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]Persondem
(2,101 posts)192. No. Trump is the best reason for keeping some measure of control by people with brains.
If the GOP had SD's then we likely would not have this CF of an administration "running" the country.
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