General Discussion

SkyDancer

(561 posts)

170. Good! It's about time

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 05:31 AM

Aug 2018

This is the correct thing to do and let's be serious, it's a dividing wedge and nothing more.

I personally believe that nothing should over rule the will of the voters. We do after all live in a democracy. Nobody's vote should be worth any more than any one of ours. 1 person = 1 vote.

Foe those saying "there has never been an instance where super delegates have had more sway than voters", my answer to you is why have them to begin with then?

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