2016 Postmortem

-none

(1,884 posts)

63. What you said! Plus not being allowed to count the Super delegates until the convention.

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:10 PM

Jun 2016

Lining up and counting the Super delegates up front, from the beginning, is stacking the deck.
We need to get rid of the delegates altogether and have directing voting in open primaries. Paper ballots and no touch screen voting machines.
Give the power to the People by taking it away from the party. The Party should be responsive to the people, not as we have now, the party itself campaigning for their chosen candidate in the primary, while working against the rest of the candidates. The party has to be neutral, impartial for all candidates running.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

212 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

One can adjust creon Jun 2016 #1

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

Several out of hundreds, and they didn't Hortensis Jun 2016 #66

And hundreds didn't declare their intentions, so who knows what they would have done? merrily Jun 2016 #119

Humility, Merrily. Lobbyists know best. Hortensis Jun 2016 #139

Heck, I'm so humble, I don't even capitalize my screen name. merrily Jun 2016 #145

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

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2016 #20

I see no reason lobbyists should have more of a say than those who participate in the primary proces merrily Jun 2016 #41

I agree. But we could always limit superdelegates Hortensis Jun 2016 #67

"work very hard for the party and are extremely knowledgeable and valuable were completely shut out" Chan790 Jun 2016 #152

One of the reasons we have superdelegates is Hortensis Jun 2016 #153

non should be lobbyists or people working for think tanks, or banks, anyone not serving the public swhisper1 Jun 2016 #70

This Merrily - this and this only!!! Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #102

When you say "never had a practical effect" bonemachine Jun 2016 #56

I disagree DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #93

If anything, it would have helped Sanders in an anti-establishment climate. Garrett78 Jun 2016 #95

remember bonemachine Jun 2016 #127

The effect was Huge! Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #103

The republic has been able to survive nicely prior to 1984 without super delegates and avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #126

Democracy? redgreenandblue Jun 2016 #2

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #9

+1 merrily Jun 2016 #16

DNC isn't a democracy and super delegates haven't shown to be anti democratic so why the push? uponit7771 Jun 2016 #19

And now the DNC is not a democracy - what path are we taking? Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #105

^^^^^THIS avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #128

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

Names have meaning. Exilednight Jun 2016 #172

So there's a plural process that's involved and mob rule isn't allowed... again, a solution looking uponit7771 Jun 2016 #173

There is a problem with the SD format. Exilednight Jun 2016 #174

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

Anyone who actually paid attention knew that Obama was not Exilednight Jun 2016 #182

"...Obama was not a long shot..." is the opposite of reality relative the facts in 08. Come on.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #185

Alright, let's look at the facts Exilednight Jun 2016 #186

1. Does NOT change the FACT the he was a long shot AND black relative to HRC political CONNECTIONS.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #187

Ignoring facts doesn't change them. Exilednight Jun 2016 #188

"Obama didn't need the personal political connections since his team did"... We disagree here ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #191

Empirical evidence shows otherwise. Exilednight Jun 2016 #193

1. Red Herring, we're not just talking about insider status we're talking empirically she had more.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #194

if elections were about resumes, then Exilednight Jun 2016 #203

1. Strawman, I didn't narrow her advantage to just experience, 2. Red Herring, we're talking about.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #208

There's plenty of empirical evidence. Polls that asked every kind Exilednight Jun 2016 #209

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

As I stated above, educate yourself. Exilednight Jun 2016 #211

One Advantage Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #192

+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

From what I understood from the recent article justiceischeap Jun 2016 #10

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

I did not say POC want them and my post had nothing to do with that. merrily Jun 2016 #29

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

Do you honestly believe bonemachine Jun 2016 #55

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

Let's be honest here bonemachine Jun 2016 #61

Are you telling me that people did not vote because they believed that Clinton already won DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #97

yes bonemachine Jun 2016 #125

I agree. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #130

it didn't seem to lessen the ferver in CA have you heard of many stories where DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #163

unfortunately bonemachine Jun 2016 #167

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

Actually, I think that 2008 was karynnj Jun 2016 #82

It was "floated." And that was the end of that. This is the first year pnwmom Jun 2016 #84

It was spoken of from February thru June karynnj Jun 2016 #85

Who was arguing then that the system of super delegates should be ended? pnwmom Jun 2016 #89

I agree there was not the same discussion - mostly because very quickly many people made it clear karynnj Jun 2016 #90

Guess it shouldn't have been floated in 08... Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #106

They never complain about caucuses. xmas74 Jun 2016 #207

I'm sure it's something to do with representaiton but I'd be surprised HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #31

Ask President Obama. nt glennward Jun 2016 #27

check the thread about CBC sending letter to Sanders in GDP DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #96

This post was supposed to be in response to.post 3 DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #98

Well, then - why have primaries at all? djean111 Jun 2016 #4

That's been spelled out ad nausea already, to prevent the Trumps... period uponit7771 Jun 2016 #25

Democrats would never have a Trump... Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #107

False, John Edwards... if he had won PDs and had not been to convention SDs would have to step in uponit7771 Jun 2016 #112

About 20 years ago DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #180

Antidotal evidence sorry! Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #189

I was just responding to the statement that it could never happen DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #190

Prevent how? Kentonio Jun 2016 #197

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

If Bernie had 2027 delegates RobertEarl Jun 2016 #5

++++++++++++++DING DING DING !! Thread winnah+++++++++++++++++++++ uponit7771 Jun 2016 #26

What you said! Plus not being allowed to count the Super delegates until the convention. -none Jun 2016 #63

Excellent post...excellent ideas. Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #109

Well yeah, but nobody's perfect. -none Jun 2016 #157

"Commit?" They are still free to change even if they committed before hand...and they would if glennward Jun 2016 #30

So you condone the 'before' commit? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #92

they were separated though DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #104

PBS is right-wing? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #115

the counts I saw separated pledge and super delegates. DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #164

When they committed, Hillary was the only viable candidate who had declared. What doesn't make eastwestdem Jun 2016 #52

There was no problem noted when Bernie used his SD vote WhiteTara Jun 2016 #69

He did not RobertEarl Jun 2016 #91

You seem really worked up. I didn't say WhiteTara Jun 2016 #170

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

State by state is a great idea! RobertEarl Jun 2016 #116

sooner than that before April and NY DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #183

Not everyone believes that the votes of insiders and lobbyists bunnies Jun 2016 #6

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

Trump himself has been a Dem in the past and could have re-invented himself pnwmom Jun 2016 #54

This is puzzling to me, too. But I have my theories. eom BlueCaliDem Jun 2016 #12

To make the Democratic Party live up to its name. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #13

Oh c'mon..."Another Trumplike figure from the left"? Armstead Jun 2016 #14

Because they didn't favor Sanders and he's throwing a fit over them and closed primaries. Beacool Jun 2016 #15

+1, I don't see the problem that's being solved with getting rid of them uponit7771 Jun 2016 #17

lol SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2016 #110

Getting rid of the Super Delegates is a very dangerous move liberal N proud Jun 2016 #18

they feed misperceptions and distrust of the process. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #28

To people who are already distrusting of the process, keep them to keep tRumps out ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #34

a Trump would never fly with our party. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #37

That's not true at all... some VERSION of tRump would have a lot of support and also if Edwards... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #39

Edwards never had a chance, because the base of our party geek tragedy Jun 2016 #44

Not the point, IF... IF... Edwards would've had enough PDS and it the affair situation was found uponit7771 Jun 2016 #45

part of being a democracy is letting the voters screw up. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #47

The DNC isn't a democracy, its a political party that wants to represent democracy and even in a... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #50

most of the misconceptions this time DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #162

we should assume the media--and the candidate who's behind--will pull this geek tragedy Jun 2016 #166

The AP wouldn't have called the election the night before Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #36

The math would have been the same, so I think they would have "projected" HRC as winner no matter bettyellen Jun 2016 #48

If there were no SDs then there would have been no way Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #57

Sure there would- if the candidate has a big enough lead that the other person needs 80% to rebound bettyellen Jun 2016 #81

The AP calls states based on likelihood. Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #137

Without the SDs the number would have been smaller, bettyellen Jun 2016 #155

No they didn't supress the vote. Hillary was ahead by every measure. Lil Missy Jun 2016 #87

She had more absentee votes Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #140

I thought they should have eliminated them after 2008 RAFisher Jun 2016 #38

John Edwards... full stop uponit7771 Jun 2016 #40

If there were no SDs and John Edwards thought Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #59

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'd rather they focus on real voter disenfranchisement... Why don't they? bettyellen Jun 2016 #46

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

"I think they need to be Democrats..." Capt. Obvious Jun 2016 #62

should have been citizens of the US for at least 20 years anigbrowl Jun 2016 #64

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

I agree somewhat DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #168

Distilling this thread... seabeckind Jun 2016 #73

Why do we need SDs? It's a question that doesn't even need to be answered currently. randome Jun 2016 #74

Because there are many people who see it as broken. seabeckind Jun 2016 #75

Sure, they may be right. I just don't see it, though. randome Jun 2016 #79

Why is anyone discussing this, I thought the primary was over glowing Jun 2016 #76

There will be future primaries. It would be good to avoid this stuff happening again in future. Kentonio Jun 2016 #198

Get rid of superdelegates TheFarseer Jun 2016 #77

The Super Delegates has been a part of the DNC primary since 1983, after seeing the Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #78

And for years before they did not exist...why in 83? Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #111

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

They need to go. Vinca Jun 2016 #83

Each superdelegate vote POTENTIALLY negates thousands of voters. randome Jun 2016 #88

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

It's going to happen at the convention this year. Vinca Jun 2016 #146

With the superdelegates removed from the equation, Clinton would still win. randome Jun 2016 #148

That still doesn't change the fact voters are being disenfranchised. Vinca Jun 2016 #150

No one is being disenfranchised. There is the POTENTIAL for disenfranchisement, I agree. randome Jun 2016 #156

If the status of Hillary and Bernie were reversed, you would definitely get it. Vinca Jun 2016 #179

Since Bernie tried to flip the supers to overturn the vote he obviously thought SD were okay? DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #184

Think of it like this.. Kentonio Jun 2016 #200

If SDs vote with the populus, they're redundant demwing Jun 2016 #86

Super Delegates are a safety valve DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #94

Serving in Congress is representing at the national level. NT Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #141

and you just made their point DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #176

Because they exist to guarentee an outcome the system agrees with AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #100

Super D's are insiders, lobbist and people the DNC wants to buy Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #101

Indeed. I am shocked at how many super delegates are actually DNC people this year. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #132

Worked for whom? choie Jun 2016 #113

I have no issues with a small number of ex officio delegates to the convention alain2112 Jun 2016 #117

I think alot of people would disagree that these ex officials avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #124

I meant "ex officio" in the sense of "by virtue of holding office." alain2112 Jun 2016 #131

As long as they are elected people with a constituency they are responsible to The Second Stone Jun 2016 #121

The majority of SDs are there as party officials Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #142

DNC members are elected by state parties The Second Stone Jun 2016 #165

The super delegates should be dumped for once and for all. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #123

What difference does it make how long VOTERS have been citizens? Ken Burch Jun 2016 #135

What did we do before we had Super Delegates? B Calm Jun 2016 #143

The correct answer depends on how far before you mean. merrily Jun 2016 #151

The only change I'd like to see is barring superdelegates from endorsing at all yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #144

This message was self-deleted by its author stopbush Jun 2016 #154

This! Her Sister Jun 2016 #196

They have too much influence jzodda Jun 2016 #158

What kind of anti-democratic nonsense is this? Trajan Jun 2016 #159

Not all superdelegates are lobbyists and not all lobbyists are evil. randome Jun 2016 #160

because the Republicans have a Major disaster it looks better if the Ds have a bit of troubles. Sunlei Jun 2016 #161

In 08, even Obama pushed for a reformation on the Super Delegate System. Xyzse Jun 2016 #169

Perhaps we should just stop them declaring before a certain point in the campaign. Orsino Jun 2016 #177

I think the OP makes a good point. Yes, it needs a slight tweek The Second Stone Jun 2016 #178

I'll give you two great reasons. Puglover Jun 2016 #181

Because one Trump is not enough liberal N proud Jun 2016 #202

They're undemocratic ozone_man Jun 2016 #212