Aug 2018 #5

It was an argument based on lies. Shameful that it got perputated. nt SunSeeker Aug 2018 #12

It was the truth. Gore had a similar advantage over Bradley. irresistable Aug 2018 #28

OFFS. There was no truth to the argument that Hillary won because of superdelegates. SunSeeker Aug 2018 #31

If there was no truth to it, you wouldn't be so upset by the change. irresistable Aug 2018 #33

You're embarassing yourself. Maybe look up superdelegates and the primaries they have decided. Squinch Aug 2018 #36

It is at the beginning of the race where they create the unfair advantage. irresistable Aug 2018 #38

Sanders was only in the race because of caucuses which are disenfranchising to... brush Aug 2018 #65

I would be happy with 100% primaries. irresistable Aug 2018 #98

I want to say something, but I cant. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #53

Wouldn't it be great if, on Democratic Underground, we could do that? Squinch Aug 2018 #61

It isnt funny anymore. Madness Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #63

ah the old.. qazplm135 Aug 2018 #207

She did not fucking win because of the Super Delegates. JHan Aug 2018 #86

I don't care about 2016. I'm just glad that the Democratic Party... irresistable Aug 2018 #100

Me too, was the right thing to do. Now, let's take the next step & end Super Delegates altogether. InAbLuEsTaTe Aug 2018 #106

You're spreading disinformation, I'm starting to think it's willful. JHan Aug 2018 #107

I get it that you think that the DNC made the wrong choice in 2018. irresistable Aug 2018 #110

Actually no, my point is the decision was inconsequential.. JHan Aug 2018 #114

It shapes public perception at the beginning of the race. irresistable Aug 2018 #117

That is sophistry. JHan Aug 2018 #119

You believe that headlines like "Clinton Maintains Massive Superdelegate Lead"..., irresistable Aug 2018 #125

Of course if it was "Sanders has massive superdelegates lead" JHan Aug 2018 #126

Now we don't have to worry about any of that. irresistable Aug 2018 #128

There was never any worry in the first place but wrong and strong eh? JHan Aug 2018 #130

I'm not worried. The DNC decision was fair. irresistable Aug 2018 #131

Making something "fair" suggests something was unfair in the first place... JHan Aug 2018 #132

I have explained why I thought it was unfair, and you disagree. irresistable Aug 2018 #133

I'm not fighting, I'm replying to you. JHan Aug 2018 #135

I guess agreeing to disagree isn't your thing. irresistable Aug 2018 #137

As I recall, for short time, Superdelgates were the darling of those ehrnst Aug 2018 #161

Where did that headline appear, and when? George II Aug 2018 #185

here are some Feb 2016 headlines irresistable Aug 2018 #218

When was it "in the single digits"? George II Aug 2018 #186

I completely missed that in my reading of irresistable's post... JHan Aug 2018 #192

after IOWA irresistable Aug 2018 #199

... George II Aug 2018 #201

Thankfully, the DNC did the right thing and changed their policy. irresistable Aug 2018 #210

++ Have to laugh . it's purposeful misinformation. JHan Aug 2018 #219

No it doesn't. The average voter doesn't even know anything about "superdelegates" George II Aug 2018 #184

The news outlets report that the candidate has a huge DELEGATE lead irresistable Aug 2018 #198

You've said it, but can't confirm it. The news outlet did NOT do that. There may have been... George II Aug 2018 #200

Of course they did... irresistable Aug 2018 #212

All I can say is, no they didn't. George II Aug 2018 #214

I actually lived through that period, and saw it. irresistable Aug 2018 #215

I was on earth, but can't answer your question - which planet are you referring to? George II Aug 2018 #220

The divisive "proof of her inevitablity" talking point was used by right wing lapucelle Aug 2018 #241

It has to be willful. It's a totally contrived drama. The R B Garr Aug 2018 #165

It's disinformation like that conservatives and kremlin operatives enjoyed exploiting: JHan Aug 2018 #166

Excellent post. Manafort and Devine worked together on previous R B Garr Aug 2018 #226

Doesn't hold up romana Aug 2018 #150

Yep Garrett78 Aug 2018 #154

+1000. (nt) ehrnst Aug 2018 #162

this in a nutshell. +++ JHan Aug 2018 #202

The superdelegates had no effect on the primary outcome. Never have. And now never will. Squinch Aug 2018 #35

They give the perception that the game is fixed MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #60

No. She didn't look guilty. Corrupt people SAID she was guilty, and imbeciles believed it Squinch Aug 2018 #64

The perception was created by Tad and the media to stir it up. LiberalFighter Aug 2018 #73

Don't get me wrong MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #89

So you are content letting the republicans brer cat Aug 2018 #157

Well sheshe2 Aug 2018 #167

Nope MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #179

"she looked guilty as heck"? "a process that appears to be rigged"? Are you serious? George II Aug 2018 #158

I cant believe I am reading that HERE, but I am. Oh well. Ok. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #159

You mistake appearances for what is MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #180

Some are given way, way more benefit of the doubt in appearing innocent than others. ehrnst Aug 2018 #160

I don't disagree at all. MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #181

What we do about that unfairness is what makes us progressives, does it not? ehrnst Aug 2018 #182

Guilty of what? yardwork Aug 2018 #168

No idea MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #183

Who here is pretending it doesn't exist? Progressives acknowledge that it does... ehrnst Aug 2018 #204

To stupid people, maybe Recursion Aug 2018 #193

Half the electorate is below average n/t MosheFeingold Aug 2018 #231

Is it too much to hope that's the half that doesn't vote? (nt) Recursion Aug 2018 #234

Nah.... Adrahil Aug 2018 #52

I agree that it was paranoid bullshit. Dave Starsky Aug 2018 #72

Yeah, it's just removing a "talking point." joshcryer Aug 2018 #140

"has never occurred since superdelegates were created ahead of the 1984 campaign" Me. Aug 2018 #4

It was an excuse used by some to justify why their candidate wasn't successful, even though it had still_one Aug 2018 #6

Boom Me. Aug 2018 #14

Pretty much. Time to ban caucuses. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #16

and open primaries. I want Democrats deciding who will be the Democratic nominee still_one Aug 2018 #20

If you want people to vote for the Democratic nominee.... irresistable Aug 2018 #34

What does tht have to do with superdelegates? Squinch Aug 2018 #37

I was responding to a post where banning open primaries was proposed irresistable Aug 2018 #39

Of course you were. Squinch Aug 2018 #43

What does THAT mean? irresistable Aug 2018 #45

Why would you want repugs to be able to vote on who our candidate is? brush Aug 2018 #66

Republicans will vote in their own primary. irresistable Aug 2018 #99

In open primaries repugs can vote and influence who wins. brush Aug 2018 #101

Primaries are conducted with taxpayer money. irresistable Aug 2018 #104

So start a party and have a primary, and btw, I don't have kids but still pay school taxes. brush Aug 2018 #108

I already have a party...the Democratic Party, with an open primary in my state. irresistable Aug 2018 #111

Well you're not an independent then like you implied. And a multi-party, parliamentary system... brush Aug 2018 #142

No one excludes anyone from the Democratic primaries except those who don't want to be Democrats still_one Aug 2018 #41

There is no registration in my state and we have open primaries. irresistable Aug 2018 #44

Because of OPEN PRIMARIES, Lipinskik won the Democratic nomination because republicans determined still_one Aug 2018 #240

I file it under Cha Aug 2018 #27

That was never what many of us thought or alleged. Sanders never alleged that. That JCanete Aug 2018 #83

Optics. It doesn't really affect much of anything. MineralMan Aug 2018 #7

I think you understate the DNC's power a bit here. tritsofme Aug 2018 #18

They would never do that. It's not just heavy-handed, either. MineralMan Aug 2018 #19

In 2008 it didn't stop the party from stripping delegates from states who did not comply tritsofme Aug 2018 #21

They're going about as far as they can, by recommending that caucuses MineralMan Aug 2018 #22

At least in here in WA, the Democratic power structure wants a caucus cemaphonic Aug 2018 #24

The primary is meaningless, so it indicates nothing in Washington. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #50

I'm not entirely sure what the point was... perhaps vanity? Lingering bitterness? NurseJackie Aug 2018 #8

An attempt to appease the murielm99 Aug 2018 #9

THIS. SunSeeker Aug 2018 #13

Yep - the CBC was truly slapped in the face. (nt) ehrnst Aug 2018 #25

The CBC should quit whining on this mythology Aug 2018 #32

Whining? ehrnst Aug 2018 #46

Where am I again? sigh, I think I give up Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #47

:) THIS all the way. Oh, it was also a two-fer. Hortensis Aug 2018 #26

Mahalo for your very candid Cha Aug 2018 #29

You are correct. And I promise you, that displeases many. NurseJackie Aug 2018 #40

They will just find something else to bitch about. GulfCoast66 Aug 2018 #42

Very well stated. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2018 #48

The "far left" here is very centrist in most countries. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #51

Yep. joshcryer Aug 2018 #141

So they don't make a difference? Trim the fat. Bye. TCJ70 Aug 2018 #10

Absolutely. Also, no more caucuses. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #55

That's literally what I said. Why the also? n/t TCJ70 Aug 2018 #78

Missed your last sentence. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #97

Agreed on caucuses. Get rid of them. As for superdelegates and their role in 2016... brush Aug 2018 #71

Thanks for the non-relevant point. Take your Sanders jabs elsewhere. TCJ70 Aug 2018 #79

Hardly non-relevant when perception to some was that superdelegate votes hurt Sanders... brush Aug 2018 #91

Its a good thing. aikoaiko Aug 2018 #11

It's a good start. Next up should be banning undemocratic caucuses tritsofme Aug 2018 #17

That process is underway. Minnesota did away with those caucuses, MineralMan Aug 2018 #23

TY, MM.. Good on Minnesota! I knew Cha Aug 2018 #30

Bernie may very well have won a primary too. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #56

Well, we don't know, do we? MineralMan Aug 2018 #57

Exactly. Primaries are best. Lucky Luciano Aug 2018 #58

I agree, although I enjoyed participating in MineralMan Aug 2018 #59

Aren't they like the electoral college? moondust Aug 2018 #49

Because "Your vote may or may not count" is not a good look, klook Aug 2018 #54

Should never occur is the point. Should not influence voting. This change deals with the former to JCanete Aug 2018 #67

Well..I remember when some wanted to use super delegates to take the nomination away from President helpisontheway Aug 2018 #69

The sole purpose was to make bernie and his supporters happy Gothmog Aug 2018 #70

And caucuses zipplewrath Aug 2018 #84

Super-delegates made no difference and this rule change at140 Aug 2018 #80

Optics zipplewrath Aug 2018 #85

Truth: No one really cared about superdelegates until.... JHan Aug 2018 #87

And superdelegates will still make endorsements. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #90

yup +++++ JHan Aug 2018 #92

Truth, I didn't know how they worked. I despise the whole concept. Its not true that its never JCanete Aug 2018 #116

History proves you wrong. JHan Aug 2018 #118

I just told you how the media uses them. Why not address that? You can't quantify that in JCanete Aug 2018 #120

I am not strawmanning... JHan Aug 2018 #121

Where? I told you yours. Do I here, or does Sanders, hold the position that supers won Clinton JCanete Aug 2018 #122

LOL JHan Aug 2018 #123

ROFL JCanete Aug 2018 #124

I hope you're laughing as hard as I am because the whole point of this.. JHan Aug 2018 #129

oh damn...should have known the emogie was coming. Why do these always descend into LOLs and emogies JCanete Aug 2018 #138

You're not making any kind of solid argument.. JHan Aug 2018 #151

Excuse me, are you making the utterly ridiculous claim that the Democratic Party is JCanete Aug 2018 #152

No, my points are solid. JHan Aug 2018 #153

Sorry if that weas unclear...you claim that a mythology was created and that that's the only JCanete Aug 2018 #156

It is not an *actual* issue. It is a cynical strategy to claim victimhood R B Garr Aug 2018 #190

It is an actual issue. I don't ever want my vote flipped. Do you? JCanete Aug 2018 #196

It is a totally contrived issue. Just as you are trumping R B Garr Aug 2018 #206

I am saying I never want it to happen. It never has happened and it should never ever be a JCanete Aug 2018 #209

Correct, it never has happened. There is reason only one R B Garr Aug 2018 #216

No drama. Lets just get rid of superdelegates and move on. nt JCanete Aug 2018 #217

Right, no more drama. Let's just get rid of the phony brouhaha R B Garr Aug 2018 #225

Good, lets get rid of the distraction, unless you think they need to be there. Do they? nt JCanete Aug 2018 #238

The distraction is insisting they are a problem when the only one who R B Garr Aug 2018 #239

The media can still use them, because ... frazzled Aug 2018 #208

No the republican party got taken over by the tea-party because the republicans themselves, JCanete Aug 2018 #211

We're giving out ponies too! MyNameGoesHere Aug 2018 #93

its all about making shit up here clearly. Arguments keep being made and ignored as to why this JCanete Aug 2018 #115

It is clear who is making stuff up. The whole fabrication R B Garr Aug 2018 #127

What is it about superdelegates that you want to preserve and why? This OP JCanete Aug 2018 #134

These are all fabricated concerns. That's the point . R B Garr Aug 2018 #143

They aren't fabricated. They are literally the power of the superdelegates. What is fabricated about JCanete Aug 2018 #144

You refuse to accept that this is a manufactured catastrophe R B Garr Aug 2018 #164

I remembered how well the 1984 campaign turned out. Crunchy Frog Aug 2018 #136

The Democratic... Mike Nelson Aug 2018 #139

Spot on assessment! Docreed2003 Aug 2018 #178

next step - delegates lame54 Aug 2018 #147

Bernie (or at least his staffers and strategists) Blue_Tires Aug 2018 #148

If that's their thinking, they're as delusional as Trump. Garrett78 Aug 2018 #155

Like I said three years ago, if Bernie is *SERIOUS* about winning Blue_Tires Aug 2018 #177

To produce the strongest Democratic candidate to challenge the Republican nominee in the G.E. Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #163

If that were the case they'd get rid of the low-participation, non-diverse caucuses. pnwmom Aug 2018 #171

It is the case and was a step in the right direction, regardless of what other actions they take. Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #222

No, it wasn't a step in the right direction.It skewed the system even more against minority voters pnwmom Aug 2018 #224

One person one vote. Having super-delegates is what skewed the system. Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #227

All of the caucuses were elitist and non-diverse. Which one do you know of that pnwmom Aug 2018 #235

My mistake, I misread the last sentence of your post 224. Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #237

Good! It's about time SkyDancer Aug 2018 #170

Caucuses are a bigger dividing wedge. Why should voting be limited to people pnwmom Aug 2018 #172

I am on the fence with caucuses SkyDancer Aug 2018 #173

If you don't live in a state that has them you don't know what they're like. pnwmom Aug 2018 #174

Put it to a vote SkyDancer Aug 2018 #175

We DID put it to a vote. The state's voters passed a referendum to get rid of them pnwmom Aug 2018 #176

That is seriously messed up SkyDancer Aug 2018 #195

And to add insult to injury, when we go to the caucuses pnwmom Aug 2018 #197

I believe this to be a great idea SkyDancer and long overdue. Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #223

I've never understood why they are not SkyDancer Aug 2018 #228

I haven't either, how relevant is Columbus Day to having a federal holiday celebrating our democracy Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #229

They are out of whack SkyDancer Aug 2018 #236

It will lead to electoral losses in my opinion and will hurts us ...cause division. Demsrule86 Aug 2018 #187

One of the perceptions of superdelegates is that they are not elected. LiberalFighter Aug 2018 #191

Well, it's stacking the deck zipplewrath Aug 2018 #213

Stacking the deck? Really? Just wow! LiberalFighter Aug 2018 #221

Of the last election zipplewrath Aug 2018 #232

Placation. George II Aug 2018 #194

Take a few minutes, Glamrock Aug 2018 #205