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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
Sun May 22, 2016, 08:10 PM May 2016

Should this be the last time we have superdelegates? [View all]

Corollary question

If not...at least next time, should superdelegates be required to remain unpledged until the primaries are over?


59 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, this should be the last time we have superdelegates.
44 (75%)
No, we should keep having superdelegates
11 (19%)
Other
4 (7%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yep. Pack 'em up, ship 'em out. eom saltpoint May 2016 #1
The current rigged system is absurd... Bernie will clean it up, no doubt. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #38
The cry against the supes is getting saltpoint May 2016 #39
Nope... nor will I miss Hillary's establishment politics. You hear her latest lie that Bernie has not had one negative ad run against him? InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #44
Yep. DWS has been on the take a long saltpoint May 2016 #45
lol, tomorrow morning would not be soon enough! DWS has become a parody of herself and a liability to the Democratic Party. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #50
it was a terrible idea from the beginning Ash_F May 2016 #2
Activists are not always kind and gentle creatures. randome May 2016 #28
Interesting viewpoint when 63% of Americans support a $15 minimum wage in 4 years Ash_F May 2016 #34
Not fringe at all, I agree. But it wasn't superdelegates who prevented him from winning. randome May 2016 #35
A leader should stand out in front Ash_F May 2016 #42
PPS - I do blame superdelegates to some degree because they came out so early Ash_F May 2016 #43
No StayFrosty May 2016 #3
No it didn't. Scuba May 2016 #5
Yes it did StayFrosty May 2016 #11
You just argued both sides of the argument. And you accuse others of living in fantasy land? Exilednight May 2016 #54
None of that is close to reality. morningfog May 2016 #6
clinton had what -- 400 delegates in her pocket oldandhappy May 2016 #12
They would have happily switched StayFrosty May 2016 #13
"Democratic voters"...not "Democrat voters". Ken Burch May 2016 #59
There isn't anything hostile in what Bernie's trying to do. Ken Burch May 2016 #14
No one said there was. Superdelegates did not prevent him from winning. randome May 2016 #31
The poster I was responding to there described Bernie's campaign as a "hostile takeover attempt" Ken Burch May 2016 #53
Other than trash-talking it for the past 25 years. randome May 2016 #60
In the last 25 years, it's been mostly impossible to be a progressive within this party, Ken Burch May 2016 #61
+1000 baldguy May 2016 #36
Meh. I like the institution having an emergency brake. We should have fewer of them, though Recursion May 2016 #4
What's wrong with "a narrow-plurality candidate in a 3-way race" winning? Scuba May 2016 #7
Say Alice, Bob, and Charlie are running Recursion May 2016 #15
You're wrong about the idea behind the superdelegates, at least according to DWS. Scuba May 2016 #21
DWS didn't create them; they were from a panel Jim Hunt of NC chaired in 1982 Recursion May 2016 #23
And Clinton deserves the nomination, since she got the most votes. baldguy May 2016 #37
If she gets the most votes fairly she deserves the nomination. I've never suggested differently. Scuba May 2016 #40
I was never sympathetic to the position of the white Southerners on this Ken Burch May 2016 #22
That might be an option we could all live with. Ken Burch May 2016 #10
I definitely agree with that idea Recursion May 2016 #16
I like the way you are thinking on this. n/t. Ken Burch May 2016 #17
I think that there should be small number of seats reserved for party leaders. The input of people Tal Vez May 2016 #8
How do you get rid of them? oldandhappy May 2016 #9
Maine just voted to eliminate super delegates... grasswire May 2016 #20
tis a beginning oldandhappy May 2016 #47
Superdelegates have never been used to select our nominee. onehandle May 2016 #18
Well, since we've never come close to having anyone remotely similar to Trump as our nominee... Ken Burch May 2016 #24
No, this year proves the point of superdelegates. onehandle May 2016 #26
What matters is what you stand for. Ken Burch May 2016 #27
Repub do not have them. oldandhappy May 2016 #48
well, I heard Trump say Repubs do not have them. ha ha oldandhappy May 2016 #49
Until this year. jeff47 May 2016 #55
In 2008 Obama needed 2117 delegates to win, he had 1828 1/2 pledged delegates (majority of pledged) andym May 2016 #58
The ONLY reason for their existence is to protect the party elite from The Proles. cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #19
The 2016 campaign for POTUS has raised my awareness of the issue of super-delegates. PufPuf23 May 2016 #25
What if super delegates could not vote on the first ballot at the convention? House of Roberts May 2016 #29
You all don't get a say in the matter. LiberalFighter May 2016 #30
Yes Depaysement May 2016 #32
1972, 1976, 1980 = no superdelegates andym May 2016 #33
Came here to post this scscholar May 2016 #51
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #41
I voted "other" Peachhead22 May 2016 #46
It should be the last time we have caucuses. nt Jitter65 May 2016 #52
OK. It's not Bernie's fault that we had them this year. Ken Burch May 2016 #57
Last time should be the last time! haikugal May 2016 #56
Let's end the conventions and directly elect the nominees Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #62
Kind of shocked anyone voted for supepdelegates. EndElectoral May 2016 #63
No! SDs did EXACTLY ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #64
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Should this be the last t...»Reply #0