more warriors fans nationally right now than Vikings fans. Fair weather IS a thing and not everybody is as dedicated to paying attention to politics and policies, etc. as you and I. And I know exactly how it was reported, although you are right, this was both supers and pledged delegates, pledged delegates being another strange institution.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/superdelegates-hillary-clinton-nomination/index.html , in CNN's own words, declaring a clinched election really before its actually clinched.
This is late in the process and I have no qualms saying that Clinton was likely to win this thing regardless, but given that the DNC itself has said that these delegates and superdelegates should not be reported on early because superdelegates may change their mind, and given that a large portion of those superdelegates (at 10,000 votes a piece) aren't at all required to represent actual voters in their states-their 10,000 votes are their votes(people awarded superdelegate status based upon being part of the institution of our government as it has been and has operated(which absolutely gives an edge to the most insider candidates), I'm not sure how you could defend this, except by saying that you like that this is what it does.
I don't necessarily think Super-Delegates would be disdainful of the public vote(although as far as I know they are not bound in any way to vote with the public(1/3 of them aren't now after an agreement with the Sanders Campaign and the DNC)), but if they never intended to vote contrary to it, then they are symbolic and pointless, and if they ever do, they break the democratic process that I think the Democratic party should bind itself to.
As to caucuses, I can think of a couple things off the top of my head that are totally egregious about them in their current form, and they absolutely should be changed. 1) apparently these voting periods are particularly restricted, and of course any time that happens, it is a suppressor of votes and this could and should be changed. 2) I remember the absurd detail of delegates needing to show up to cast their vote after the popular vote totals were tallied in order for those votes to actually be included, which is just a baffling process to me.
I don't have a problem with these being open to non-party members. I think this is an opportunity to include and maybe bring those who wouldn't otherwise be democrats into the party. Apparently caucuses tend to operate more on the extremes than standard elections, and that's not a surprise to me since those who feel too left for democrats or right for republicans may not have gone affiliated, and since I want us to be more progressive, obviously I see a benefit here. I understand the potential for stacking(voting for the person you think your preferred candidate can beat) though as well, so I wouldn't ever suggest that the institution shouldn't be eyed closely, and even abandoned if this ever started to be a major trend, though I grant, it would be hard to tell.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Robert Mueller
