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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats Plan to Name Lobbyists, Operatives as Superdelegates [View all]
Demsrule86
(68,979 posts)61. This is the truth and why we have super sysem...hehe.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
263 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
= 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
Like it or not those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for her or made a willful
still_one
Oct 2017
#207
Oh, VA is now going to be privatized, they cant wait to kill veterans next.
Eliot Rosewater
Oct 2017
#211
Just as it was after 2000. You would think people would have learned their lesson...they
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#219
Seemed to me the Democratic base really liked, appreciated, valued Cinton her experience,
Mediumsizedhand
Oct 2017
#17
Are they really that dense that they don't think the negatives of a certain senator...
brush
Oct 2017
#106
No one gave us a candidate...there was a primary...and a candidate won...no super delegate had
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#52
Oh ffs. Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000 counted votes, probably more ...
Hekate
Oct 2017
#130
The people did choose. Look at the raw numbers of votes, and who received the most votes even
still_one
Oct 2017
#208
You mean like the person who beat another supposedly popular person by 4 million votes?
stevenleser
Oct 2017
#212
I don't care for this idea. It closes off more of the process from the people.
Frustratedlady
Oct 2017
#3
These are people who have jobs...should they be excluded from the party...ah no.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#58
if they are paid by the wealthy to back certain policies, they should have NO role
yurbud
Oct 2017
#205
Actually it's people who are lying about super delegates role are poisoning the well...
bettyellen
Oct 2017
#187
Too bad. They serve a purpose...several in fact. And this has nothing to do with supers.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#220
They have nothing to do with votes...nothing...you want to have one person one vote...go after
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#221
A big who cares...all of the supers were in Hillary's corner in 16 and she still lost. Barak
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#262
Not really. But maybe if he joined the Democratic Party it would. In fact, he'd automatically....
George II
Oct 2017
#217
Yes, but the divisive folks who keep attacking Dems seem determined to keep dividing.
Ninsianna
Oct 2017
#46
Yes, if people are worried about voters not having a say, caucuses should be the first thing to go
ehrnst
Oct 2017
#192
It would have been hilarious, because it would have divided their party straight down the middle
Kentonio
Oct 2017
#97
Skeptical, matters how many and what kind of lobbyist ... of course I'd rather none but they're from
uponit7771
Oct 2017
#18
These are good changes. Didn't Sanders want the DNC to be shook up? From the Hill
FSogol
Oct 2017
#20
Apparently the only diveristy they approve of is their own, not actually trying to
Ninsianna
Oct 2017
#48
Superdelegates are undemocratic by definition. Bernie's attempt to appeal to the supedelegates ...
dawg
Oct 2017
#111
No the the truth was one candidate was way ahead and the other candidate had no chance...
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#141
I can't believe this absurd system hasn't been abolished after last years debacle
Takket
Oct 2017
#24
To start I live here and was active on the state and county level as a labor delegate back then
Omaha Steve
Oct 2017
#259
yep, yet we barely hear complaints about them from those who fuss about superdelegates...
JHan
Oct 2017
#109
yeah the caucus system is lousy too, but that doesn't make your case for superdelegates.
Takket
Oct 2017
#159
To prevent a Trump. It makes no difference. The supers have never influenced any primary in our
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#62
Read the article...these are people who work at various places...not what the article paints them as
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#80
"WTH do we have this system for" There are two reasons we have this system
stevenleser
Oct 2017
#235
You mean when people voted and the one with the most votes was declared the candidate just like in
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#64
The primary has always chosen the candidate...the Supers are a safety feature... the same is true
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#67
Did the runner up in Michigan have more delegates than the winner or am I wrong?
MichMan
Oct 2017
#134
The only Superdelegates should be ELECTED Democratic state and nationwide office holders
Yavin4
Oct 2017
#40
No, I think this article is bullshit and an attempt to divide us...that being said I didn't try to
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#69
So nothing new then is what you're saying? Superdelegates is still a sucky idea, and the weight of
JCanete
Oct 2017
#56
Their vote is not more important than the primary voter...they are 'just in case' something goes
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#70
You are right in part. They have the power to do what they want though. The biggest issue I have
JCanete
Oct 2017
#74
If the Republicans had superdelegates, there would be no President Trump iirc. They were jealous
OnDoutside
Oct 2017
#77
Given the dirty tactics employed by the GOP I could see them pulling a stunt in our primary and the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#140
We are dealing with Democratic voters who won't go for GOP bullshit. Sure, sometimes, we've got
JCanete
Oct 2017
#150
Are you kidding me? We are dealing with progressive voters...the same voters who fell for the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#225
No, that is ridiculous. How many progressives fell for russian lies? Hardly any. What percentage do
JCanete
Oct 2017
#226
and how many people bought into the lies? Show me a study that quantifies that, not simply
JCanete
Oct 2017
#230
come on...point to one of them. I don't know that its true that enough of us can be swayed
JCanete
Oct 2017
#249
Since the delegates always vote for the person who wins the primary...Democrats should understand
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#84
but we don't. Its a perfectly fine obfuscation if a certain representation benefits the interests
JCanete
Oct 2017
#118
One last time...we have proportionate voting...supers put the winner over the top reaching the
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#227
why? That's only by a function of the rules anyway. Otherwise a simple majority would be over the
JCanete
Oct 2017
#228
It doesn't work that way...this is not the time to upend things...and I like having supers.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#244
why wouldn't you like it? That's the point. If you have a certain political bent, Supers are super.
JCanete
Oct 2017
#248
you do understand their main purpose is to put a candidate over the top... who has won the primary.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#222
That is untrue. I can't really discuss it. But that race like all others was decided by voters.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#85
Oh please, you know we can't discuss the last primary...but that is simply not true. A certain
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#94
okay, I'm not refighting here but discussing - please review the delegate count prior to....
George II
Oct 2017
#127
We know who won. Superdelegates didn't tip Clinton into the winning column from the losing one.
JCanete
Oct 2017
#232
I can only speak for me. I don't see why we need them and I just explained to you how they are
JCanete
Oct 2017
#239
Apparently important people in the Democratic Party feel they're necessary, and they've been....
George II
Oct 2017
#240
please never fall back on that kind of argument. If they can explain it to us in a way that
JCanete
Oct 2017
#241
They've explained it. Actually they explain it every few years going back to 1968. It's not...
George II
Oct 2017
#250
I explained to you my problem with superdelegates, to which you didn't feel it necessary to allay my
JCanete
Oct 2017
#252
All I have to do with the superdelegates is participate in electing the people responsible for....
George II
Oct 2017
#254
And they are reliable...I can't tell you how many times new folks promise so much but all
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#143
Actually, they only serve as a mechanism to de-legitimize the average person's vote.
dawg
Oct 2017
#115
That is untrue. They have no affect on the vote. And they have never "given" us a candidate.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#145
They have no affect on the vote...people in a primary choose a candidate...and there have been no
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#218
I dispute that any who are bothered with this are the base...the base can be counted on always...
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#147
I don't agree with you at all...you see I want to win. Go after the grass roots locally
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#223
Let me tell you a story... about a man named Ralph Nader who like Jill Stein cost us a
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#224
But see that is where you are wrong...both are the reason...so those who support protest votes and
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#263
The base isn't pissed off because the base doesn't pay attention to this shit
Fresh_Start
Oct 2017
#231
1) Lobbyists for what, exactly? Planned Parenthood has lobbyists. They're on our side. ...
Hekate
Oct 2017
#129
Exactly!! I was just going to post something like this but decided to give props instead.
Caliman73
Oct 2017
#132
So people who work for Fox News can't be Democrats and active in the party? It is a job.
Demsrule86
Oct 2017
#148
It was Sanders who wanted the SDs to give him the nomination, over the objection of the PDs.
StevieM
Oct 2017
#146
I do not support caucuses or superdelegates, but until Russian hacking is fixed
Not Ruth
Oct 2017
#206
last primary state voted one way, delegates with supers ended up voting the other at convention
dembotoz
Oct 2017
#237
