HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them.

[Ken Burch]

36. Everyone in the 2016 Dem primary had a legitimate right to be there

No candidate's presence was "external manipulation".

We had a longer process because there was a legitimate debate that needed to be had regarding where we were going.

And there was never any point at all at which the party was so overwhelmingly united behind any candidate that the primary cycle should have been a simple formality.

In the real world, Democrats never actually do better in the fall when the primaries are over before they start. Our nominee was not We never do better when debate is prevented. Had our nominee accepted that there had to be a real contest and that everyone on our side deserved a real say, she was more than strong enough to have won on the merits anyway.

You're dragging the dead past into things...I'm talking about the future...to have a decent process that leads us to unity in future elections, we need to make sure there are no real impediments to the popular will and that we don't have a political culture in this party that sees the rank-and-file as needing "to be saved from themselves".

And to take it back to what started the superdelegates, the 1972 election...it's time to face facts.

Once Chappaquiddick happened, we were going to lose and probably lose solidly no matter who we nominated. And by the summer of 1972, there was no candidate who could have been put in place instead of McGovern who had any chance at all of uniting the party(which was a precondition to victory or even to improving our showing at all from 1968). There was no savior figure who could have been brought in if only "the pros" had been allowed to overrule the outcome of the primaries. It wouldn't have made any difference to have superdelegates...or at least not any positive difference.