Let the voters choose this time, get somebody who actually has popular support!

I refer to her as "she who was FIRED" because if I say her name, I get tosed

People deny this fact, but it is true.

Last edited Fri Oct 20, 2017, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Decision not to have f••led the country for decades to come

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican

The Jill Steins, Saranfons who pushed the theme that a trump win would lead to a victory for their revolution, are so pathetic, I want to puke

The republican Senate just passed the first hurdle to trump's tax plan

2016 is not going to stop this. Even if we win the House, the odds are so much against us in the Senate I suspect the direction of the country will be changed for decades to come, and not in a good way based on the judicial appointments

blame others but need to look in the mirror.

misinformation farms, and compromised websites. Some of them mask as democratic/progressive, but actually promote Fox News/Sean Hannity talking points on their home pages.

The bots and trolls NEVER left... And posts like the first one expose who they MAY be!

Here we go again . . . how do we hate the Democratic Party, let us count the ways when . . .

the country's safety, our very existence as a Nation is on the line.

There's a frigging mentally-ill impostor sitting in the WH. The 2016 election was rigged with the help of a foreign adversary and American accomplices. We need every hand on deck to ensure massive victories in 2018 & 2020. I don't care whether a candidate or a super delegate has two heads as long as he or she is a dedicated Democrat that's going to work their tails off.

This is crunch time for anyone interested saving the damn country. Btw, Hillary Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. Pretty good margin for those who repeatedly claim she was so-o-o unpopular.

Just stop it. Stop it now!

perseverance, smarts and follow thru.

The voters chose last time and the loser was the one clamoring for the superdelegates to support his candidacy over the will of the people.

The aim it seems is to diminish the support the eventual nominee got and to twist reality.

It's the kind of shit Trump does.

If they think we forget History we don't, which is why everytime this shit comes up they will be reminded.

Both you and I remember well the begging and the demands made on Superdelegates to support the loser, that doesn't sound like a dislike of the superdelegates system to me but more a demand that Superdelegates do what they want them to and throwing a hissy fit when they don't.

Last edited Fri Oct 20, 2017, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

from a small state wouldn't have been exploited by Putin and his bots and Assange?

And do they really think vote suppression and vote hacking and other repug dirty tricks would've have happened if that certain senator was the winner instead of the loser of the Dem primaries?

Ridiculous head-in-the-sandism.

Do ya hear me bots or trolls or whoever you are?

For god's sake, "they" are still using right wing talking points to divide the Democratic party, with these lines directly from Putin.

I think "they" should just stop with the right wing conspiracy theories and the outright Putin sourced lies already. Voters are being really clear about our opinions, perhaps its time to listen to us, and not the trolls?

Don't count? Please speak for yourself only on this instead of us

anything to do with who the candidate was.

Just because it didn't go their way.

Someone like McGovern? Someone who will lose in a landslide? That is why we have super delegates: so party elders can have a hand in choosing the candidates, so that we do not lose in a landslide. Hillary won by more than three million votes. We have other work to do to see that our winning candidates take office, but that is not the issue here.

There are plenty of republicans who wish they had that system. The lack of super delegates is what gave them, and us, Trump.

This article is very biased. It is little more than propaganda.

I would suggest that you look at the actual names of the super delegates from each state. Look at their experience and what they have done for the party instead of an article like this one.

And until Sanders joins the party, he can sit down and be quiet. He continues to divide and weaken us. I know that fewer people are taking him seriously all the time, and that is a good thing.

Both in the primary and the general.

...if the count were honest.

Your point is what, exactly?

The voters didn't know how completely corrupted the FBI had become.

But I can't imagine how.

The DNC will NEVER get any of my money. I won't donate to any candidate they support.

You wrote 'the fix is in'.

Who is this fix in for?

without the super delegates

Of course Comey's 11th hour bullshit had an effect, and every poll indicated that, along with the media and the press say that the email investigation was reopened, which was a lie, and those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for for the D mocratic nominee, and or willfully refused to even vote, have put this country back decades

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and most of those Democrats were quite progressive

And you think the winner by more than 4 million grassroots votes being the nominee is bad because?

The same-old, same-old is not going to cut it anymore. This signals a move to the center, which is a losing proposition.

I'm done with the DNC, for sure. They are useless.

I guess I just don't like lobbyists, as they seem to be paid too much and paid by the wealthy to do their bidding.

Let's keep the process to the common folk.

Educate yourself on how delegates and super delegates are chosen. Look at their names and their experience. Read this article carefully. Don't jump to conclusions based on one article and a bunch of internet squabbling.

My original opinion stands. I never got involved in the conflicts (internet squabbling) during the last election. I still go with my gut feeling against this issue. Last I knew, I still have the right to make this decision.

regardless of how much or little they are paid.

I vaguely remember some talk about excessive corporate influence. Nothing like learning from the past.

And honestly the supers never cause any harm. The voters decide.

It's a feature not a bug.

Voters decide.

Last edited Thu Oct 19, 2017, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Seems to me, all they do is poison the well.

They became an issue the last two contested primaries. In 2008 people were accusing Hillary of trying to sway superdelegates to steal the election. The same thing happened in 2016. So I ask again, what good do they do besides poisoning the well?

I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored, eh?

You said voter just decided. Yeah they did. So what good did the superdelegates do? They're just a sore.

They're only a "sore" because some people rub it out of habit and not reason.

I bet they would benefit from your superior knowledge and understanding of the topic.

A feeling like they have too much power over the nomination . What's wrong with one person one vote?

But apparently those votes not being counted isn't as big a problem as something that has never happened with the superdelegate system.

This is about not getting a certain candidate...and I fear there will be hell to pay when people realize...it won't happen in 2020 either. Democrats don't do winner take all...mostly. We have proportionate primaries...thus...a candidate could win convincingly and still not have the total delegates...the supers put the winner over the top. A sore loser candidate could cause a great deal of trouble if this was not the case...never happened of course because we have supers. Also, the GOP could mount a operation chaos attack on our primary and influence who wins...and I can think of other good reasons, but there is no point. Some have after 16 been angry with Democrats...and want to blame blame blame...the supers had nothing to do with anything that happened in 16. Look to the future would be my advice.

caucuses where they totally screw over voters...now that is an issue.

Obama was a good candidate and he won. This is all because Hillary Clinton was the nominee in 16...and supers would have made no difference.They never do because everyone knows they vote for the winner...and I heard that on TV numerous times...and I saw the count with or without the Supers...so it just isn't so. You have a vote, a candidate wins and the supers put the winner over the top...been that way for years with few complaints. You are simply wrong having super or not having super would have made no difference in 16.

Superdelegates....

And how it emphasizes elites over the votes of the people in the primary

....become a Super Delegate himself.

I don't see the NFL Commissioner calling for rules changes in the NBA, NHL, or MLB.

He has not expressed any concerns about caucuses, however.

He isn't a Democrat, is he?

By joining the party, so he has an actual voice with weight? Or with another version of his stump speech?

His opinion is of zero consequence.

more of the same..

consists of Democrats attacking Democrats. Odd, that.

the superdelegates really didn't matter. Too bad the GOP doesn't have a superdelegate system. We could have been saved from Trump.

Too many candidates, too many winner-take-all delegate allotments, and too many caucuses.

The super delegates are a safety net, if you ask me. And god forbid people who spend a lot of time working for and raising money for a political party get a say.

This is the party primary. The party gets a say in how it works.

Can you even imagine the reaction if a majority of Democrats voted for a candidate in the primaries and then a couple of hundred delegates overruled them? It would tear the party apart.

But let's examine this "majority of Democrats" statement. Some states have open primaries. Some states have caucuses. In both those instances, independents and crossover Republicans could affect the results. Caucuses assign hugely disproportionate numbers of delegates for the number of people "voting" if you can call it that.

Because a small number of very loud supporters of a candidate can negate the will of the majority of voters in the state.

Odd, that doesn't seem to be a problem for many who think Superdelegates, who have never bucked the will of the people, are the real threat....

Like many women in my state, I was afraid to go to the 2016 caucus at all. I sent in an affidavit. Oh, and they held it on Easter weekend. Nice, eh?

Yeah it would have been terrible if the Republicans had super delegates and decide that Trump really shouldn't be the nominee.

I'd very much prefer though if that didn't happen to us. In this age of mass communication and public engagement with democracy, we simply can't allow a situation where a small group of insiders overrule the votes of the masses. It would destroy our credibility.

Perhaps they could benefit from your more extensive knowledge of the subject.

Something Democrats don't. Trump won a lot of delegates in spite of not having a majority.

... PP or some other progressive group then fine.

( it doesn't take much for some to pile on Perez)

for now. We'll see what happens. Hoping for the best. My local Dem group is going strong. Well attended meetings for a change. My area is pretty red and Repubs are used to running unopposed. No more. We may not win, but at least we're fielding candidates and challenging the status quo.

I have to add, at least half the people showing up for meetings were first introduced to local Dems when they came to caucus for Bernie Sanders, so maybe we should tone down the rhetoric. All are welcome in our group.

include people who had been previously excluded. Hence the whining that "long time party people" are being removed in favor of fresh new faces. The people doing the whining are the ones whose twitter timelines and comments make quite clear the damage they've been doing to the party.