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: Here is an in-house fight I think most DUers would agree on - get rid of Super Delagates! [View all]Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)79. If it is not broken don't fix it...they serve a purpose.
I prefer smart defenders.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
232 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
Here is an in-house fight I think most DUers would agree on - get rid of Super Delagates! [View all]
RiverStone
Nov 2017
OP
What needs to be gotten rid of are caucuses. They limit voter participation to those who have...
brush
Nov 2017
#89
Most repug rank and file are lockstep sheep who will always poll in favor of other repugs.
brush
Nov 2017
#175
If the repugs had had super delegates we wouldn't have trump in the White House.
brush
Nov 2017
#228
Trump won. What is your point? That we shouldnt use winning strategies? Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#38
Of course not. A populist is opposite of a libertarian. Trump is a right conservative. nt
fleabiscuit
Nov 2017
#67
His campaign was all populist rhetoric. It is revisionist history to say it wasn't
emulatorloo
Nov 2017
#70
Can and was are two different things, and they are measured across ALL ideologies.
fleabiscuit
Nov 2017
#86
Populism is almost always bad and populist leaders almost always demagogues. nt
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#203
There was no populist that even entered the Democratic primary at the beginning. nt
fleabiscuit
Nov 2017
#64
They have no more right to more of a voice than a working mother who doesnt have time to do that!
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#52
I think you missed a "not." And whether you support a party or not, you still have voting right.
fleabiscuit
Nov 2017
#78
And some people dont have the ability to put the time in-but they are just as deserving
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#84
Please. We live in a time when one misplaced tweet can ruin a good person. I don't want mob rule. nt
fleabiscuit
Nov 2017
#93
Nope, its dangeoursly close to wanting competency is what it is dangerously close to.
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#204
You mean someone who can win and put more liberal justices on SCotUS? Yes please!! Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#56
The cost of being more Democratic and true to the values we claim to espouse? Hell yes! Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#62
It is time to bring our voting systems and procedures out of the stone age.
democratisphere
Nov 2017
#46
The National Popular Vote interstate compact can get rid of the Electoral College
Gothmog
Nov 2017
#129
I have an issue when a candidate can have 400+ SD before a single vote is cast!!! Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#76
I don't. It means there is something compelling about that candidate. Plus, they can change their
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#206
You have that 180 degrees wrong. SDs are there to stop a populist demagogue like Trump getting
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#208
Trump is the reason why we have them and the RNC wished it had them too in 2016
themaguffin
Nov 2017
#231
Your statement that it is not democratic has absolutely no basis in fact which is easily disproved.
grantcart
Nov 2017
#149
You have a very two dimensional understanding of a three dimensional organism
grantcart
Nov 2017
#195
Thanks, this isn't about SDs of course, just another attempt to re-litigate the primary
grantcart
Nov 2017
#196
Nah it's more complicated than that. But of course you reduce all DU'ers to "Status Quo" if they
emulatorloo
Nov 2017
#63
Thank you MineralMan, I was tiring of this discussion and you restored my faith in reason.
c-rational
Nov 2017
#95
Yes, and as I said to GOPers many times leading up to it, losing an election isnt the worst outcome.
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#210
No. You think we'd have better off if, like the R's, we had no way to put the brakes on an insane
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#88
So it would have prevented them from having a winning ticket that they strongly approve of?
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#117
The superdelegates could have saved the country. And Obama made some great appointments
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#123
Appealing to people is called Democracy. It is the foundational principle of the Party
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#135
We're stuck with the electoral college, so we might as well benefit from the one feature
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#136
Our whole country lost. They didn't think he could beat Hillary, and they would have
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#159
No, there were no superdelegates to vote against DT. But Republican office-holders
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#167
Yes. Because they were certain other candidates would have been stronger against Hillary.
pnwmom
Nov 2017
#173
If the repugs had SDs trump would have never caught Bush by the time he got into the race.
brush
Nov 2017
#185
The only think we ever agree on is an in-house fight and another and another............
IADEMO2004
Nov 2017
#94
A popular vote system would address their concerns AND be more democratic. Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#120
Abdicating all thought to others is your prerogative. I like to think for myself tyvm! Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#131
And so you want to deny mrmbers of the CBC their status as important part of the party
Gothmog
Nov 2017
#153
I am not denying them any status. I am elevating everyone to the same status.
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#157
You use strawman arguments frequently in your comments under this OP. Its very discrediting
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#212
You mean the nominee that won the election and is popular with their base?
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#121
So you arent able to defend your naive and divisive position that weakens the party. That is fine.
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#133
And super delegates too! We are the Democratic Party lets act like it! Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#142
So youd give the election to an even more ignorant, racist, criminal PoS republican? Nt
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2017
#146
Um, no. The superdelegates would have prevented that person from becoming the nominee
ecstatic
Nov 2017
#148
That's a kind of protection I don't want to give up. It will keep folks like Trump away from the
coolsandy
Nov 2017
#162
I'm ambivalent. To date superdelegates have never been a deciding factor in a Dem primary.
tandem5
Nov 2017
#178
I've been trying to think of how I would design the system if we could start over.
TomSlick
Nov 2017
#180
No. Trump is the best reason for keeping some measure of control by people with brains.
Persondem
Nov 2017
#192
I was a delegate to the national convention and I have read DNC rules on voting
Gothmog
Nov 2017
#232