2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI thought we won the Revolutionary War.. then why do we give a select few of the Ruling Class votes
that are equal to 10s of or 100s of thousand of American citizen votes. "super" delegates are illegitimate, corrupt and unAmerican. Any one who supports them puts them self in direct conflict with 1 person 1 vote & A government for, by & of the People. This is embarrassing to our Party and we should end this soviet style politic now. The voice of the People should elect our leaders !!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)If you don't like the rules, start your own party.
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)it.. if it wasn't for the likes of you who seem to prefer Britain style politic
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)...get a position with your local Party Committee. Play a role in the policy decisions the Party makes.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)you have 5 posts then thats all you get..
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)kick out all the cronies, and make new rules....
Problem solved!
reformist2
(9,841 posts)To be honest, the super-delegates need to resign immediately. It's an embarrassment to any institution that would dare call itself "democratic".
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Merryland
(1,134 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Others are state party chairs and other DNC committee people, who may or may not also hold local or state office. Previous presidents and House and Senate leaders also are superdelegates.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)"In United States politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses who they want to vote for. DNC superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors."
So, in fact, these people have been elected to speak on behalf of those who put them in office on a variety of matters. One of he current perks of the job is that they also have a say in who our party nominates.
You mean you didn't know?
Even Bernie is a superdelegate. One of TWO he has so far from VT.
edited to add quotation marks
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)in whatever way the decide to do so.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)brooklynite
(94,594 posts)...there were about 150 years of Party Leadership making decisions on Presidential candidates?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)not what your advocating is it... Are you really supporting such an unAmerican corrupt voting system ??
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)Things have gotten better in the past 50 years; just not the way you want things...
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)best to illuminate the problem...
Merryland
(1,134 posts)that the "super delegates" traditionally would likely change their pledges if Bernie is the popular favorite & if they declined it would be out and out convention revolution. But you have an important point - this is unfair & undemocratic.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)delegates to put their finger on the scale.. between msm and the clinton campaign... a good number of Americans think Hillary has a giant lead.. and that is blatantly false and just another example of the incestuous rigging of our political and economic system. And we have Democrats on this site defending it because it is perceived by them as serving their purpose.. It is an embarrassment to our Party and a kin to Soviet style politic.
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)"Superdelegates" is a media term, like "Blue States". All they are are "unpledged Delegates"
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)you know what i am saying is true.. it distorts the reality of the election..
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)...you're picking the popular vote number from exactly ONE State Primary...
...which will be completely turned around by the votes from South Carolina on Saturday...
...and then blown out of the water on Super Tuesday.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)only won Nevada by roughly 5%.. He won NH by 22% Bernie is ahead in votes no doubt (good band)
Your last two points are speculation... and don't deal with the fact that the perception of the race is being distorted by allocating the "super" delegate totals to Hillary in most graphics seen...
brooklynite
(94,594 posts)Sanders was asked where he thought he'd do well in future. He failed to mention South Carolina or any Southern State. His performance in Nevada reinforces the understanding that he does poorly with African American voters, who make up a significant share of votes in SC, NC, GA, VA, TN, KY....
Right now he's about 24 pts behind in South Carolina. That one State will put Clinton 50,000 votes up according to your model. Then comes Super Tuesday...
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)clinton is looking good in SC and southern states in general... not arguing that point... I am arguing against the "super" delegates existing at all and more specifically that they are added to most vote totals I see today.
I think VA & NC will be closer than the others you mentioned.. I would be surprised with a squeaker in VA
only a couple polls in Va since November and one of those is PPP.. which you know..
NC is tightening ...sanders still has some work to do
Without factoring the "super" delegates..we actually have a fight on our hands.. CA will be huge !!
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)In 2008 Clinton came very close with no black support, no youth support, no support from the left, and two states she would have won that were disallowed. Sanders has exceptionally strong youth support, including most black youth. Overall, his 30% support from blacks is about 25% better than Clinton in '08. He's got strong support from the left, and good support from working class whites (a Clinton strength in '08). He can get there with that, if it comes down to it.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Wealthy white guys voted and governed.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)...calls American democracy and the Constitution stunningly full of shit...
All of a sudden George Carlin explained to me the mentality of the Kansas I went to school with in a small town north of Topeka 26 years ago. Welcome to Brainwash & Bullshit Town!
Turned out that the captain of the football team was to become a republican because his daddy was republican. Not a bad guy, but still a bit simple minded...
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)An upper class white woman with deep roots in a religion that condoned slavery and persecution of Jews is campaigning against a liberal Jew with a working background...
The most vile part is that the entire Bible is a deeply rooted propaganda piece against Jews in general...
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I never have the urge to smite anyone.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And the SD don't listen to the people, then write in or vote for Jill Stein or any of the other 5 women on the ballot.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)government for, by and of the People
Codeine
(25,586 posts)You've already got two threads saying the same thing. Why a third?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)like governance here.. just pass on or give your 2 cents.. but don't try and belittle us into being silent...
You call these discussions Spam.. whats wrong with you...
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It's the endless new threads repeating the same thing. It's goofy.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Saying that Sanders is leading the vote total when the two states he lost use a different method to determine their delegates and using that as a way to claim some sort of moral claim to victory for Sanders is just silly.
If you are up in arms about one person one vote, the House gerrymandering is a far more important feature. In 2012, Democratic House candidates won 1.4 million more votes and yet Republicans after winning only 49% of the vote won 54% of House seats.
But you are also just blatantly wrong about applying the notion of 1 person 1 vote to the party. Legally speaking, the party could pick a name out of the phone book as long as they met the age/citizenship requirements. The rules were known before the process started. The time to change them was before hand, not in the middle.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)too sleepy to explain them.. think it all through... and we can chat tomorrow if you like
Bettie
(16,110 posts)more equal than others. Or so it would seem.
And no, I'm not calling them animals literally, I'm referencing a book, just for those who don't get it or look to take offense.
I have seen posters say that these people, the superdelagates, have the absolute right to have more say than the voters because...reasons.
snot
(10,530 posts)You're welcome.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)that ruled here. Held slaves and indentured servants, wealthy and well educated. They were just British citizens who didn't like being under the thumb of the King of Great Britton. They wanted to be the ruling class and they were.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)when they did not exist, namely during
the McGovern election.
After that the party decided to take the
power away from the general voting dems.
It can be done again, but that means we
have to take over the party or defeat it.
A goal, I think, which is very much reflected
in Bernie's idea of a revolution.
Gothmog
(145,313 posts)The process of becoming a member of the DNC is not that easy and involves years and years of hard work in the party. Why don't you try attending your state Democratic convention and see how the process works.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)If the revolution is to succeed, the revolutionaries need to change the party from the bottom up. Depending on one guy to reform politics is naive and will fail. So, I agree with you.
Bucky
(54,026 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hancock, Washington, Adams, Franklin: these were literally the richest guys in the country. The revolution furthered their interests, and for the most part it was only the richest 1/3rd of the colonists that supported it.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)The revolutionary war wasn't fought on behalf of working people. It was the colonial ruling class that wanted independence from the British monarchy. Our founding fathers were the richest men in the land, and many of them slaveholders. Only propertied white men could vote. The electoral system was purposefully set up to distance government from the people. This mythical past were "the people" ruled America did not exist, ever.
Superdelegates were put into place in 1968 to wrest power away from the party big wigs.
Prior to that time, the party could and often did determine the nominee in smoke-filled back rooms. That is what is meant by a brokered convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention#Brokered_conventions_in_history
If you want to change the Super Delegate system that was implemented in 1968, that entails becoming actively involved in the Democratic Party organization. The Super Delegate system is hardly new. It got a great deal of attention in 2008. That means people had eight years to get involved and try to do something about it, yet no one did. Now you want to change the rules mid-cycle because you think it will favor Bernie. That isn't going to happen, nor should it.
I really don't think you need to worry though. It should be evident a week from this Tuesday that the candidate who holds the lead in superdelegates will also be building a formidable majority of pledged delegates via the popular vote.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)confusing delegates in 68 with "super" delegates in 84.. Your reference to smoke filled back rooms is a good and current reference to the illegitimate, unAmerican, corrupt "super" delegates. I'm not going to even discuss your short sighted soliloquy about the Revolutionary War.
I see no point in having a fair logical discussion with you... I am quite familiar with your work..
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Go read the Wikipedia entries. Superdelegates are what were implemented in 1968 to make the party more accountable to popular input. Delegates were not implemented for the first time in 1968. What an absurd notion. I provided the links. All you need do is care enough to read them.
You're not going to discuss it because you have nothing to back it up. You are operating on mythology, and mythology is not history. Could it be possible you don't even know who was allowed to vote in the early Republic?
Because information doesn't fit how you want to see the world doesn't make it or me illogical. Clearly you are unprepared to provide any evidence to support your claims. Moreover, you don't even care.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)hill campaign add them into the vote... they don't even vote till the convention... it's 51 to 51 with Sanders leading the Popular Vote.. the "super" delegates are a throw back to the Politburo of the Soviet way of politics. It is embarrassing to our Party and to our Country. People who support it are against Democracy 1 person 1 vote.. of, for, by
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)The 2008 race was rife with talk of super delegates, too, and the Clinton campaign was happy to tout her early lead in Super Delegates, as a sign of her support among the serious people in the Party. Sound familiar?
This time around, though, there is something new at play.
Earlier today I went looking for the actual Delegate Count, because I wanted to reply to someone's comment. So I googled "pledged delegate count democratic primary". Guess what I got?
A bunch of links to talk of the Democratic Primary and the count of Clinton 502 to Sanders 70. Now this primary session is most certainly not my first time at the rodeo, and I knew that number was not the Pledged Delegate Count (the delegates won in the first three states to have voted already) but those PLUS the unpledged super delegates.
Ok, so I figured it should be easy to find those real numbers, the ones that reflect not the view of the Party faithful but The Voters -- you know, the people who will be choosing our nominee, not the folks who get to add their count at the Convention like the frosting on the cake.
I was wrong. I spent a half hour reading articles from a pretty wide variety of sites and all I could find was that 502 to 70 number.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1489057/-kos-you-are-our-only-hope-please-set-the-record-straight-51-to-51-and-not-502-to-70