General Discussion

JCanete

(5,272 posts)

26. Why do they discourage turnout? Serious question. I don't know enough about how they are handled

Reply to LisaM (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 5, 2017, 04:25 PM

Nov 2017

differently than regular state elections.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them. [View all] Ken Burch Nov 2017 OP

Caucuses are a state decision, superdelegates are a DNC decision Not Ruth Nov 2017 #1

the party surely controls what the DNC does dsc Nov 2017 #2

The DNC can start by ruling that delegations chosen by the caucus process Ken Burch Nov 2017 #6

Agree with 1) but not with 2) triron Nov 2017 #3

We nominated the candidates the superdelegates preferred and still had the results we had. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #9

People voted period...that is how it goes...supers had no effect whatsoever. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #135

their voice is weighted heavier already. They have leadership positions and connections and JCanete Nov 2017 #20

Supers greeny2323 Nov 2017 #4

That is right. Those SD would run for those delegate spots. LiberalFighter Nov 2017 #157

No one drowned on my boat trip, that proves we don't need life jackets! FSogol Nov 2017 #5

Bingo. Thanks. George II Nov 2017 #93

The congressional black caucus wants to keep them JI7 Nov 2017 #7

The CBC wants to keep the caucuses, or the supers? Ken Burch Nov 2017 #11

The supers JI7 Nov 2017 #12

Thank you for clarifying. that objective could still be met Ken Burch Nov 2017 #18

California has moved up its date so this has greatly reduced the chance of the primaries pnwmom Nov 2017 #80

Instead it will be determined by who can afford California media mythology Nov 2017 #98

It will be determined Codeine Nov 2017 #100

Oh. And the media doesn't influence voting in the other 49 states? pnwmom Nov 2017 #103

California is by far the largest number of Democratic voters...I never understood why small and GOP Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #136

You mean the people that are currently superdelegates want to retain thier power? MichMan Nov 2017 #14

African Americans are UNDERREPRESENTED because of gerrymandering. pnwmom Nov 2017 #82

The state parties can pick whomever they want as regular delegates. MichMan Nov 2017 #89

I know that's not true in caucus states like mine. pnwmom Nov 2017 #90

That is right. LiberalFighter Nov 2017 #158

I don't want people "most loyal to the party" having more influence. "loyal to the party" in this JCanete Nov 2017 #24

African American voters are the ones who are most loyal to the party. pnwmom Nov 2017 #104

not at all. Who gets to decide which african americans along with which people from every other JCanete Nov 2017 #129

The voters decide which African Americans. are supers. Virtually all are elected office-holders. pnwmom Nov 2017 #148

what do you mean the voters decide the superdelegates? In the case of any previously JCanete Nov 2017 #166

Nothing is stopping the state party from appointing as many minorities as they desire MichMan Nov 2017 #172

In the states that have caucuses the state parties don't appoint delegates. pnwmom Nov 2017 #176

Are you saying caususes don't treat POC fairly? MichMan Nov 2017 #181

They don't treat anyone fairly --except for people who don't work for a living and have lots of time pnwmom Nov 2017 #182

I am a member of the Democratic Party and support the party Gothmog Nov 2017 #115

so is being part of defining the party...if you are cut out of that part, its not a good thing. JCanete Nov 2017 #128

I believe in supporting the party Gothmog Nov 2017 #132

Your analysis is wrong as normal Gothmog Nov 2017 #188

So youre okay having Party leaders make up State Delegations, rather than grassroots? brooklynite Nov 2017 #8

No...I favor primaries, followed by state conventions at which the supporters of each candidate Ken Burch Nov 2017 #13

What do you imagine would happen at the state conventions? tammywammy Nov 2017 #42

Not how it worked in Oregon. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #46

Was this before or after the Democratic Party instituted Super Delegates? tammywammy Nov 2017 #47

This was before. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #60

Who are "the supporters of each candidate" at the Convention? brooklynite Nov 2017 #112

Not necessarily. They could also be(as they were in Oregon) Ken Burch Nov 2017 #122

Because that's reality... brooklynite Nov 2017 #123

Yes, Grassroots have their place, but not as party leaders...often they are less experienced and are Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #137

i don't agree with getting rid of caucuses questionseverything Nov 2017 #10

Caucuses discourage turnout. LisaM Nov 2017 #15

Why do they discourage turnout? Serious question. I don't know enough about how they are handled JCanete Nov 2017 #26

Because they are held during a two-hour window, LisaM Nov 2017 #37

I've never understood why they can't let people leave once they've done the first fan-out Ken Burch Nov 2017 #53

yup, and they discriminate against those who have mobility issues. still_one Nov 2017 #77

Caucuses don't truly measure the state in terms of who people want...because more than half the Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #139

it makes sense that states that want to make it hard would do this, just like they do with JCanete Nov 2017 #165

until we hand count our votes and get a tight chain of custody questionseverything Nov 2017 #27

LOL. LisaM Nov 2017 #44

Caucuses are undemocratic...don't care who won or didn't win. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #52

Agreed. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #62

"Get rid of caucuses-we're all agreed on that." left-of-center2012 Nov 2017 #16

What's your opinion about my idea in #40 about "absentee/early caucusing"? moriah Nov 2017 #54

by "we", I wasn't referring to state parties. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #64

At this point I'd like to keep them if for no other reason Codeine Nov 2017 #17

Why do we need irritation in the process at all? Ken Burch Nov 2017 #21

They don't "stick it to" anybody. Codeine Nov 2017 #22

and yet that's an incredibly petulant reason to keep them. You have no logical reason for their JCanete Nov 2017 #28

No, that's but one reason. Codeine Nov 2017 #32

we don't have a version like trump. Our voters are not at all like republican voters. That is not a JCanete Nov 2017 #35

Oh baloney. Codeine Nov 2017 #38

+1 tammywammy Nov 2017 #48

They exist I'm not saying democrats are as discerning as I'd like them to be, JCanete Nov 2017 #50

As I sad before after watching progressives fall for GOP and Russian tricks...not to mention Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #140

You make it sound like people are aggrieved for the SAKE of being aggrieved. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #66

It is most assuredly my contention that Codeine Nov 2017 #70

++++ sheshe2 Nov 2017 #74

This thread isn't even about the nominee, or any other candidate. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #76

Really? GulfCoast66 Nov 2017 #144

So true. betsuni Nov 2017 #87

Bravo GulfCoast66 Nov 2017 #141

Come on...you and I both know that some simply want to believe that somehow the supers rig Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #142

Frankly, with all the external manipulation going on, I will not advocate for eliminating SD's... Adrahil Nov 2017 #19

Everyone in the 2016 Dem primary had a legitimate right to be there Ken Burch Nov 2017 #36

Knee Jerk much? Adrahil Nov 2017 #39

I understood perfectly that you were refering to Russia, Adrahil. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #55

None of our primary candidates was there as part of a Russian plot, though. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #69

Well sheshe2 Nov 2017 #72

Nobody in our 2016 cycle was artificially boosted by Republicans, though. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #85

I am not the one talking 2016. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #95

MY op is about the future. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #105

You're making up your own arguments. tammywammy Nov 2017 #73

The Russians manipulated the fall campaign, not the primaries. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #97

Holy fuck! Adrahil Nov 2017 #107

They used the primary in the general. joshcryer Nov 2017 #110

Congressional Black Caucus: Keep superdelegate system in place Gothmog Nov 2017 #23

Of course they are............ MichMan Nov 2017 #30

Unrec because of smear of CBC civil servants as venal "powergrabbers" emulatorloo Nov 2017 #56

Please............the CBC are still politicians MichMan Nov 2017 #173

... emulatorloo Nov 2017 #186

We need to get rid of all the flaws in the process. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #41

I like supers they serve a purpose. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #51

They could serve the same purpose by staying neutral until the voters have declared themselves. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #59

You are wrong yet again Gothmog Nov 2017 #83

Then keep the supers, but keep them neutral until the nominee has been decided. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #88

I live in the real world Gothmog Nov 2017 #116

We both live in the real world. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #121

Your posts speak for themselves Gothmog Nov 2017 #134

If none of them would listen, you've got nothing to worry about. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #161

You're not being "personally" disrespected. What he's doing... NurseJackie Nov 2017 #162

I do not care about you but I do think that your proposals make no sense in the real world Gothmog Nov 2017 #163

If you disagree with me, fine, that's your right. Just make an argument against my position. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #164

And I live in the real world as much as you do-so does everyone else here. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #168

Lord. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #169

Ken-your posts and your proposals tell me all I need to know about your "experience" Gothmog Nov 2017 #175

You are not entitled to pass personal judgment on anyone or to accuse anyone here of lying Ken Burch Nov 2017 #178

I am only commenting on the fact that your proposals will not work in the real world Gothmog Nov 2017 #180

You can express an opinion on anyone's ideas. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #183

Ken-I am commenting on your proposals which make no sense Gothmog Nov 2017 #184

If you are just commenting on my proposals, stop saying I don't live "in the real world". Ken Burch Nov 2017 #185

So you are not going to try to defend your sad proposals Gothmog Nov 2017 #187

I am glad to defend my proposals. They are practical and pragmatic. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #189

Your defense of your proposals does not stand up and is full of factual errors Gothmog Nov 2017 #190

What is your issue with how 2008 turned out? Ken Burch Nov 2017 #191

Your claims about real world experience are not relevant to the soundness of your proposals Gothmog Nov 2017 #192

I raise my real world experience because you keep falsely claiming I don't live there. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #193

Your lack of understanding of the real world is sad but amusing Gothmog Nov 2017 #194

I don't oppose the vetting of delegates Ken Burch Nov 2017 #195

Vetting has nothing to do with your proposal to restrict super delegates ability to campaign Gothmog Nov 2017 #196

"Vetting is only applicable to pledged delegates." LOL! Of course! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #197

Hey, I survived the vetting process Gothmog Nov 2017 #198

+1 Owl Nov 2017 #177

Thanks. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #179

How are super delegates undemocratic? murielm99 Nov 2017 #25

Everything that poster does is meant to undermine and divide. Codeine Nov 2017 #33

+1 Exactly. Everyone falls for it too. n/t FSogol Nov 2017 #67

..... R B Garr Nov 2017 #68

+++ sheshe2 Nov 2017 #75

+1 betsuni Nov 2017 #86

Don't agree with either of your points but I am not going to waste time relitigating the primary grantcart Nov 2017 #29

Yes Hekate Nov 2017 #57

Actually, I think super-delegates are a good check on allowing an unprepared or crazy candidate Hoyt Nov 2017 #31

That's real interesting logic, there. kcr Nov 2017 #34

I live in a primary state, but how about this for caucuses? moriah Nov 2017 #40

I'm taking the Congressional Black Caucus over your take: VermontKevin Nov 2017 #43

proves no such thing. nt msongs Nov 2017 #45

Trump is probably the best case for SDs. Bleacher Creature Nov 2017 #49

Yes on #1 sheshe2 Nov 2017 #58

LOL! It "proves" no such thing. It's not about Hillary. Please... NurseJackie Nov 2017 #61

Closed primaries (strictly enforced) nationwide would be more valuable to the party. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #63

This. A thousand times this. Codeine Nov 2017 #65

Yes! Especially the last part! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #71

Closed primaries. lapucelle Nov 2017 #78

absolutely. It is insane to have non-Democrats take part in determining who should be the still_one Nov 2017 #79

Agreed Gothmog Nov 2017 #117

I don't know much about caucuses loyalsister Nov 2017 #81

Well, I do. Caucuses attract the die-hard true believers, because they require pnwmom Nov 2017 #84

In other words poor and working poor people are left out? loyalsister Nov 2017 #94

I agree with that. Ken Burch Nov 2017 #99

If anything our platforms have been anti-poor people loyalsister Nov 2017 #106

You just agreed with loyalsister and pnwmom sheshe2 Nov 2017 #111

From what I've read they haven't Ken Burch Nov 2017 #124

Yes. In my caucus my husband noticed pnwmom Nov 2017 #102

Are you a registered Democrat? nt ecstatic Nov 2017 #91

That superdelegate stuff really sucked Owl Nov 2017 #92

No, but the continued wailing and gnashing of teeth Codeine Nov 2017 #101

I wholeheartedly agree. dawg Nov 2017 #96

You have to go to a local county committee JustAnotherGen Nov 2017 #108

I work GOTV every year. I see the same faces year after year...talk online is cheap and easy. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #143

Amen JustAnotherGen Nov 2017 #149

Let's just get rid of the Mikulski Commission and Fairness Commission while we're at it. joshcryer Nov 2017 #109

The caucuses are undemocratic. But here is a solution to the problem of the caucuses and SDs. StevieM Nov 2017 #113

Super delegates are in place to prevent a liberal version of Donald Trump. wyldwolf Nov 2017 #114

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2017 #118

Lord. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #119

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2017 #120

Nope, the need for SDs aren't about Hillary. nt stevenleser Nov 2017 #125

Get rid of superdelegates and caucuses. RandySF Nov 2017 #126

Oh, another discussion about nothing. betsuni Nov 2017 #127

++++++ brer cat Nov 2017 #130

In my opinion, the premise and intent of the original post is to rehash the primaries. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #153

Your edit to this OP is condescending brer cat Nov 2017 #131

+1 betsuni Nov 2017 #133

Agreed. 100% NurseJackie Nov 2017 #138

Agreed. SSDD. FSogol Nov 2017 #160

SSED! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #170

Black Congressional Caucus opposes getting rid of them ehrnst Nov 2017 #145

Actually Bernnie would most likely have won... Joe941 Nov 2017 #146

LOL! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #152

"Before I posted about superdelegates rigging the election, I lit a candle in my living room betsuni Nov 2017 #147

Lol. Why out of nowhere a SD issue? Are the Russians Hortensis Nov 2017 #171

Perfect! mcar Nov 2017 #174

The reason we need them is to potentially protect ourselves from a future Trump in our party scheming daemons Nov 2017 #150

Yes! Good example! We need to keep the kooks and imposters OUT of the party! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #159

HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates... brooklynite Nov 2017 #151

This message was self-deleted by its author NCTraveler Nov 2017 #154

You're confusing the words "evidence" and "proof." LanternWaste Nov 2017 #155

SD are there as a safety valve and to cement support. LiberalFighter Nov 2017 #156

Trump being elected is why we need to keep Superdelegates obamanut2012 Nov 2017 #167