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
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: Super delegates have worked for the Dems in the past. Why all of a sudden the move to get rid [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)41. I see no reason lobbyists should have more of a say than those who participate in the primary proces
It's bad enough lobbyists have more of a say in my government than I do.
Besides, aside from Trump, when was the other time Democrats--or even Republicans--nominated "a Trump like figure?"
Democracy is messy sometimes, but it still beats the heck out of anything else.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
212 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
Super delegates have worked for the Dems in the past. Why all of a sudden the move to get rid [View all]
glennward
Jun 2016
OP
That is exactly what it is. Historically, the SD have always thrown support behind the candidate
still_one
Jun 2016
#8
In this primary, several super delegates said they would not do that. Moreover, even if they
merrily
Jun 2016
#22
And hundreds didn't declare their intentions, so who knows what they would have done?
merrily
Jun 2016
#119
A very few does occur now and then. A very few has also occurred with pledged delegates, but it has
still_one
Jun 2016
#68
History tells us that candidates chosen by party "leaders" don't do well in the general.
merrily
Jun 2016
#118
Super Delegates were introduced in 1984. The Humphrey Stevenson examples don't apply
still_one
Jun 2016
#122
Of course they apply. The principle is identical: chosen by party bigwigs, not primary voters.
merrily
Jun 2016
#129
If enough Democrats feel that way, then the rules will change. The percentage of SD has
still_one
Jun 2016
#136
To my delight, several state conventions have voted against having super delegates.
merrily
Jun 2016
#138
I think the definition of a super delegate should exclude non elected officials, especially lobbyist
floriduck
Jun 2016
#205
I personally have no issue with that. Those are issues that will be brought up and debated by
still_one
Jun 2016
#206
I see no reason lobbyists should have more of a say than those who participate in the primary proces
merrily
Jun 2016
#41
"work very hard for the party and are extremely knowledgeable and valuable were completely shut out"
Chan790
Jun 2016
#152
non should be lobbyists or people working for think tanks, or banks, anyone not serving the public
swhisper1
Jun 2016
#70
The republic has been able to survive nicely prior to 1984 without super delegates and
avaistheone1
Jun 2016
#126
DNC isn't a democracy and super delegates haven't shown to be anti democratic so why the push?
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#19
then we should change our name. why call ourselves the Democratic Party if we're not democratic?
Exilednight
Jun 2016
#149
Cause its a political party and not a government? ... wow, come on people lets no just talk at
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#171
So there's a plural process that's involved and mob rule isn't allowed... again, a solution looking
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#173
Like it did in 08 with the long shot black guy? Come on people, these positions are weak I'd be
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#175
"...Obama was not a long shot..." is the opposite of reality relative the facts in 08. Come on..
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#185
1. Does NOT change the FACT the he was a long shot AND black relative to HRC political CONNECTIONS..
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#187
"Obama didn't need the personal political connections since his team did"... We disagree here ...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#191
1. Red Herring, we're not just talking about insider status we're talking empirically she had more..
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#194
1. Strawman, I didn't narrow her advantage to just experience, 2. Red Herring, we're talking about..
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#208
Link and quote any of it saying of the aspects you just outlined from black me in the DNC is viewed
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#210
+1, "his middle name happened to be same as the last name of the Iraqi dictator we removed"
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#195
That argument seems hollow to me...what I want to know is why African Americans
HereSince1628
Jun 2016
#3
Whether they would fight to keep their special status is a different issue from whether they should
merrily
Jun 2016
#21
PoC don't want SDs to keep "special status" that's another bullshit ass'd meme to disparage ...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#23
PoC were part of the subject of the post you were responding to and you said "they" meaning the
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#32
No, I replied to post 10, made no mention of people of color and "they" referred to super delegates.
merrily
Jun 2016
#35
Again, the post you responded to DID mention PoC in reference to SD.... EITHER WAY....
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#42
Again, my Reply 21 clearly had nothing to do with people of color, but Post #3 did.
merrily
Jun 2016
#43
ok... ok.. what about John Edwards... if there were no SD's and Edwards would have enough PD's to
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#49
"Fuck em"? You made clear that you're talking about DU members. Which ones?
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2016
#120
If the purpose of keeping the Super D's is to allow greater minority coalition imput
Maru Kitteh
Jun 2016
#24
The SD "issue" is a solution looking for a problem, there's been no issues with the SDs so far and
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#33
Nope, not at all to those who pay even half ass'd attention to the 08 election or even think about..
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#58
Are you telling me that people did not vote because they believed that Clinton already won
DLCWIdem
Jun 2016
#97
it didn't seem to lessen the ferver in CA have you heard of many stories where
DLCWIdem
Jun 2016
#163
You're right. No election has ever been carried by SuperD's against the will of the people
Maru Kitteh
Jun 2016
#72
This is the first election where I've seen a big fuss about super delegates. n/t
pnwmom
Jun 2016
#53
I agree there was not the same discussion - mostly because very quickly many people made it clear
karynnj
Jun 2016
#90
False, John Edwards... if he had won PDs and had not been to convention SDs would have to step in
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#112
By overriding the PD vote which is exactly what the RNC PDs are going to pull at the convention
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#201
Overriding the PD vote would immediately hand the election to the Republicans anyway.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#204
What you said! Plus not being allowed to count the Super delegates until the convention.
-none
Jun 2016
#63
"Commit?" They are still free to change even if they committed before hand...and they would if
glennward
Jun 2016
#30
When they committed, Hillary was the only viable candidate who had declared. What doesn't make
eastwestdem
Jun 2016
#52
Thats not true. If I was Hillary, I would have told my SGs to be silent until the convention
swhisper1
Jun 2016
#71
Ideally super-delegates wouldn't be reported in the totals until their states vote.
BzaDem
Jun 2016
#99
it's interesting how republicans would kill for a super-delegate system right now....
unblock
Jun 2016
#7
what do you mean by "WORKED"? -- afaik they haven't made a reported outcome difference
cloudythescribbler
Jun 2016
#11
Because they didn't favor Sanders and he's throwing a fit over them and closed primaries.
Beacool
Jun 2016
#15
To people who are already distrusting of the process, keep them to keep tRumps out ...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#34
That's not true at all... some VERSION of tRump would have a lot of support and also if Edwards...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#39
Not the point, IF... IF... Edwards would've had enough PDS and it the affair situation was found
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#45
The DNC isn't a democracy, its a political party that wants to represent democracy and even in a...
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#50
we should assume the media--and the candidate who's behind--will pull this
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#166
The math would have been the same, so I think they would have "projected" HRC as winner no matter
bettyellen
Jun 2016
#48
Sure there would- if the candidate has a big enough lead that the other person needs 80% to rebound
bettyellen
Jun 2016
#81
and if he didn't? tia... Yeap, a big mess... I wouldn't trust unscrupulous people to release power
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#60
And the DNC which make up many of this year's superdelegates are not unscrupulous people?
avaistheone1
Jun 2016
#134
I 100% agree but's it not a "they" who wants to change the way the DNC selects its candidates today
uponit7771
Jun 2016
#51
If the conversations against the established practice had happened during the off-season
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#65
Maybe as suggested by John Oliver we should revisit this in 6 months after election
DLCWIdem
Jun 2016
#108
Why do we need SDs? It's a question that doesn't even need to be answered currently.
randome
Jun 2016
#74
There will be future primaries. It would be good to avoid this stuff happening again in future.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#198
The Super Delegates has been a part of the DNC primary since 1983, after seeing the
Thinkingabout
Jun 2016
#78
How many years has there been primaries in the DNC? Maybe Mr Devine can provide more information
Thinkingabout
Jun 2016
#114
The unpledged delegates have abused their positions and candidates have deployed them as
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2016
#80
Precisely. And that clearly negates the core principle of our democracy of one person one vote.
avaistheone1
Jun 2016
#133
I don't have a problem with that. Not at all. But why isn't this way down on the list of priorities?
randome
Jun 2016
#147
Because this is a fairly small procedural change that could be fixed fairly simply.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#199
No one is being disenfranchised. There is the POTENTIAL for disenfranchisement, I agree.
randome
Jun 2016
#156
Since Bernie tried to flip the supers to overturn the vote he obviously thought SD were okay?
DLCWIdem
Jun 2016
#184
Indeed. I am shocked at how many super delegates are actually DNC people this year.
avaistheone1
Jun 2016
#132
I have no issues with a small number of ex officio delegates to the convention
alain2112
Jun 2016
#117
As long as they are elected people with a constituency they are responsible to
The Second Stone
Jun 2016
#121
The only change I'd like to see is barring superdelegates from endorsing at all
yeoman6987
Jun 2016
#144
because the Republicans have a Major disaster it looks better if the Ds have a bit of troubles.
Sunlei
Jun 2016
#161
Perhaps we should just stop them declaring before a certain point in the campaign.
Orsino
Jun 2016
#177