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

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
12. Do you know the "supposed" purpose of superdelegates? I do, and it isn't so they can be purchased or
Fri May 13, 2016, 12:49 AM
May 2016

threatened by a candidate to vote for them. Nor is it as some are now trying to spin, "so they and regular people can both feel warm and fuzzy by being part of the convention."


You see the superdelegates are supposed to support the one that will win the GE and not lose it, current trends show that Sanders would be that guy, of course in order to keep the people fooled that believe they are supposed to vote mostly as tie breakers, (that is not their actual intended purpose)

Sanders will have to bring down that 250+ pledged delegate deficit to a much smaller margin, one in the single digits or double digits perhaps depending on just how unelectable Clinton is in the GE at the time of the convention.

The superdelegates really do have a purpose and it is not a "feel good, I get to be involved!" purpose. It is "about the business of winning again" to quote one of the Committee members that formed the rule change that brought the Superdelegates into being.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

[font size="1"]AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.[/font]


Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for there existence:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

Victory Is the Objective

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democratic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections.


One should also not count one's chickens before they are hatched and the MSM is using fraudulent numbers despite being told directly not to by the DNCs Communications director, them counting the superdelegates before the vote at the convention is akin to doing a phone survey of votes in California now and adding their numbers to the count on the big board.



And just recently told by DWS herself not to include superdelegates in their counts on election coverage (I apologize for not finding that clip yet)
So you paid Murdock to read that? Interesting. synergie May 2016 #1
so the WSJ wants bernie. big deal. not too good on math tho nt msongs May 2016 #2
Apparently the WSJ didn't get the new talking points memo DLCWIdem May 2016 #25
She may just be the most unelectable candidate in history when you factor in all her baggage. coffeeAM May 2016 #3
If you enjoy RW manufactured baggage and hate math and do not know Trump synergie May 2016 #4
I know the Sanders' baggage. grasswire May 2016 #6
His baggage has not been talked about by either Hillary or Trump. She is more decent than he is. Jitter65 May 2016 #11
Nobody believes that. grasswire May 2016 #13
So his crowds are a ploy to trick superdelegates into picking him? AgingAmerican May 2016 #19
Nah, Sanders uses the rallies to feed his ego, which grows by the day! riversedge May 2016 #29
Ah, so the tens of thousands come just to feed his ego! AgingAmerican May 2016 #33
You got it -- Bernie is tricking so many--donate those $27!! riversedge May 2016 #37
Yeah, that must explain it! Trickery! AgingAmerican May 2016 #41
Good lord lastone May 2016 #28
Wow, I can't believe that a rational person can actually say that. Hillary supports wars rhett o rick May 2016 #43
What's in those J.C. Penney suitcases? His tax returns have the answer. oasis May 2016 #15
J.C. Penney boxers, socks, and pajamas. grasswire May 2016 #16
hey---shssssssssssush--You are telling everyone Jane's hiding place! riversedge May 2016 #30
LOL!!! Zing!! CoffeeCat May 2016 #32
She betrayed her own Party and the people of the US and the people of Iraq and why? rhett o rick May 2016 #8
Did you vote for Kerry? nt Andy823 May 2016 #24
Time for "Guess the Point". If you want to give me a lecture, go ahead without the questions. rhett o rick May 2016 #42
A lot of it is right wing bullshit, some of it is self inflicted though. phleshdef May 2016 #9
She's going to be a party disaster in November, LWolf May 2016 #23
Downballot cancer. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #34
Yep. nt LWolf May 2016 #35
"buyer's remorse" re: HRC; if she's the nominee, there will be more than that amborin May 2016 #5
Media loves Trump, Clinton's under investigation, has tons and tons of baggage. CentralCoaster May 2016 #7
Do you know the "supposed" purpose of superdelegates? I do, and it isn't so they can be purchased or Dragonfli May 2016 #12
Exactly, There Is This Misconception That Voters Chose The Nominee TomCADem May 2016 #14
I see no need to make this an either/or. it takes BOTH Supers and Pledged to win 99th_Monkey May 2016 #18
The Iron Triangle prevails, lobbyist delegates will support the candidate protecting their interests TheBlackAdder May 2016 #21
Ok this is by my count the third news organization going there nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #10
I'm really surprised. I guess even they don't think its over yet... riderinthestorm May 2016 #26
There is an element of trump fear as well nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #39
Whaa! The Wall St. fucking Journal? nt 99th_Monkey May 2016 #17
"... it is undemocratic to pronounce this race as over. Voters do not pick the nominee. ... pampango May 2016 #20
"Mrs. Clinton has proven to be a lousy candidate, unappealing even to millions of Democrats." LWolf May 2016 #22
Further proof the Republicans would rather face Bernie redstateblues May 2016 #27
Just curious, who is the author of this editorial? emulatorloo May 2016 #31
Ahhh, I see that the WSJ is trying to roil Democratic waters. Beacool May 2016 #36
lol, any port in a storm bigtree May 2016 #38
Yes Democrats Listen to the Wall Street Journal - A real Beacon of Truth!!! /sacrcasm BootinUp May 2016 #40
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WSJ - "Saved by the Super...»Reply #12