Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats Plan to Name Lobbyists, Operatives as Superdelegates [View all]radical noodle
(8,118 posts)128. That's true
While Bernie's campaign gave them the idea that the supers could be flipped, it was never going to happen and most Democrats knew that. Some only believed it could happen because they were handed that false hope. It dragged out way too long and should never have gone to the convention.
That was not the fault of the superdelegates but of those who pushed that false narrative. When there is more than one person running in a primary, not everyone gets to win. Many just need to learn that not everything goes their way. We can't just stomp off spitefully and go in the opposite direction because then we lose ground. Most of us have had a favorite lose a primary. We go on to vote for the nominee (or we should) and most here did just that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
263 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Like it or not those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for her or made a willful
still_one
Oct 2017
#207
Oh, VA is now going to be privatized, they cant wait to kill veterans next.
Eliot Rosewater
Oct 2017
#211
Just as it was after 2000. You would think people would have learned their lesson...they
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#219
Seemed to me the Democratic base really liked, appreciated, valued Cinton her experience,
Mediumsizedhand
Oct 2017
#17
Are they really that dense that they don't think the negatives of a certain senator...
brush
Oct 2017
#106
No one gave us a candidate...there was a primary...and a candidate won...no super delegate had
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#52
Oh ffs. Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000 counted votes, probably more ...
Hekate
Oct 2017
#130
The people did choose. Look at the raw numbers of votes, and who received the most votes even
still_one
Oct 2017
#208
You mean like the person who beat another supposedly popular person by 4 million votes?
stevenleser
Oct 2017
#212
I don't care for this idea. It closes off more of the process from the people.
Frustratedlady
Oct 2017
#3
These are people who have jobs...should they be excluded from the party...ah no.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#58
if they are paid by the wealthy to back certain policies, they should have NO role
yurbud
Oct 2017
#205
Actually it's people who are lying about super delegates role are poisoning the well...
bettyellen
Oct 2017
#187
Too bad. They serve a purpose...several in fact. And this has nothing to do with supers.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#220
They have nothing to do with votes...nothing...you want to have one person one vote...go after
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#221
A big who cares...all of the supers were in Hillary's corner in 16 and she still lost. Barak
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#262
Not really. But maybe if he joined the Democratic Party it would. In fact, he'd automatically....
George II
Oct 2017
#217
Yes, but the divisive folks who keep attacking Dems seem determined to keep dividing.
Ninsianna
Oct 2017
#46
Yes, if people are worried about voters not having a say, caucuses should be the first thing to go
ehrnst
Oct 2017
#192
It would have been hilarious, because it would have divided their party straight down the middle
Kentonio
Oct 2017
#97
Skeptical, matters how many and what kind of lobbyist ... of course I'd rather none but they're from
uponit7771
Oct 2017
#18
These are good changes. Didn't Sanders want the DNC to be shook up? From the Hill
FSogol
Oct 2017
#20
Apparently the only diveristy they approve of is their own, not actually trying to
Ninsianna
Oct 2017
#48
Superdelegates are undemocratic by definition. Bernie's attempt to appeal to the supedelegates ...
dawg
Oct 2017
#111
No the the truth was one candidate was way ahead and the other candidate had no chance...
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#141
I can't believe this absurd system hasn't been abolished after last years debacle
Takket
Oct 2017
#24
To start I live here and was active on the state and county level as a labor delegate back then
Omaha Steve
Oct 2017
#259
yep, yet we barely hear complaints about them from those who fuss about superdelegates...
JHan
Oct 2017
#109
yeah the caucus system is lousy too, but that doesn't make your case for superdelegates.
Takket
Oct 2017
#159
To prevent a Trump. It makes no difference. The supers have never influenced any primary in our
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#62
Read the article...these are people who work at various places...not what the article paints them as
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#80
"WTH do we have this system for" There are two reasons we have this system
stevenleser
Oct 2017
#235
You mean when people voted and the one with the most votes was declared the candidate just like in
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#64
The primary has always chosen the candidate...the Supers are a safety feature... the same is true
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#67
Did the runner up in Michigan have more delegates than the winner or am I wrong?
MichMan
Oct 2017
#134
The only Superdelegates should be ELECTED Democratic state and nationwide office holders
Yavin4
Oct 2017
#40
No, I think this article is bullshit and an attempt to divide us...that being said I didn't try to
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#69
So nothing new then is what you're saying? Superdelegates is still a sucky idea, and the weight of
JCanete
Oct 2017
#56
Their vote is not more important than the primary voter...they are 'just in case' something goes
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#70
You are right in part. They have the power to do what they want though. The biggest issue I have
JCanete
Oct 2017
#74
If the Republicans had superdelegates, there would be no President Trump iirc. They were jealous
OnDoutside
Oct 2017
#77
Given the dirty tactics employed by the GOP I could see them pulling a stunt in our primary and the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#140
We are dealing with Democratic voters who won't go for GOP bullshit. Sure, sometimes, we've got
JCanete
Oct 2017
#150
Are you kidding me? We are dealing with progressive voters...the same voters who fell for the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#225
No, that is ridiculous. How many progressives fell for russian lies? Hardly any. What percentage do
JCanete
Oct 2017
#226
and how many people bought into the lies? Show me a study that quantifies that, not simply
JCanete
Oct 2017
#230
come on...point to one of them. I don't know that its true that enough of us can be swayed
JCanete
Oct 2017
#249
Since the delegates always vote for the person who wins the primary...Democrats should understand
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#84
but we don't. Its a perfectly fine obfuscation if a certain representation benefits the interests
JCanete
Oct 2017
#118
One last time...we have proportionate voting...supers put the winner over the top reaching the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#227
why? That's only by a function of the rules anyway. Otherwise a simple majority would be over the
JCanete
Oct 2017
#228
It doesn't work that way...this is not the time to upend things...and I like having supers.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#244
why wouldn't you like it? That's the point. If you have a certain political bent, Supers are super.
JCanete
Oct 2017
#248
you do understand their main purpose is to put a candidate over the top... who has won the primary.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#222
That is untrue. I can't really discuss it. But that race like all others was decided by voters.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#85
Oh please, you know we can't discuss the last primary...but that is simply not true. A certain
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#94
okay, I'm not refighting here but discussing - please review the delegate count prior to....
George II
Oct 2017
#127
We know who won. Superdelegates didn't tip Clinton into the winning column from the losing one.
JCanete
Oct 2017
#232
I can only speak for me. I don't see why we need them and I just explained to you how they are
JCanete
Oct 2017
#239
Apparently important people in the Democratic Party feel they're necessary, and they've been....
George II
Oct 2017
#240
please never fall back on that kind of argument. If they can explain it to us in a way that
JCanete
Oct 2017
#241
They've explained it. Actually they explain it every few years going back to 1968. It's not...
George II
Oct 2017
#250
I explained to you my problem with superdelegates, to which you didn't feel it necessary to allay my
JCanete
Oct 2017
#252
All I have to do with the superdelegates is participate in electing the people responsible for....
George II
Oct 2017
#254
And they are reliable...I can't tell you how many times new folks promise so much but all
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#143
Actually, they only serve as a mechanism to de-legitimize the average person's vote.
dawg
Oct 2017
#115
That is untrue. They have no affect on the vote. And they have never "given" us a candidate.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#145
They have no affect on the vote...people in a primary choose a candidate...and there have been no
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#218
I dispute that any who are bothered with this are the base...the base can be counted on always...
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#147
I don't agree with you at all...you see I want to win. Go after the grass roots locally
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#223
Let me tell you a story... about a man named Ralph Nader who like Jill Stein cost us a
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#224
But see that is where you are wrong...both are the reason...so those who support protest votes and
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#263
The base isn't pissed off because the base doesn't pay attention to this shit
Fresh_Start
Oct 2017
#231
1) Lobbyists for what, exactly? Planned Parenthood has lobbyists. They're on our side. ...
Hekate
Oct 2017
#129
Exactly!! I was just going to post something like this but decided to give props instead.
Caliman73
Oct 2017
#132
So people who work for Fox News can't be Democrats and active in the party? It is a job.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#148
It was Sanders who wanted the SDs to give him the nomination, over the objection of the PDs.
StevieM
Oct 2017
#146
I do not support caucuses or superdelegates, but until Russian hacking is fixed
Not Ruth
Oct 2017
#206
last primary state voted one way, delegates with supers ended up voting the other at convention
dembotoz
Oct 2017
#237