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

liberal N proud

(60,300 posts)
202. Because one Trump is not enough
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:03 PM
Jun 2016

Dumping the Super Delegates is a self destructive move. With them gone, another Trump could do the same thing to the Democratic party.

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
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Super delegates have work...»Reply #202