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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: To those who haven't yet voted...don't worry your little heads. 538's got this. [View all]haikugal
(6,476 posts)157. You mean the super delegates?
Bernie Sanders had a record number of supporters turn out to give him a 22 percent win over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primaries.
It was a big win in terms of voter support, but it didn't translate to a big win in terms of delegate support.
Despite the fact that Clinton suffered the second biggest defeat in New Hampshire's history, both candidates walked away from New Hampshire with 15 delegates
Why?
Because in the Democratic Party, unpledged delegates, also known as "superdelegates," don't have to support the same candidate as the majority of voters.
In fact, the whole point of superdelegates is to give the party elite more control over the primary process.
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's what the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) recently told Jake Tapper.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/
That's right, the chair of the DNC said that unpledged "superdelegates" are meant to be a bulwark against grassroots movements in the Democratic Party.
Unpledged superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic Primary process ever since Ted Kennedy supporters challenged sitting President Jimmy Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980.
Democrats had started to feel like their primary process had become too chaotic, and that it was resulting in nominees that ended up losing in the general election.
So the party decided to make their primary process just a little less Democratic by cordoning off a percentage of the total available delegates as "unpledged delegates" who don't have to support the candidate that the majority of primary voters and caucus-goers choose.
It was a move in the wrong direction - it wrested control away from voters and made the Democratic primaries fundamentally less democratic.
And the Democratic Party has only accelerated the process of handing the party over to the economic elites in our country ever since then.
Back in 1992, Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council fundamentally changed the Democratic party with a "bloodless coup" that put Bill Clinton in the White House and replaced the Democratic agenda of FDR, JFK and LBJ with the agendas of Wall Street and global corporations.
Since then, the party ranks have been filled with third-way corporate Democrats and lobbyists.
And many of them, particularly the lobbyists, have become unelected superdelegates, despite their blatant ties to corporate America.
It was a big win in terms of voter support, but it didn't translate to a big win in terms of delegate support.
Despite the fact that Clinton suffered the second biggest defeat in New Hampshire's history, both candidates walked away from New Hampshire with 15 delegates
Why?
Because in the Democratic Party, unpledged delegates, also known as "superdelegates," don't have to support the same candidate as the majority of voters.
In fact, the whole point of superdelegates is to give the party elite more control over the primary process.
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's what the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) recently told Jake Tapper.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/
That's right, the chair of the DNC said that unpledged "superdelegates" are meant to be a bulwark against grassroots movements in the Democratic Party.
Unpledged superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic Primary process ever since Ted Kennedy supporters challenged sitting President Jimmy Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980.
Democrats had started to feel like their primary process had become too chaotic, and that it was resulting in nominees that ended up losing in the general election.
So the party decided to make their primary process just a little less Democratic by cordoning off a percentage of the total available delegates as "unpledged delegates" who don't have to support the candidate that the majority of primary voters and caucus-goers choose.
It was a move in the wrong direction - it wrested control away from voters and made the Democratic primaries fundamentally less democratic.
And the Democratic Party has only accelerated the process of handing the party over to the economic elites in our country ever since then.
Back in 1992, Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council fundamentally changed the Democratic party with a "bloodless coup" that put Bill Clinton in the White House and replaced the Democratic agenda of FDR, JFK and LBJ with the agendas of Wall Street and global corporations.
Since then, the party ranks have been filled with third-way corporate Democrats and lobbyists.
And many of them, particularly the lobbyists, have become unelected superdelegates, despite their blatant ties to corporate America.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34898-have-the-democratic-superdelegates-been-compromised
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
173 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
To those who haven't yet voted...don't worry your little heads. 538's got this. [View all]
madfloridian
Mar 2016
OP
Mr. 538 is part of the national brainwashing campaign to force us to accept Hillary.
reformist2
Mar 2016
#1
Ready to incorporate the idea of trend lines based on favorability ratings...
kristopher
Mar 2016
#172
You want a serious response to the kneejerk, "If they support Hillary, they are corrupt!"?
Buzz Clik
Mar 2016
#141
It's a corrupt system designed to keep the 99% under the thumb of the establishment...
haikugal
Mar 2016
#155
They pledged before votes were cast, how is that based on democratic principles?
haikugal
Mar 2016
#159
I voted Dem for Kennedy plus Dem ever since. Now I'm not a good Dem for supporting Bernie.
madfloridian
Mar 2016
#34
I was converted to the Democratic Party in 1952. I wore an Adlai Stevenson pin in 1956.
JDPriestly
Mar 2016
#80
Exactly. It's disgusting. And Camp Weathervane Dirty Tricks Squad pulls that shit constantly here.
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#76
Well, if you taught it everyday, then you shoud be able to refute his math....
msanthrope
Mar 2016
#131
If you feel the need to continue this, go ahead. I see you keep mentioning a jury?
madfloridian
Mar 2016
#132
She was an elementary teacher. They teach math, language, science, social studies, reading, etc.
wavesofeuphoria
Mar 2016
#149
Remember the exit polls problem in 2000? I'm looking for some articles now.
madfloridian
Mar 2016
#39
Let's allow the statisticians to decide elections, take out the human factor. Right?
madfloridian
Mar 2016
#47
it is embarrassing that blackbox "output" is accepted without question
questionseverything
Mar 2016
#164
charnin has done amazing work over the years documenting the "red shift"
questionseverything
Mar 2016
#163
I didn't buy it either. She leaped ahead by 22,000 votes in the first 20% of returns, then didn't
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#88
This is why we have abysmal turnout, this narrative suppresses the vote and that's why they do it.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2016
#52
Isn’t 538 the blog that told us Trump had ZERO chance and Jeb! was a lock for the nomination?
Vote2016
Mar 2016
#60
Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination and be elected President.
George II
Mar 2016
#79