General Discussion

Gothmog

(179,390 posts)

116. I live in the real world

Sun Nov 5, 2017, 09:24 PM

Nov 2017

I was at the national convention. In the real world your concepts would not work.

You do realize that even regular delegates can change their votes? I actually had a copy of the party rules which I read before runing as a delegate for Philadelphia. I was a pledged delegate for Hillary Clinton for the 2016 convention and I had Sanders people yell at me and call my youngest child the C-word in order to try to get me to change my vote.. In the real world this was handled by vetting delegates. I was on the committee that vetted delegates for the Clinton campaign.

Your proposal would not work in the real world. Do you think that Congressman Al Green or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would pay attention to this silliness? I know both and can ask them just for grins.

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