Sanders-backed DNC plan sparks superdelegate revolt

[Gothmog]

The CBC and other groups of super delegates will be fighting this idiotic rule change https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/bernie-sanders-dnc-superdelegates-710818

A band of Democratic National Committee superdelegates is staging a revolt against a Bernie Sanders-endorsed plan to reduce their influence in the presidential nominating process, mounting a longshot bid to block the measure when the DNC meets in Chicago next month.

The proposal, a priority of Sanders’ supporters since the Vermont senator‘s defeat in a bitterly contested 2016 primary, would prohibit superdelegates — who made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention — from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at a contested national convention.

But even as the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee moved forward with the proposal Wednesday, superdelegates outside of Washington were beginning to organize opposition ahead of the August vote by the full DNC in Chicago.

I prefer to have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus over the support of the persons pushing this rule. It is a long shot but I hope that this rule is defeated

I agree with this super delegate

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who accused Perez of flinching in the face of criticism of the superdelegate process, called the proposal a “craven capitulation to what [Perez] describes as a perception of elitism.”

Connolly, like other opponents of the plan, argued that “disenfranchising the elected leadership of the party” would disconnect elected leaders from the party’s presidential ticket, ultimately weakening its prospects in 2020.

“I also believe the timing is wretched,” Connolly said. “We’re in the midst of the battle of our lives to win back the majority of our House, and to schedule this vote with this recommendation that came out of nowhere … is to me just wretched timing and political malpractice.”

[Hekate]

1. KnR

[Sophia4]

2. The super-delegate system is not winning elections for Democrats.

I think it should go the way of Tammany Hall and disappear forever.

Let ordinary Democrats decide the direction and pick the leadership of the Democrataic Party.

That old, aged, creaky, losing bureaucracy in the Democratic Party needs to go.

If they were winning majorities in Congress and in statehouses across the country, if they had the vitality to do that, I wouldn't feel as I do.

But the Democratic Party should be winning more elections than we do. Our Party's creaky upper crust is part of the problem.

It isn't that as individuals the leaders are bad people. It is that they are just too concerned about holding on to their own power and not concerned enough about making sure that the Party wins elections.

[joshcryer]

4. The superdelegates have not in any way affected the outcome of any primaries.

They are requested by minority groups because they give them representation.

[Sophia4]

7. It's one person one vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender

preference, profession, religion, etc.

One person/one vote.

That is how it should be. But then I am in Los Angeles where most politicians would be considered members of minorities anywhere else in the country. Not all politicians, but most are members of minorities.

I realize that is not the case elsewhere, but super-delegates are a problem, not a solution. Let's keep our party truly democratic. One person/one vote.

[Demsrule86]

16. Super Delegates did nothing wrong...the oh the email voters didn't vote for the Democratic nominee..

and supers had nothing to do with Clinton's candidacy...she won millions more votes.

[Sophia4]

92. No matter. If the appearance of something shady is there, voters who are sad or

troubled or bitter because their candidate did not win, will not vote.

The process not only has to be utterly above board and honest, it also has to appear that way. That is what makes a democracy work.

[Gothmog]

150. The only people pushing this measure are sanders supporters

I am sorry that sanders and his supporters had their feelings hurt but these hurt feelings are not a good reason to change the system

[kstewart33]

196. So here we go again.

Sanders maneuvering to change the party that he refuses to join.

So hoping the supers kill this rule.

[Gothmog]

197. The DNC just adopted a rule that I approve of

See Post 76 https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210856702#post76

candidates would have to join the party and become members of the party to run in the future.

[dubyadiprecession]

329. What, no more highjacking the Democratic Party??

[Gothmog]

331. I like this rule but I hope that it is not necessary

To get onto the ballot in a number of states, sanders will have to file his tax returns due to some ballot access laws being adopted in a number of blue states. I doubt that sanders will be running in 2020 due to these ballot access law.

However, in any event a candidate who wants to run for the Democratic Party nomination should be a member of the party and should not brag about not being a member of the party

[Me.]

233. Right

He needs to butt out. None of his business.

[Sophia4]

226. We are the Democratic Party. We should conduct our business democratically.

Superdelegates are a bunch of lazy folks who want to intervene in democratic elections.

Bunch of bullies in my opinion.

And if only Sanders voters agree with me, good for them! Because they are right on this issue for sure.

The existence of superdelegates in the Democratic Party make our primaries and nominating proccesses into one big joke.

[Gothmog]

227. You are calling members of the Congressional Black Caucus lazy

You do realize that this is really a dumb argument

[George II]

230. Apparently she thinks ALL superdelegates are "lazy folks".

[Gothmog]

240. CBC members are leaders of the party and are more important to the party

than sanders supporters

[Eliot Rosewater]

244. I just wish KGB talking points wouldn't be on DU

I have tried over and over to get the powers to be to understand what is going on here and who is doing it.

Who WORKS for the KGB and so on.

[Sophia4]

232. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

I am not singling out the CBC members as lazy.

I am characterizing all superdelegates as lazy in that they want a reward they don't deserve. In a democratic process, each vote is equal in its value. We don't need superdelegates whose votes are worth double that of any other voter. It's lazy to expect your vote to count twice that of any other voters. Whether you are CBC or ABC is irrelevant.

[brush]

234. You need to back off as you're coming off horribly. Black folks are lazy? Really?

And as far as super delegates, the repugs wish they had had super delegates. If they had, we wouldn't have trump as president.

Sanders is not a member of the party so why should the party kowtow to his wishes?

Keep the super delegates as a guard against unsuitable nominees.

[Sophia4]

236. I'm in California. Superdelegates are not necessarily Black. In fact, most of them

nationwide are probably white. I don't know, but that is my guess.

We don't need superdelegates. They make the process look unfair whether it is or not.

[Gothmog]

241. Yes she is really is making the claim that black leaders are lazy

[Gothmog]

242. Have you considered working on a campaign in real life?

I am working with several local candidates and one congressional candidate. These people are not lazy and are working very hard. If you had worked on a campaign in the real world, you would know this. For example Sri Preston Kulkarni has workers calling voters in 13 languages. Sri only speaks six languages. I have been block walking with Sri and I am working on another fundraiser for hims

People running for office work hard and are not lazy. If you had actually worked on a campaign in the real world, you would know this.

[George II]

260. I'm guessing this month-old thread was resurrected because the CBC is against any changes.

[Gothmog]

279. I am hoping the CBC opposition will kill this idiotic rule change

[George II]

281. I know of four who will be attending the meeting, none are members of the CBC, who are against it.

[George II]

229. "Superdelegates are a bunch of lazy folks"? REALLY?

So:

Bill Clinton is a "lazy folk"?
Hillary Clinton is a "lazy folk"?
Barack Obama is a "lazy folk"?
JIMMY CARTER is a "lazy folk"?

Are you serious? How about Bernie Sanders, is HE a "lazy folk"?

That's quite an offensive proclamation you made there.

[Sophia4]

231. It is lazy to want a superdelegate say in the outcome of the nomination process.

The average campaign volunteer and the average voter in an election, should decide the outcome of the election. Maybe we would win more elections if we ended the status of superdelegates. At worst they cause unelectable candidates to be nominated. At best, they just make the process look undemocratic.

None of these people need to have superdelegate status.

Yes. It is lazy to expect to have more say in the outcome of an election than the next person, that is if you believe in democracy.

None of the people you name need or deserve to have an extra vote in a primary or convention election. Not a one of them.

[Gothmog]

243. These are leaders of our party who worked hard to get elected

Please consider working in a campaign in the real world and you would see how hard these people work.

In addition, this system rewards states who elect Democrats to congress. Texas is heavily gerrymandered but we hope to pick up four to seven seats and Texas delegation should reflect this.

[Eliot Rosewater]

245. The ATTACK of supers and Nancy Pelosi is an orchestrated KGB operation

Hopefully enough people will see me say this before I am stopped from saying it.

[Gothmog]

247. You may be correct

[stonecutter357]

276. +1000

[Gothmog]

248. So members of the Congressional Black Caucus are both corrupt and lazy?

You really do not understand the process

[lapucelle]

246. Does that "bunch of lazy folks who want to intervene in democratic elections"

include all the 2016 superdelegates?

[Gothmog]

249. Good question

I doubt that you will get an answer

[lapucelle]

253. ,,,

Hello, hello,
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone at home?

[Gothmog]

268. LOL

[Demsrule86]

159. ONLY 'shady' one election year...never an issue any other year.

[George II]

261. And even that year (assuming you're talking about 1984?) it wasn't truly shady, it just....

....accelerated the expected result.

[Demsrule86]

20. Super delegates have nothing to do with one vote etc.

[Gothmog]

273. You are correct

[CentralMass]

327. They comprise about 15% of the available delegates and are there to over rule the will of the ...

electorate if they decide that the electorate chose the wrong canididate. That is not democracy. I don't care who is running.

[Eko]

23. How are superdelegates a problem?

[Gothmog]

71. Again you are wrong as to everything as to how delegates are elected in the real world

Delegates are not selected by the vote of the voters but at conventions by other delegates. I went through this process and it is not based on one person one vote but on the support of county party chairs and other officials. Go to a state convention and run to be a delegate. It takes a ton of work and some money to campaign for this position.

Super delegates are members of Congress and other elected officials who were voted on. So the vote of the voters who elected these officials do not count in your world?

Again, why do you hate the members of the Congressional Black Caucus? I know that these party leaders did not support sanders but that does not mean that they need to be punished. The leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus are far more important to the party compared to the people pushing this ignorant rule.

[Kentonio]

141. Despicable post, you should be ashamed of yourself

Accusing the poster of ‘hating’ the CBC just because they don’t agree on this one issue is the kind of divisive shit that has no place here.

[Gothmog]

148. Sophia4 has called all members of the CBC corrupt

On a different thread, this poster called all members of the CBC and all super delegates corrupt https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2010311 or https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142010022#post55
Super delegates are not corrupt and the only people pushing this change are sanders supporters whose feelings were hurt because he was not popular with the leadership of the party.

I was a delegate to Philadelphia and I know a number of members of the CBC. I think that this proposal is stupid and oppose it.
the only good thing is that the quid pro quo for this idiotic proposal is a requirement that will require all candidates announcing to run for POTUS to state that they are actually Democrats and that they be members of the Democratic Party see https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10857741

[R B Garr]

183. Those constant distortions and inferences that primaries aren't "honest"

is the hallmark of the third party types. This is a perfect example of the abuse Democrats have endured. No proof is ever given of any wrongdoing, just never-ending insinuations of corruption. This poster calling Democrats corrupt is patently dishonest, but it's been done before...

[Gothmog]

195. I agree-there are some who are interested in hurting the party

Attacking members of the Congressional Black Caucus and calling super delegates corrupt is a great way of hurting the party

[Gothmog]

265. Rep. Cedric Richmond, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, blasts proposed superdelegate changes

Link to tweet

[joshcryer]

132. They've already lost their first vote power.

Getting rid of them completely is asinine.

[Gothmog]

274. The fight is over rule taking away the right vote on the first ballot

Link to tweet

[still_one]

12. That is the reality, while some want to push the false assertion that is what happened in 2016, and

THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE

[Power 2 the People]

252. If they have no affect who needs them?

Thanks for pointing that out.

[MichMan]

255. Why aren't more minorities choosen as regular delegates?

Why would they think that superdelegates are the only path ?

[Gothmog]

266. The process is very political

I went through this process and it helped by my county cut a deal with another county to control the selection of the Clinton delegates.

[joshcryer]

271. They already have soft quotas in place.

For Affirmative Action, but it's somewhat controversial even within liberal circles. You got someone saying "hey, let's send in this young minority" and another goes "but my cousin has been wanting to go for years," etc. And it's not even set in stone like a fixed number, it's basically "hey guys, let's try to have a more equal representation here, do your best to achieve that." It's not a blatant thing though, it's just people trying to do the right thing.

Superdelegates are not the "only" path. They just allow for those minorities who work probably twice as hard to get where they are to be "safe." As the other poster said this stuff gets super political. Delegates are generally randomly chosen from those who apply but they often scout our individuals who appear to have political aspirations and say "hey, wanna be a delegate?"

[Gothmog]

280. So you want to reduce the number of delegates from states with elected Democrats?

The effect of your proposal is to reduce the number of delegates that states like California has. California has been very successful in electing Democrats to statewide office and the elimination of super delegates will affect the number of delegates have

From my standpoint, I ran and was elected as a delegate for 2016. Putting members of the CBC and other elected officials into the contest will lessen the chances of other persons being elected to being a delegate.

[dubyadiprecession]

328. Bernie couldn't even win a plurality of actual delegates...

Nevermind,the superdelegates.

[mythology]

8. I blame super delegates for Obama losing.

Oh wait.

[lunamagica]

10. What are you talking about? Which election has been affected by superdelegates?

[Sophia4]

17. 2016 for one.

Superdelegates give to all voters the impression that the Democratic Party is not big on democracy. Regardless of the reality, regardless how fair superdelegates really are, their existence sends the message that fairness is not the priority and that even if you don't bother to get out and vote, you will be represented by superdelegates.

If as you seem to suggest with your questions, they aren't affecting the outcomes of elections, then why have them?

We don't need them.

Let the voters decide. Let those who care enough to go to the polls and vote decide who is nominated for public office.

That is the way to do it. If voters have the decisionmaking power, then the results seem fair.

Whether true or not, the existence of superdelegates causes some Democrats to think the system is somehow rigged. We do not need and should not have superdelegates.

As for voters who identify as some sort of minority, whether religious or racial or gender or gender-preference or regional no matter, if they come out and vote in large enough numbers, then they will determine the outcome. Same for any group.

We do not need superdelegates. No to superdelegates.

[Blue_true]

35. Wow.

Must have taken some spinning to come up with that. I trully doubt that the average primary voter CAN RVEN identify who the super delegates for their state are. Super delegates have had ZERO impact on primary results. They jump on the bandwagon once primary voters have decided the party nominee, it was that way in 1976 (when they first came about in their current form) through 2016.

[Gothmog]

151. Sanders supporters feelings were hurt because super delegates refuse to support sanders

The only people pushing this proposal are sanders supporters who want to punish super delegates for not supporting sanders

[pnwmom]

45. CAUSUSES give all voters the impression the Democratic party is not big on democracy.

We had the 2nd highest attendance in history at our 2016 caucuses in WA, where you have to spend half a Saturday to vote, and then some people have to go on to state and national events and spend even more time.

Guess how many people participated in our caucuses? Five (5) %. 230,000 Who won? Bernie.
We also had a primary. Guess how many participated? 803,000 Who won? Hillary.
Who got 100% of WA delegates? Bernie.

This is not re-fighting the election. This is to show that caucuses are non-diverse and non-representative and they should go if superdelegates do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. I'm with you... let democracy work.

[Gothmog]

73. Again you are totally and completely wrong

Facts matter. Super delegates did not decide the 2016 election. A large percentage of sanders delegates were from caucuses which were not democratic at all

Super delegates had no real effect on the 2016. The candidate who won the most votes and pledged delegates won. Super delegates votes did not change this.

Please try to stick to the facts.

As to your question as to why have them, Super delegates are people like members of Congress including the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of the CBC are far more important to the party compared to the persons pushing this idiotic rule

[Sophia4]

89. You are probably right that nothing is really "fixed."

But what actually happened is not the issue.

What could have happened, what could happen, is the problem.

The losers will almost certainly believe that superdelegates do make a difference, that they do fix the outcome. And then they won't support the winner because they feel cheated.

I appreciate your reasoning, and I know that the super delegates are mostly good people and they generally vote for the winner.

But the fact is that super delegates make the primary, nomination process appear crooked to vulnerable voters, new voters, voters who are sad because their candidate lost the primary. The key word there is appear.

Whether the nomination was crooked or fixed is important to you and me but not to those who want to believe that the process is fixed. And those are the voters we need to think of. Those are the voters who may not vote if they think the process is fixed.

Thus, the existence of super delegates depresses the Democratic vote. It turns off voters who think they the process including the superdelegates unfair.

We need to show and back up the fact that the process of nominating our Democratic candidates is fair and above board. We need to make sure it is fair and make a big deal out of our fairness. I repeat: The process of nominating candidates has to be unquestionably honest and fair. Superdelegates invite suspicion that it isn't. Their existence and role in picking candidates hurts our party.

We need to make a big deal of the fact that our nominating process is fair and honest and not fixed in any way. That will bring back a lot of lost voters -- making sure that we are inwardly and outwardly above board and honest and don't fix the outcome at all.

[Garrett78]

94. I don't recall there being much concern over superdelegates prior to 2016.

It seems they suddenly became a problem.

[Sophia4]

96. I do.

[Garrett78]

128. Examples? Links to articles?

[Gothmog]

152. Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer

[Gothmog]

282. This is only an issue because sanders feelings were hurt

No one cared until sanders had his feelings hurt due to the fact that the members of congress who knew him refused to support him

[JCanete]

131. And? Some of us had no idea how they worked. They blow. Taht doesn't make me a fan of

caucus's as they stand, but why does it matter when people realized this was a problem? Why, in your opinion isn't it entirely undemocratic to have a single voter nullify 10,000 votes?

[Garrett78]

133. Well, they've been around for a long time. So, why the contrived outrage starting in 2016?

Where was this outrage in 2008? Or 2004? Or 2000? Or 1992? And so on.

No nullification has taken place. Superdelegates are an insurance policy.

[JCanete]

134. again, not contrived.. I had no idea the shit worked that way and it pisses me off. Why doesn't it

piss you off?


And dude, its an insurance policy against the will of the voter. WTF is that?

[Garrett78]

136. But many others have known about superdelegates and their purpose. They aren't remotely new.

And only in 2016 did they suddenly become a problem, even though they had no impact on the 2016 result.

While I don't feel as strongly in support of superdelegates as some others do (I'd feel even less strongly about having superdelegates if we were to do away with caucuses), the reason I'm not pissed off about their existence is summed up in this exchange between Marcetic and Kamarck from the link in my last comment:

Marcetic: Was there a sense that the primary system encouraged nominees who represented the party’s extremes?

Kamarck: Yeah, I mean what we’ve known for many years now is that primary electorates are not representative of the whole party. Republican primaries skew right and the Democrat primaries skew left. That’s really dawning on people after 1972, when you had a real increase in the number of primaries. There was a concern that we were going to be nominating unelectable candidates like George McGovern.

[JCanete]

147. well what the hell would be the point of voting then, if somebody else was going to decide for us

anyway. That makes it, frankly, an illusion then that we are the ones making the decision. So long as its within the acceptable range, we can feel good about our vote mattering, if that's what we want to tell ourselves.

[Garrett78]

158. What's the point in having insurance if you're healthy or a good driver?

Only in a very close contest in which the one with the most pledged delegates is viewed as unelectable (especially if that person hasn't reached the delegate threshold) would superdelegates possibly be the deciding factor. It's not as though they're going to deny someone who dominates in pledged delegates.

Do away with caucuses and we're even less likely to ever see this happen.

[JCanete]

164. viewed by who as unelectable? Surely not the electorate, since their votes..."would have" spoken.

They can sway a vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't superdelegates each 10,000 votes? Apparently there are 712 of them. That accounts for over 7 million votes. Hillary Clinton won the GE popular vote by 3 million votes, and Supers have or had no obligation to vote with their states or anything as far as I'm aware. How is this just deciding on the margins? What if Sanders had won? Would he have been considered too fringe and just invalidated?

[Garrett78]

166. A superdelegate only gets one vote. 712 supers, 712 votes.

And 2382 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates don't play any role in the general election.

[JCanete]

187. a circumstance that makes each vote roughly equivalent to 10,000 regular votes. What exactly happens

if the voters go one way and the Superdelegates go the other then?

[Garrett78]

192. There are 4763 delegates (4051 pledged) sent to the convention. One must reach 2382...

...in order to secure the nomination.

If a candidate reaches 2382 without superdelegates, then it's a moot point.

If no candidate reaches 2382 (without counting superdelegates) but one candidate has far more pledged delegates than the other candidate(s), only in extreme circumstances would those superdelegates not support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

It is possible that one candidate could have, say, 2380 pledged delegates and still not be nominated, but that is so unlikely that I'm willing to just say "let's cross the bridge if we ever come to it."

In other words, this is all much ado about nothing. Get rid of caucuses and that will be even more true.

[JCanete]

198. first, define "only in extreme circumstances". If the electorate votes one way, then clearly

the electorate doesn't think that the circumstances are extreme to the point that warrant being overturned. So in the circumstance of a close race, that determination lies solely in the hands of the supers. We may have very different opinions about what "extreme circumstances" mean, and your counseling to not worry about it because we should always just trust that such a system wouldn't be abused is not particularly convincing.

Granted, generally speaking where we most see Superdelegate influence currently is in the reporting done that includes them when evaluating candidate chances. It makes it look like a candidate is far out of reach when that isn't necessarily the case.

[Garrett78]

199. Such as damaging news coming to light late in the primary season or after the last primary.

The media generally makes it clear that so-and-so has X pledged delegates and Y superdelegates. After all, the media loves nothing more than a horse race and it isn't in their interest to suggest a race is over (as the 2016 Democratic primary essentially was by mid-March).

Even with the rule change, superdelegates can and will make endorsements. They simply won't be able to vote on the first ballot. I don't really have any trouble with that rule change, especially if we do away with caucuses.

[JCanete]

201. then you weren't paying attention to the news and the way the race was being reported, particularly

early on. Yes, the media always does seem to love a horse race, once the results are pretty certain. If you think an occasional distinction makes it clear how votes are broken down to the general public, which probably doesn't have a solid grasp of how this convoluted system works, I wholly disagree. Showing numbers that indicate how much of the vote one candidate has over the other, which does often add in supers, shows a massive advantage for one candidate and a huge deficit for the other, appearing to make a race look out of reach before superdelegates have officially cast their votes.

[Garrett78]

202. I paid attention, but we clearly have a different take on the reporting. Regardless...

...the race was essentially over long before the media said it was.

As for the general public, the general public doesn't pay close enough attention to know what the delegate count is...or what delegates are for that matter. They just vote for who they like...or don't vote at all.

Clinton didn't win because of superdelegates or because of reporting. She won because she had far more support among the base of the party, particularly women and persons of color. This is why it was clear by mid-March that she was going to win with ease in spite of undemocratic caucuses.

[JCanete]

204. people don't so often just go and vote for the loser...the person they think is already out of the

running. It doesn't feel good to lose, and there's such a thing as fair-weather politics. I think enough people don't like to feel like they are throwing away their vote.

[Gothmog]

283. Where did you get this stuff?

[Meadowoak]

278. Should get rid of it. Repubs don't have it, and they vote more reliably (won't miss an opportunity

To vote, even if it requires crawling through broken glass.). Because they believe they are more a part of the process.

[R B Garr]

98. This is bizarre. You are saying that a fabricated story is

more important than what actually happened. Nothing happened regarding superdelegates. You are the one pushing this contrived superdelegate crisis. This is pure manufactured outrage, which is all it ever was.

We need to quit attacking people over “fairness” when the issues you are describing are completely fabricated.

We have the vote totals, so you don’t have to worry anymore about yet another fabricated crisis about “fixed” nominations. Millions more everyday people decided the outcome, sorry. Why keep creating conspiracies when we have the facts about the vote totals.

[Sophia4]

100. If what you say is true, and it is, then we have nothing to fear if we end the superdelegate

convention because they don't change the outcome of the process, and they bring no value to it.

Let's get rid of superdelegates and make a big deal of it. Let's have a campaign to bring Democrats back to our Party. Let's assure them that their votes will count.

[R B Garr]

106. It's obvious your concern is not about fairness

or appearances to voters or you would be more concerned about caucuses. There was actual documented unfairness in the caucuses, not your fear mongering over something that never happened with superdelegates.

Read pnwmom’s post in this thread about how voters were disenfranchised in the state of Washington because more people avoided the hostile and undemocratic caucus.

Caucuses should be eliminated. They are unfair. Your insistence on drumming up resentment over something that never happened is bizarre.

[Sophia4]

108. I agree that caucuses should be eliminated.

Both caucuses and superdelegates should be abolished. Let's find utterly honest, open ways to pick candidates.

[R B Garr]

110. It is dishonest to imply that our candidates are

picked unfairly. I recognized this pattern right away with the same undermining done to Hillary. Endless untrue insinuations.

[Sophia4]

113. I'm not claiming that our candidates are picked unfairly.

I'm saying we should go to extremes to assure voters that they are picked fairly.

We must do away with any tradition or policy or convention that could be interpreted, however mistakenly, as unfair or dishonest. And superdelegates can be interpreted as being unfair or dishonest. They probably aren't, but if they aren't, why have them?

What good do they do. Is it a way of flattering big donors? Or successful politicians?

If it is a way to pick a candidate when other methods haven't worked, then we have to find some way that looks utterly honest and above board.

[R B Garr]

117. Talk about honesty, when you have to draw this much

attention to something that never happened with superdelegates, then it looks like there is a different motive. There are a lot of extremes we could go through—mandatory tax return releases and no caucuses come to mind. We should not convince people there is a crisis just because our candidate lost when the vote totals tell the story.

[Sophia4]

119. So why have superdelegates if they don't really do anything?

If they don't make any difference, why have them?

[R B Garr]

123. This is a contrived issue. When you look at the article

posted, we see what this is about and who it is supposed to help.

[Gothmog]

284. They give elected officials who are leaders of the party a seat at the table

Why do you hate members of the CBC?

[Sophia4]

287. I don't hate members of the CBC.

Why should elected officials who are supposed to run again and again and again and serve at the will of the people as expressed in the ballot box have a seat at the table?

Why?

They should answer to us, not us to them.

[Gothmog]

288. You admit that you are not a real democrat and did not vote for Clinton

I am sorry that members of the CBC rejected sanders but you should not hate them because of this. Super delegates serve a purpose and I value the opinion of the CBC over the claims of persons who are not real democrats and who did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election

[Sophia4]

289. I am a real lifelong Democrat. I have probably worked in more campaigns than most

on this website.

If not voting for Hillary means you are not a Democrat, then the Democratic Party is a lot smaller than some think. I vote for Democrats.

Super delegates serve no purpose other than to make certain egotists feel important.

I do not like the concept of superdelegates. You are entitled to your opinion. I will not insult you for it. Please respect my opinion and do not insult me for it.

I have absolutely nothing against the CDC. They are wonderful in my opinion. I do not agree with them on the issue of super delegates, and I have stated my reasons for my opinion. Please respect my right to my own opinion.

Anyone who has registered as many Democrats and walked as many blocks for Democratic candidates and stood as many hours tabling and sat making calls as I have deserves more respect than you are giving me. Please.

[Gothmog]

290. You refused to support the nominee of the party and so I do not think that you are a real democrat

I am younger than you are but it is pretty clear from your posts that I have had more involvement in real campaigns. I have been members of the Kerry/Edwards voter protection team, the Obama Voter Protection team and the Victory counsel program as well as a major donor and a delegate to the National Convention. I know both members of the DNC and super delegates including members of the CBC. I value the leadership of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and think that these leaders are more important to the party compared to non-real democrats who did not vote for the candidates of the party.

I am sorry that sanders' feelings were hurt because the leaders in the party who knew him best rejected him. The fact that sanders' feelings were hurt are not sufficient to change the system.

Again, I value the opinions of real democrats like the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus. I also like the Center for Disease Control (the CDC) but do not understand how the CDC fits into this discussion. I have no respect for the opinions of persons who do not support the party and who helped to elect trump.

[heaven05]

291. you DID NOT vote

for our candidate 2016. You bragged about that. Your voice in this Party belongs to a minor faction in our Party that by a majority, DID NOT vote for our candidate 2016. You cannot offer advice when you were one of many that helped pull the POtuS out of the sewer, clean him up enough to stop stinking,(temporarily)and partially along with help from PUTIN and the WSP/GOP pushed this POtuS upon America to turn it into his fascist playground Amerika. Nah, can't hear you

[Sophia4]

292. What are you talking about?

I voted for the candidate of my choice.

Did you?

I did not vote for Trump. Hillary won in California.

If you want to accuse people of electing Trump, accuse people from states in which the majority voted for him. Don't accuse me.

Believe me. I am a strong Democrat.

[heaven05]

318. Did you vote for HRC?

YOU bragged you did not. Was that just hyperbole? Just trying to hurt us, Democrats? What? It is a pretty simple yes or no answer, is it not??? If you did not vote for HRC then that puts your every argument into the clearest of perspectives and I shun them

[Gothmog]

322. That poster did not vote for Clinton and is proud of their vote

I do not pay attention to non-democrats as to what the party should be doing.

[heaven05]

330. I think I have to move

in that direction myself. Not give them much except to let them know, WE know what they are trying to do, AND IT WILL NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gothmog]

293. Bragging about not being a real democrat on this board irks me

Bragging about refusing to vote for the party's nominee is not a good move if you want real democrats to take your positions seriously

[Eliot Rosewater]

313. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Blue_true]

165. You are dead wrong. Super delegate are the off switch that prevents a democratic Trump.

They have a role and it comes into play if needed.

[Sophia4]

168. Let the people, the voters and the delegates decide.

The super delegates are merely an expression of a sick, unwarranted desire on the parts of rich donors and career politicos to control our democracy. It is time for that institution, that of the super delegate, to end.

As a nation, we move slowly but surely toward more democracy and more individual participation. Super delegates serve no purpose other than to slow the development of democratic expression in favor of bureaucracy, potential (and very, very possible) corruption and bad election results. The tradition, the institution, of super delegates needs to end.

We don't need them. They just invite corruption.

[Blue_true]

169. It is a waste.

You have peddled false information in several posts. Maybe you sincerely believe the incorrect claims, but I don't. Both of us are set in how we view super delegates, I am not going to change your mind, neither are you going to change mind, so let's leave things at that.

[stopbush]

121. The Democrats are a POLITICAL PARTY. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties

get to set their own rules. One person one vote is bullshit when it comes to political parties.

You know what rule the Ds SHOULD adopt? A rule that says you must be registered as a D for five consecutive years before you can announce as a D presidential candidate.

Oh yeah, and fuck non-Ds like Bernie Sanders who don’t have the commitment to the D Party to remain a D even after the party allowed you to enter its primaries.

BTW - when I bash Sanders on DU, I am not bashing a fellow D. I am bashing and Independent who was a D for less than a year. He’s not a D. He’s made that very clear.

[Gothmog]

149. So you are back to claiming that super delegates are corrupt

You made that argument on another thread and you had to back down on that thread. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are important members of the party leadership. These leaders have earned a right to go to the National Convention. There is nothing corrupt or crooked in having elected officials such members of the CBC go to the convention as delegates. The current system rewards states that elect more members to congress.

I am working hard and giving to a number of candidates in Texas to see if we can elect more Democrats to the Senate or Congress. Having more elected officials is a good thing and should be rewarded. I know that California should pick up a number of new Democratic congresscritters and I think that California should be rewarded for such results

[stonecutter357]

277. what actually happened is not the issue. lol lol .

[still_one]

83. I tell you what I find ironic. You are against SD, but you are all for Open Primaries, which perhaps

speaks volumes about where you are coming from than anything else.

Registered Democrats should be the ones who decide who will be their parties nominee, NOT someone who does NOT want to be identifed as a Democrat. I do NOT want a republican, independent, or THIRD PARTY voter to decide WHO SHOULD BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, and the lame excuse that public officals, clergy, and others may want to keep their political party affiliation anonymous is nonesense.

People are not naïve about the folks pushing to have NON-DEMOCRATS help choose their parties nominee, and it has nothing to do with public officials and clergy wanting to remain anonymous.

The solution is very simple if they want to remain anonymous, just change the rules so the registration form party affiliation won't be made public.

Of course that is NOT the real motivation of those who want open primaries for Presidential elections. They want open primaries because they want third party control of the Democratic party, and in fact they want to destroy the Democratic party.

But keep pushing this divisive bullshit, and see if some of those self-identified progressives who REFUSED TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE in 2016, can f**k up the midterm elections like they did 2016, which allowed the republicans to place in the SC court TWO conservative justices, and then blame it on everybody but themselves.

Every DEMOCRAT running for Senate in those critical swing states in 2016 lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, because of that bullshit, undermining, lies, and distortion of the Democratic party from some of these so-called self-identified progressives, who did their damnedest to discourage people from voting by their false equivalency bullshit between the two parties.

This is just the same usual suspects from 2000, who said a vote for Gore was a vote for bush.

You don't want to be registered as a Democrat, then you don't get to choose who the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS FOR PRESIDENT.

[Sophia4]

85. I have registered many, many voters.

Increasingly, young voters register Independent, not Democratic.

We need to change that.

[still_one]

90. I don't care how many people you registered. If people want to decide who will be the DEMORATIC

PARTY NOMINATIOPN FOR PRESIDENT, they need to be registered Democrats

The ONLY motivation for those who do not want that is because they DO NOT want to be Democrats and work through the Democratic party

For those who are so inclined, then their are plenty of other third parties where they can setup their own rules.

The day they open up the primaries for Presidential elections is the day the Democratic party ceases to exist, and I suspect that is the true motivation behind this garbage

As for your ascertion that "young voters register as independent", that is irrelevant, and a lot of those so-called young independent voters are trump and libertarian voters, and I DON'T want them determining who the Democratic nominee for President is. No Thank-you.

If they want to choose who will be the Democratic nominee for president, then they register as Democrats, it is that simple.

I don't care if they get rid of SD or not, that has never been a determining factor, but I sure as hell don't want a non-Democrat choosing who will be the Democratic nominee. That will be a determining factor, and if you think that because the demographic is young and independent it means liberal, you are mistaken.

Not only will it destroy the two party system, but the easiest environment for a dictatorship to emerge

[Sophia4]

95. I disagree with you. I think there has to be a way to encourage people to register

Democratic and vote in Democratic primaries. But even though the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of expression in many respects, fact is that an employer or anyone else can find out how we are registered to vote. So there is an incentive for people in certain jobs to avoid registering for a specific party. Otherwise I would agree with you.

Unfortunately, I notice that a lot of young people are registering Independent which is No Party Preference in California.

[still_one]

102. I am in Northern Califronia, and the jungle primary is insane. We were just damn lucky that we

didn't have Democrats being knocked out of certain district races in republican districts, and have two republicans running against each other.

Also, the Democratic party in California is very clear that Presidential primaries are excluded from Open Primaries. There is a very good reason for that


As for keeping your party affiliation anonymous, I mentioned the easy remedy for that in another discussion I was having with you, just change the rules so the party affiliation remains anonymous.

That is a far safer solution then open primaries for presidential elections


As a side note, I don't think you need to clarify that we disagree, I think that is obvious

[Sophia4]

105. Have you ever canvassed for a candidate?

Your party preference is on the voter list. It's fairly easy to see.

Your party affiliation if you have one is not that hard to find out.

I think the jungle primaries are a mess, but it's worse if you have a lot of candidates and not just those who did best in the primaries. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue.

[still_one]

114. Yes I have, multiple elections, multiple times going door to door. Also extensive phone banking

In addition, much of that information is not correct or not updated.

My point being is to remedy that that situation is they change the rules to keep that party preference confidential. That isn't rocket science. It already is done for many things.

Also that voter list you are referring to is usually based on the last election, so you can easily change the rule and make that confidential.


Those doing the canvassing would be going houses or apartments without knowledge of the occupants party preference, which would actually present some additional opportunities in convincing people to vote for the candidate you are canvassing for.


The only thing you would know is the occupant is registered to vote, and that is all that is really necessary

[Sophia4]

116. You can't make the voter's registration confidential because when you canvast

you have the list of voters that are registered Democratic or whatever you are canvassing and it is public.

Also the lists are available to those who work at the polling places. It is public information. I don't think it could be made more confidential than it is, and it isn't very confidential.

[still_one]

120. Yes you can. You make the field of PARTY PREFERENCE HIDDEN. If you are looking to canvass just

Democratic voters, that is usually what that is for, so people doing the canvassing do not have to go to houses that are assumed not Democratic. In that case it is to get the vote out. There is different types of canvassing though, and canvassing to voters who are not exclusively Democratic opens things up to some new opportunities

As far as Names, Address, yes that information is public for REGISTERED VOTERS, but you just hide the party preference field. Things like this are implemented in software all the time. Passwords, SSN, etc.

We are never going to agree on open primaries for Presidential elections, and the day that happens will be the end of the political party systems, and opening the country up to a potential malevolent group without any checks or balances

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

162. This🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝

[heaven05]

237. this nt

[Garrett78]

86. Superdelegates had no bearing on the 2016 result.

[Sophia4]

99. That is not the point. Perception is the point.

One way to dissuade people people from voting is to convince them that their vote does not count for some reason. The existence of superdelegates makes it easy to persuade people that their vote does not count even though superdelegates probably don't make any difference as to the outcome of the process.

And people who don't think their vote counts are not likely to vote.

We need to get people to vote. We need to avoid any process or culture or procedure that discourages people who would or might vote Democratic from voting. The existence of our country may depend on persuading people who might not vote to vote Democratic.

If we can persuade voters that our process really is utterly fair and honest and if it really is utterly fair and honest, we have a better chance of winning. And our winning is essential for having a good country.

It is irresponsible to have superdelegates when so much is at stake. And when the process used by the Democratic Party to choose our delegates and our candidates has even the suggestion of unfairness, then we are being irresponsible. We need to be the party Americans identify with honesty. Especially now that the Republican Party is so dishonest.

Being honest and appearing honest are, in politics, more important than anything else.

[Garrett78]

129. It makes it easy, perhaps, for unscrupulous people to persuade gullible people...

...that their vote doesn't count. Anyone possessing even a modicum of critical thinking skills can recognize that their vote counted even if their preferred candidate didn't win (and that their preferred candidate losing had nothing to do with the presence of an insurance policy known as superdelegates).

But for the unscrupulous and the gullible, there will always be something they can exploit or by which they can be exploited.

Superdelegates are yet to be the deciding factor in a primary, but you still carry insurance in case it's needed. You don't drop the insurance just because of some gullible people or dishonest people with ulterior motives.

This outrage over a longstanding aspect of Democratic primaries was contrived in 2016. And the 2016 Democratic primary was essentially over by the 2nd week of March, yet there were people in denial about the math. You can't fix stupid.

[stevenleser]

173. Nope, it's not the point. You can't live your life based on other people's warped sense of reality.

Neither should the DNC.

[Sophia4]

179. If you want to win elections, you have to consider how people see you, how they

perceive you as a candidate and how they perceive your party, whether they view it as a party in which their participation matters or whether they view it as a party in which the rules make it possible to "fix" outcomes.

Politics is very much, in part, about perception.

[stevenleser]

188. Nope, you don't consider lunatics in your strategy. Focus on sane people. nt

[Sophia4]

191. You have to consider everyone including the sane and the crazy.

Well, we have a terrible record.

We have lost in so many states.

Hillary won the popular vote, but not the electoral college.

If we want to continue losing, we should continue as we have in the losing past.

If we want to win, we need to look as objectively as possible at what we have done in our losing past and change.

Of course, change can be threatening to those all comfy in the past.

[Kentonio]

142. We simply don't know.

The media were reporting delegate numbers that included announced superdelagates. It created the perception that Hillary was further ahead than she actually was at each stage. Whether that made a difference or not, we have no way of telling.

[Garrett78]

156. Generally speaking, I think the media made the distinction clear. And the media loves a horse race.

The contest was essentially over by the 2nd week of March, but you wouldn't know it from media coverage.

[radius777]

185. I agree, not good for perception,

I also didn't like that the supers announced their vote right before the CA primary, making her the official nominee, instead of allowing the voters to weigh in. She was going to win anyway so why not wait.

I support the new plan as long as it also gets rid of caucuses and open primaries, and mandates early voting... this way a broad cross-section of registered Dem voters will be the ones in most cases (aside from contested conventions, where the supers will come into play as they should) choosing the Dem nominee.

[NewJeffCT]

160. In 2008

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards supporters claimed that superdelegates were unfair to them because it gave Clinton too big of an advantage.

How did the 2008 primaries turn out for Clinton again?

[Sophia4]

163. We should strive for the reality AND appearance of utmost fairness and honesty.

If a bargain is to be made to resolve a tie, all candidates and their supporters should be openly involved.

[Gothmog]

224. Super delegates had nothing to do with Sanders lost

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

11. It prevents food fights in close elections...and I want it to stay...called the DNC and said so.

Supers always vote for the person with the most votes...but see we need winner take all primaries if this happens as we could have ties or close primaries and end up in court or worse and I for one am tired of losing elections and enabling fucking Republicans...and when you have a disputed primary, you always lose.

[Sophia4]

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination

process was unfair and rigged.

If they make no difference really in the end, why have them?

In politics, appearance matters. Superdelegates give the appearance of unfairness.

We don't need them. I suppose there is an ego trip involved in being a superdelegate, but let's don't be a party that fees the egos of its upper crust.

Let's be a party that cares about getting every voter out to vote, fairly counting the votes without fail and backing the candidates that we know have won fair and square.

It is partly about appearances. All politics is partly about appearances.

Fairness counts. Superdelegates appear to be unfair. Whether they are or not, the appearance of unfairness drives away voters.

[rgbecker]

21. Yes, Sophia, if they don't make a difference, get rid of them.

It makes the Democrats seem like they don't want what the voters want...that they need to be protected from the voters by some special "Super Delegates."

You are so right on this.

[sheshe2]

41. Come on Sophia.

State what you really mean. We all know who you are talking about. Just say it.

Sophia4 (3,137 posts)

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination process was unfair and rigged.

[Meowmee]

125. Yep

Pretty obvious what this really means. She wants open primaries too.

[heaven05]

238. exactly

again, state what you mean. Can you do that, candidly? Again, can you just say it?

[R B Garr]

51. No worries, Sophia, because "impressions" are not what is counted --

it is vote totals. Prolonging this urban myth is not useful, so why do you keep doing it. The facts are not on your side.

[Sophia4]

111. If voters have the "impression" that the process is unfair, "rigged," then they

are less likely to vote, especially if the ultimate nominee does not completely meet their expectations, satisfy their wishes -- is not an almost impossibly perfect candidate.

And that affects, no, determines the vote totals.

That is how it works. Those few votes of the rare voters who do not like a process that appears slightly unfair or dishonest, those make the difference sometimes between winning and losing.

So that is why an utterly honest process if important.

And we Democrats have to deal with this underlying, very serious, very basic problem. It is a problem of inspiring the trust of voters.

And right now, elections are going to be decided by the trust of the voters.

Voters will trust a process that is exceedingly and purposefully honest.

Obama won because Democrats really, really trusted him.

Trust is the key.

The idea of superdelegates destroys the trust of a lot of voters.

[R B Garr]

115. Sorry, but this is leftover and very bad fear mongering

that was meant to drum up anti-Establishment anger. You are using a non-issue about superdelegates, so if you want people to trust you, you shouldn’t misrepresent facts and twist them to convince people that their vote didn’t count.

Your buzzwords “rigged” “unfair” “impression” are just rehashing a loss. The vote totals don’t support your accusations. The Russians used this negative messaging to stoke divisions. This is the exact type of unsubstantiated propaganda they spread.

[Sophia4]

118. I respect your right to your opinions, but I disagree with you on this issue.

I'm talking about one of the many reasons Democrats have been losing so many elections that we should not be losing.

There are many reasons that we have lost in so many states, one of which is the decline in membership in trade unions.

We should work to change what we can.

It would be easy for us to end the superdelegates. We don't need them.

[R B Garr]

122. That is bizarre you are saying superdelegates

are causing lost elections. It’s not even remotely a real issue.

Again, I remember your reasons for not voting for Hillary. When you actively work against our candidate, then there must be some realization that a lost election could be the outcome. This kind of undermining is what we should be aware of. Why blame on Democrats what other’s intentional actions were. We should stick with the conventional wisdom that seems to work—no prolonged unnecessary attacks on our candidate and our party that only benefit the GOP.

We should spend more time attacking Republicans than attacking Democrats. Attacking Democrats is a stupid idea.

[heaven05]

239. I don't because

it's true what was said by who you are responding to. Just say what you really want? Okay. We are grown up, we can take the truth.

[stevenleser]

172. People have all kinds of impressions. We can't be responsible for them.Some people believe in ghosts

Are you going to change your life because someone else believes in ghosts?

No.

[Gothmog]

225. The system is not rigged

Link to tweet

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Spot on, especially this: "if they make no difference really in the end, why have them?"

[Garrett78]

177. Why have auto insurance if you're a good driver or health insurance if you're healthy?

[Gothmog]

74. Again, you are totally wrong on the facts

Yes, I know that members of the CBC hurt sanders' feelings and so you want to punish them. That is sad. In the real world, Super delegates have voted for the candidate with with most votes and most pledged delegates.

If you are really worried about appearances, then why do you want to punish a group of leaders who are far more important to the success of the party than the people pushing this new rule. I support the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and this new rule will be seen as an insult to these key leaders. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place

The Congressional Black Caucus is against eliminating superdelegates, putting the group at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.

Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter.

It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[Sophia4]

103. If you are right, if as you say,

"In the real world, Super delegates have voted for the candidate with with most votes and most pledged delegates."

then we don't need superdelegates. They change nothing, and they are not needed.

They make our Democratic Party, a Party that belongs to all of us, look untrustworthy and crooked -- even if they do not do that at all.

Appearances are very important to voters.

Trust and procedures that insure fairness are in today's politics, in Democratic politics, utterly important.

Superdelegates make our Democratic Party look bad, and if they don't do anything, don't affect the outcome of nominations or elections, we should go full force for looking and being honest and having an honest process and end the superdelegates.

[R B Garr]

109. We should not be dishonest and accuse people of things

they never did. The superdelegates were not an issue, but you are calling them dishonest. This same kind of undermining with no proof is what the Russians liked to see. Endless untrue smears.

[Gothmog]

153. Super delegates are elected leaders of the party such as members of the CBC

I know members of the CBC. I think that these leaders are far more important to the party compared to the sanders followers pushing for this change

[Garrett78]

88. Why have them? They're an insurance policy. Like having health insurance even if you're healthy.

Here's the transcript of an interview with one of the superdelegate inventors: http://inthesetimes.com/features/superdelegate-interview-elaine-kamarck.html

[Sophia4]

101. What do they insure?

Control for the party bureaucrats? Do we really need that? I don't think so.

[Garrett78]

124. Did you click on the link in my last post?

Not that the answer isn't obvious. It's insurance against the selection of someone who isn't viewed as being electable. Just because that has yet to be an issue doesn't mean it won't ever be an issue. I have auto insurance but rarely utilize it.

From the Marcetic-Kamarck exchange:

The creation of superdelegates seems to have been intended as a corrective to the reforms of the 1969-70 McGovern-Fraser Commission, which took power away from party bosses and provided for the selection of delegates through primaries. Was there a sense that the primary system encouraged nominees who represented the party’s extremes?

Yeah, I mean what we’ve known for many years now is that primary electorates are not representative of the whole party. Republican primaries skew right and the Democrat primaries skew left. That’s really dawning on people after 1972, when you had a real increase in the number of primaries. There was a concern that we were going to be nominating unelectable candidates like George McGovern.

One way to help mitigate that is to do away with caucuses, participation in which is especially not representative of the electorate.

[sheshe2]

182. By your own words.

Sophia4

18. Superdelegates give to voters who lose the impression that the election or nomination

process was unfair and rigged.

Well one super delegate did, Bernie Sanders said "rigged"...yet by your own words he gave the voters the 'impression', as a super delegate that he was one of the ones doing the rigging. I am sincerely confused here.

In politics, appearance matters. Superdelegates give the appearance of unfairness.

So...Sanders as a super delegate gave to the voters that he as a super "appeared" to be unfair... "the appearance of unfairness"?

We don't need them. I suppose there is an ego trip involved in being a superdelegate, but let's don't be a party that fees the egos of its upper crust.

So again, by your own words about the super delegates and their possible corruption (link in above thread)...now you are accusing Sanders along with the super delegate smear to be on an ego trip and feeding the egos of the upper crust?

Fairness counts. Superdelegates appear to be unfair. Whether they are or not, the appearance of unfairness drives away voters.

So a super delegate with the " appearance of unfairness" drives voters away?

Wow.

.....................

Not sure you are helping your guy all that much. Correct me if I am wrong please. I find your posts in this thread hard to follow and I feel I need a road map to get to the destination. So many twists and turns.

My Senator Warren is a super delegate and I take offense that you feel she is corrupt, unfair or on an ego trip bowing to the egos of the "upper crust" and is "driving voters away".

[Sophia4]

186. We should have no superdelegates.

The very concept makes our Democratic Party look untrustworthy.

And how processes and candidates "look" is very important in politics.

[sheshe2]

189. No answer.

Okay.

[Gothmog]

285. Are you surprised?

[sheshe2]

286. No.

[Gothmog]

295. We are supposed to accept the opinions of non-democrats as to how the party should be managed

This makes no sense

[Gothmog]

215. California DNC Member Suggests Superdelegate Reform Is Part Of Russian Plot

Elimination of super delegates will make the party weaker https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bob-mulholland-california-dnc-superdelegates-reform-putin-russia_us_5b1d636fe4b09d7a3d73e7bb

Momentum is growing within the Democratic National Committee for a significant reform to the party’s presidential nominating process, but the proposed change has caused a leading California Democrat to question whether Russian meddling is behind the effort.

The Californian, Bob Mulholland, could provide no proof for his claim. But his comments underscore the resistance the reform push is expected to encounter from some party stalwarts.....

Mulholland, a DNC member and longtime key player in California Democratic politics, sent an email Friday to other DNC members from the Golden State that implied Russian President Vladimir Putin might be behind the reform effort.

The basis for his claim? An activist from West Virginia promoting the changes, who he had seen at two national party gatherings, admitted to him that she was a Green Party member and had voted for its nominee, Jill Stein, in the 2016 election.

“I concluded someone is picking up her expenses but there she and others are, demanding we change our Rules,” Mulholland wrote. “The Putin operation is still active.”

[R B Garr]

216. Wow! That is interesting! A so-called Green party

member is against superdelegates. I’ve always wondered about Tad Devine’s influence over the misplaced Sanders’ campaign obsession with superdelegates, and now we see that his colleague Manafort was funded by the Russians.

This whole thing is a complete ruse. We see that getting rid of superdelegates is just a way to get non-Democrats to circumvent doing anything for the party while benefitting from it. Opportunistic, and that’s being polite. They are not against superdelegates at all, they just want them to vote third party.

[Gothmog]

217. Yep

[R B Garr]

38. This is yet another contradiction -- now in this post you are concerned

about "ordinary Democrats" yet your other posts say that Independents and third party voters should not be denied an opportunity to contest conventions, which makes no sense. All of your own proposed scenarios are fabricated, yet you tag "ordinary Democrats" with your own contrived misgivings. The superdelegates were not a roadblock even recently, as the vote totals were not there to support going forward. They did not abuse their roll, so it's just complete hooey at this point to keep insisting that superdelegates should go away just as some kind of victory lap for third party types. Let's not make things up about superdelegates, including making up false impressions of them and then insisting people live by your own impressions.

It is interesting that you talk about winning elections. Voting for the Democrat is how we can do that, not refusing to vote for our nominee and then encouraging others to do the same. Blaming Democrats for the willful behavior of others is not right.

[sheshe2]

43. Teach!

[R B Garr]

46. lol, yes! That same ol' reality bending and blaming gets old.

Getting people upset over something that never happened is tiresome. Blaming Democrats for what you, yourself, have done is tiresome, but very familiar. Hey she,

[sheshe2]

65. I really had to LOL.

"creaky old uppercrust." Seriously?

Hey back, R B.

[stevenleser]

47. You have no evidence of that either way since super delegates have never affected

a primary race.

[DURHAM D]

48. Yes but Nina Turner said.................

[aikoaiko]

69. Thank you for trying, Sophia4.

I'm with you.

[JHan]

272. lol of course you are.

[Gothmog]

70. Why do we want to punish the CBC and the leaders of the party

Super delegates had nothing to do with losing the 2016 or any other election. Punishing members of the Congressional Black Caucus is a dumb idea. Members of the CBC are far more important to the party than the sanders supporters pushing this change

[radius777]

79. Agree, also get rid of caucuses and open primaries.

Sure, superdelegates never played an official role, but were a looming spectre in several elections (especially 2008) and is simply not a good look for democracy.

We need early voting with closed primaries which would allow the largest amount of rank-and-file Democratic voters to choose the Dem nominee, with minimal ratfucking.

So the elected delegates (ie, the people's choice) alone should vote on the first ballot, with superdelegates allowed to vote on every subsequent ballot.

Some say the superdelegates should never vote on any ballot, but I don't agree with this, since you much rather have trusted party figures having a strong say rather than elected delegates (party hacks) who (iirc) are not bound to vote the people's' choice on subsequent ballots but can vote however they wish.

[Sophia4]

91. I think that superdelegates are no more trustworthy than "party hacks."

Superdelegates cause a lot of distrust among voters.

Elected delegates are not necessarily party hacks.

I was a delegate at the state level. Most delegates are good people. If the Democratic leadership does its job, the delegates will continue to be mostly good people.

The superdelegates are also mostly "good people." But they bring the appearance of corruption to the nomination process.

The more open, visibly open and more honest, our process is the better, the better off we are as a Party. Our process has to be absolutely honest.

The shabby appearance of a fix that superdelegates bring even if the process is in reality very honest, is not worth it.

[radius777]

104. Superdelegates are publicly accountable

establishment leaders who are favored by rank-and-file Democratic voters whereas regular delegates are usually party hack activist types who regular voters don't want making decisions for them. I would actually prefer they didn't even exist. Let a computer vote in the results on the first ballot based upon the people's choice then let the superdelegates add in their votes on the subsequent ballots until a nominee is reached.

Even Sanders' plan supports superdelegates on the subsequent ballots, simply excludes the from the first wherein the people's voice will be the only voice. I agree with this.

All political parties must have a mechanism of dealing with deadlocked first ballots that proceed to a contested convention. The superdelegate system was created to prevent back room horsetrading to install a nominee as was common in the past - iow to avoid corruption.

[Sophia4]

107. We do need a mechanism to deal with deadlocks, but superdelegates are not what

we should use. Let's find a better way.

[radius777]

112. Only better way would be voters going to the polls again

which simply isn't practical, thus the superdelegates (being trusted by the broad swath of the Dem electorate) are the ones who should add their voice on the 2nd ballot, which are highly uncommon anyway. So superdelegates in most cases would play no role, as the voters have 100% of the voice on the 1st ballot under the new plan.

[Garrett78]

200. 2nd ballots will be a lot more common under the new proposed rule.

Without superdelegates, it's much more likely that no candidate will reach 2382. It'll take superdelegates and the 2nd ballot in order to put someone over the top.

[radius777]

206. True, but candidates have their chance

to win the votes of the people alone (pledged delegates) on the first ballot, with no input from any party officials or superdelegates etc.

If the candidate can't do it, they (and their supporters) can't cry because they had their shot.

I personally think whichever candidate gets a strong plurality should win it even if he/she doesnt reach the >50% (2382) because it won't look good otherwise. ie lets say someone gets 40%, but then the party gives it to someone else on the 2nd ballot ... would be mayhem.

the GOP establishment was considering such a thing, to give it to Kasich.

[Gothmog]

154. Members of the CBC are "party hacks"

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are important leaders in the party. They are not corrupt and they are not party hacks

[Gothmog]

267. So members of the Congressional Black Caucus are lazy, corrupt and party hacks

I know members of the CBC and I strongly disagree

Have you considered working on some campaigns in the real world? You will see how much work it takes to get elected

[NurseJackie]

205. Ha!! :-D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Reducing or eliminating caucuses would be a start.

[joshcryer]

5. Yep. Caucases need to go. They're undemocratic.

[Sophia4]

9. Yes. I agree. Caucuses don't include, can't include all voters.

[still_one]

15. and OPEN PRIMARIES SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED DEMOCRATS

I do NOT want Non-Democrats deciding who the Democratic nominee is

and for those who can't grasp this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/illinois-house-primary-dan-lipinski/index.html


republicans crossed over and voted for lipinski in the OPEN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, and the progressive candidate lost

[Sophia4]

19. There should be a way for certain independents and third-party registered voters to

vote in Democratic primaries.

Alternatively, we should make it very easy for voters registered as independents to re-register as Democrats.

One problem with re-registering Democrats is that the voter registration roles are publicly available under certain circumstances. That means your employer can find out how you register to vote. Privacy can be important with regard to your voter registration.

I don't have an answer to this problem, but it should be acknowledged.

I recall during my working years, I was once called in by a boss because he wanted to discuss privately with me my stance on a certain political issue. I had never voiced an opinion on that issue in the workplace. Hardly even had one. It was very odd. It think he saw my voter registration and assumed my stance on that issue.

Restricting voters in primaries to registered Democrats sounds good, but there are problems with it. Life can be complicated.

Think of teachers, pastors, lawyers, many other professions that deal with the public and have to be careful about their affiliations.

[still_one]

24. Why should a non-Democrat choose the Democratic nominee? No it ISN'T complicated. Those who do NOT

want to register as a Democrat should NOT be able to determine who is the Democratic nominee. It is actually quite simple

Bernie recognized this, and became a Democrat when he ran 2016

Complicated my foot.

It is an argument that third party candidates use. If they are NOT DEMOCRATS, and do NOT want to be associated with the Democratic party then they do NOT have the right to choose who the Democratic nominee IS. It is that simple

[Sophia4]

27. As I pointed out, some people may, for professional reasons for example, need to

maintain privacy about their political preferences. I understand that very well.

Has nothing to do with being a Democrat.

Has to do with their professional responsibilities.

[still_one]

36. Actually if you perceive that as a problem, that solution is very simple, just change the rules so

the registration form party affiliation won't be made public.

Of course that is the real motivation of those who want open primaries. They want open primaries because they want third party control of the Democratic party

[radius777]

82. Agree

The anonymous ballot is the foundation of our system and as such the voter registration data should be private also. Perhaps only available to campaigns who must be bound by privacy laws just as medical and financial data is.

Like you I feel strongly that nomination contests should be high turnout closed primaries with early voting so a broad swath of registered Dems are the ones choosing the nominees.

This would minimize Repub ratfucking and 3rd party hijack attempts. Would also reduce the influence of activists who tend to dominate in caucuses and low turnout primaries, which tend to produce unelectable and unrepresentative candidates.

[still_one]

84. Absolutely. They want to get rid of SD, fine, but the day the Democratic party opens up the primary

for the office of PRESIDENT, will be the end of the Democratic party, and I suspect that is the real motivation behind a lot of those pushing that

[OilemFirchen]

25. Jesus.

Your posts are the written equivalent of yoga classes.

[Sophia4]

28. What do you mean?

[OilemFirchen]

31. ...

[sheshe2]

39. Ummhmm

[msongs]

33. there is a way - register as a democrat. nt

[Blue_true]

37. I prefer closed primaries.

But you make a good point. Letting independents into democratic primaries would work if only democratic leaning independents came in (no way of telling how an Indy leans). If republican voting indies get in, they could cause trouble.

[lapucelle]

56. In my purple county, we had a serving Republican comptroller

whose term was ending running in the Democratic primary for county executive last year. The Republican candidate for county executive ran unchallenged.

I'm glad I live in a closed primary state. If not, we may well have had had a GE choice between Republican A and Republican B. Instead, we now have a Democratic county executive.

[Blue_true]

66. I am somewhat confused by your post.

Let me summarize how I understood it.

The republican primary for County Executive had only one person in it.

In the democratic primary, a sitting republican entered.

Yet, you concluded that your county now has a democrat as County Executive in your closed primary state.

I don't understand, did the republican enter the democratic primary and got beaten by the person that went on to win the County Executive seat in the General, or did something else happen that is unclear to me?

[lapucelle]

68. The Democrat won the Democratic primary and went on to win the GE.

Because my state has closed primaries, Republicans were not able to cast crossover votes in the primary.

https://www.thenationalherald.com/137376/george-maragos-now-democrat-running-nassau-county-executive/

https://libn.com/2017/09/13/curran-wins-dem-race-defeating-maragos/

http://liherald.com/eastmeadow/stories/curran-wins,97408

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/nyregion/westchester-nassau-county-executive-results.html

[Gothmog]

72. Same here and I would like to get rid of undemocratic caucuses

[Gothmog]

75. Then you support the DNC rule that is quid pro quo for the super delegate rule

The DNC is adopting a new rule that should keep sanders from running unless he becomes a real democrat https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

Democratic National Committee officials on Friday moved forward with a proposal to force the party’s presidential candidates to identify as Democrats, a move that drew immediate criticism from a top official in Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

The prospective rule change, approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would not necessarily impact Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who ran for president as a Democrat.

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August.

Sanders would have to drop the stunt of claiming that he is not a member of the party is he wants to run under this new rule.

This rule has already been adopted and is appropriate

[Skidmore]

155. If someone wants to vote as a Democrat in

the primary, then they should register as one. How you vote should not be the concern of an employer unless you are in public service and prohibited from affiliating with a party. You are also allowed to hold opinions on issues. I do not see what that has to do with party affiliation.

The primaries exist for the purpose of the selection of the parties' candidates, their rules and by-laws, the platforms they endorse.

[uponit7771]

13. +1

[lunamagica]

14. Yes. Caucuses are undemocratic and exclusive. They need to go.

[joshcryer]

6. "wretched timing" is a good phrase for it.

But it is 100% intentional. The same way that they forced Clinton to put their cronies on the DNC committee. The same way they forced Clinton to modify the DNC draft to put in their minor modifications.

It's called hostage taking.

[mcar]

22. I stand with the CBC

Thanks for this reporting, Gothmog.

[Gothmog]

77. I know a number of members of the CBC and I stand with them also

[RandySF]

26. I iwll support getting rid of superdelegates when we get rid of caucuses.

[LisaM]

30. We should get rid of caucuses FIRST.

I certainly hope Sanders is calling to an end of those.

[Garrett78]

53. Caucuses are the only reason the 2016 primary was even remotely close, so I doubt it.

Even then, the race was over by the 2nd week of March.

[R B Garr]

40. Exactly! This is why it's obvious this is just a distraction and not a

serious consideration of all voters. So phony.

[RandySF]

42. It's not a distraction

It’s an attempt to stack eco in someone’s favor.

[R B Garr]

44. True, I had to word it carefully, but you are exactly correct.

It's as obvious now as it ever was.

[DURHAM D]

49. it is not up to a political party to decide on primary or caucus.

It is decided by the state.

[RandySF]

50. Idaho Dems are going to a primary for 2020

Michigan Dems went from caucus to primary.

[DURHAM D]

52. How? Did the state provide an option? Or change the process?

Please provide a link for both claims.

The reason for these laws is that in the primary states the government pays for the elections. In caucus states the party pays for the events. So, is the party paying for the primary?

[FSogol]

29. Rep. Gerry Connolly is my rep. Two thumbs up. n/t

[panader0]

32. Do superdelegates always reflect the popular vote?

If they do, they are not needed. If they don't, they need to go.
Why should there be an extra layer of "democracy" between the voters and the results?

[k8conant]

87. They didn't in 2016 for West Virginia...

Sanders won the popular vote in the primary (in all 55 counties) and the superdelegates all voted for Clinton.

[Garrett78]

93. Because Clinton won the overall popular vote.

[msongs]

34. the democratic party should not aim to please republicans and other non party members nt

[Garrett78]

54. They'll still be able to endorse whoever they want. And vote. Just not on the first ballot.

I don't see this as a huge deal.

Like others, I'm all for getting rid of caucuses.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

55. Having a little control by leadership is not a bad thing.

[CentralMass]

338. There should not be a mechanism to allow a select few to change the will of the electorate in an

election.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

339. You're not going to like hearing about Jeffersonian democracy

[Cha]

57. I'm with the CBC.. and Gerry Connelly makes

a lot of sense.

Mahalo, Goth!

[ucrdem]

60. Ditto!

[Cha]

61. Hey Aloha, ucr!

[ucrdem]

62. Aloha from burning asphalt h#ll!

you are soooo lucky to just have an active volcano in your back yard Cha!

[Gothmog]

81. Cha is four islands over from the Volcano

My son is headed to the Big Island at the end of August for a week.

[ucrdem]

127. Bet he wishes he were there now. . .

Bet we all do!

p.s. he is going to have a wonderful, wonderful time. I can say that because I was there for a few days in November and it was utterly enchanting. I did get to drive around a bit after with Mrs UCRdem but not as much as I'd like. Can't wait to return!

[ucrdem]

64. I think Perez will probably horse-trade a little and make both sides happy.

There's another proposal to make a documented 2-year Democratic party membership a prerequisite to running nationally that the Sanders partisans really hate. So I think they will end up cancelling each other out.

But not without major drama.

[aikoaiko]

67. Super delegates can vote at the polls like everyone else.

[Gothmog]

76. Additional new DNC Rule-Presidential candidates must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat

The quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule is a rule that will require candidates to be real members of the party. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

According to the draft rule change adopted Friday, “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.”

The draft goes on to require that any candidate pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president confirm in writing to the Democratic National Committee chairman that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will “run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting in Providence, R.I., made no final determination on superdelegates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has proposed prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. Rules committee members also discussed a modified version of that proposal, in which superdelegates would be allowed to vote on the first ballot if a candidate had already earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

This rule is in effect the quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August

[Algernon Moncrieff]

78. I hope for a day when we do away with delegates altogether.

I'd like a National Primary system in which we all vote, the votes are counted, and the winner wins. To me, the delegates are the same basic theory as the electoral college. Put the nominating process in the hands of registered Democrats.

[KitSileya]

80. Oh, FFS! Superdelegates make sure grassroot members of the party gets *more* say, not less!

The system of superdelegates contributes to giving ordinary, non-elected party members more say in party business, not less! It increases their chances of getting to go to the convention! What the fuck do these yokels think will happen if we get rid of our superdelegates? The delegates at the convention will become less diverse, as state and county parties will pick elected Democrats, those who are now superdelegates, as pledged delegates. It ill be much harder for ordinary, non-candidate party members to get elected as delegates, and it will certainly make it less likely for minorities to break into party politics. Working to be elected delegate now is a low threshold way of getting engaged in the party - often the stepping stone before standing for election either as a candidate or a party officer. Get rid of superdelegates, and that avenue will be all but closed. I mean, who would deny say Senator Warren a delegate slot over Jane Blow from Bumfuck, MA?

[Kentonio]

143. That is a truly terrible excuse for superdelegates..

[budkin]

97. Super delegates need to go

Just like the electoral college.

[CentralMass]

126. The super delegates should be eliminated. Period.

[JCanete]

130. uh...why is it idiotic? Because some people's votes should cancel out 1000's? How weird that

that would spark a revolt amongst those who currently wield so much power.

[George II]

257. Historically superdelegates have wielded zero power - they have never determined....

....who the nominee would be.

The closest they came to determining the nominee was in 1984, when Walter Mondale had the most delegates after the primaries but not enough for a clear majority.

[JCanete]

270. Then first, why do we need them if they wield 0 power, and second, I'm not convinced

that the election reporting when including supers in the count ins't incredibly influential about convincing people that other candidates have lost before the race began.

[Gothmog]

294. The CBC are leaders of a key demographic groups which votes for real democrats

I understand that super delegates in congress who knew sanders rejected him. I am sorry that sanders feelings were hurt but why change the system to make sanders happy?

These super delegates are elected officials who have worked hard for the party and deserve a seat at the table

[JCanete]

297. They have a seat at the table. You are talking about something entirely different than a

seat at the table, but nice framing.

[Gothmog]

298. Again, you are wrong

The purpose of this plan is to try to make sanders less angry and punish these leaders by denying them a vote. I am not sure how these leaders have a seat the table if they cannot vote

Denying super delegates the right to vote will not help sanders become the nominee. This rule is actually likely to help Senator Harris. Magic does not work in the real world

[JCanete]

301. don't pretend its about the right to vote. Every superdelegate has the right to vote, like every

citizen. Nobody is stripping them of the right to vote. Frame it honestly. Have an honest conversation.

It isn't about Sanders specifically, it is about any candidate that doesn't hail from the anointed establishment mold that the party leadership may decide "can't win the GE." That would be the official story. But come on Goth, be honest, in a close contest if Sanders had pulled ahead, you not being beholden to any voters as you so proudly proclaim, if there was a chance to flip the results in favor of Clinton over Sanders, would you do it? I promise to take you at your word, although I don't promise to extend that to every other delegate.

[Gothmog]

302. The proposal is to strip members of the CBC and other super delegates of their vote

I am sorry that you do not understand the proposal that is being objected to and which is the subject of this thread. Maybe you should consider reading up on what is going on in the real world. The proposal that has been objected to in this thread strips members of the CBC and other super delegates of their right to vote on the first ballot. Taking away one's right to vote is called disenfranchisement in the real world. Literally these super delegates and members of the CBC will not have the right to vote. The right to vote really is the subject of this thread.

Again, the only people pushing this proposal are sanders and his supporters. sanders' feelings were badly hurt because the members of congress who knew him rejected and refused to support him. I am sorry that sanders' feelings were hurt but we should not change the system just to make sanders happy. I really do not care about sanders' feelings

As for flipping my vote, I am a man of my word. I met and liked Hillary Clinton and felt that she was by far the most qualified person. I was a Hillraiser and a member of the Victory Counsel program and the lawyers finance committee. It would take a great deal to convince me that she was not the best candidate.

At the National Convention, I was pressured by sanders delegates to change my vote including having my daughter attacked by these chosen representatives of the sanders campaign and declined. I have a hard time forgiving the sanders delegates who called my daughter the c-word but evidently that is an acceptable tactic for the sanders campaign as was booing Congressman John Lewis. I did stop one of my fellow Clinton delegates from slugging a sanders delegate at the Texas convention breakfast where the sanders team demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for sanders.

I would not change my vote unless it was in the best interest of the party. I do not believe in magic and sanders was not viable in the real world without a magical voter revolution. None of sanders' proposals could be adopted in the real world without the aid of a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rose up to demand that the GOP be reasonable. If magic actually worked in the real world and if millions or billions or trillions of new voters did rise up due to Sanders, then I might change my mind. Again, the real world is nice place but magic does not work. Sanders was not viable in the real world without a magical voter revolution.

BTW, could you clarify how many new voters were required for the sanders magical voter revolution. Did this magical voter revolution require millions or billions or trillions of new voters. Sanders was never clear on this.

[Gothmog]

304. Again magic does not exist and sanders was not viable without the aide of magic

Stripping super delegates in general and members of the CBC in particular of their right to vote is disenfranchisement in the real world The only reason for this proposal is that sanders had his feelings hurt because the people who knew him best rejected him. Sanders wants to punish super delegates in general and evidently members of the CBC in particular by stripping their right to vote at the convention. This is a dumb proposal and I see no reason why real democrats should care about sanders' hurt feelings.

As for changing my vote, you did not answer my question. How many new voters are necessary for sanders magical voter revolution to work? Does this magical voter revolution require millions or billions or trillions of new voters? Please clarify. As for you sad attempt to insult me, provide proof that magic works. Where are sanders' millions or billions or trillions of new voters? If these millions or billions or trillions of new voters did exist, then sanders would have been the nominee.

No Clinton delegate would change their vote for sanders because Clinton delegates live in the real world and did not believe in magic. I am sorry that you believe in magic. Again the real world is nice even if magic does not work. Hard work is what is needed to win races in the real world

Come visit us in the real world. I am planning my next trip to Walt Disney World. That is a close to believing in magic that I can get.

[lapucelle]

305. "I know you were there and I wasn't, but let me explain what really happened..."

[JCanete]

319. What? We aren't talking about who was somehwere and who wasn't. wow. We're talking about

whether or not Superdelegates not getting a special powerful vote, which Gothmog has indicated would personally potentially use to vote against a candidate like Sanders if it was for the good of the party, is something that is warranted, and whether or not stripping people of that power is "disenfranchising them," of their vote. It is not. They are American citizens with a right to vote, like the rest of us. They are democats and should be allowed a vote in that process like the rest of us. It is frankly, disenfranchisement of the common voter to have superdelegates wield so much potentially negating power.

If you have an argument for the Supers that either justifies Goth's use of it, or invalidates that in favor of some "justifiable" use...the only kind that would EVER EVER be implemented.... I say go for it.

[lapucelle]

320. ...

[JCanete]

321. uh...okay. Be well. Or don't. I can't tell you how to be...

[Gothmog]

325. I am amused that you think that I do not care about the party

I have been active in the real world and I do not rely on magic to try to change things. It takes hard word to make a difference in the real world. It is not easy to be elected as a pledged delegate in the real world. I care about the party a great deal which is why I could not vote for a candidate who was not viable without the aide of magic.

I am sorry that you live in a world that requires the aide of magic to justify your positions. I believe in hard work and I believe that with hard work we can elect candidates to deal with trump.

I did have the opportunity to change my vote to sanders. I thought that such a choice would be wrong in that without magic sandes was not a viable candidate.

Prove to us that magic works if you want to justify your positions

[lapucelle]

333. Nor can you tell me what to say.

[Gothmog]

324. I do not believe in magic and without a magical voter revolution sanders was not viable

I love the Democratic party and have invested a ton of time and money in the party. I would only vote for a candidate who viable in the real world. sanders campaign was based on a silly magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That voter revolution never made sense to me and so I never considered sanders to be a serious candidate.

You evidently believe in magic which is sad but amusing. Please clarify for us what sanders meant about his voter revolution? How many new voters would be necessary? Is it millions or billions or trillions of new voters? You are ducking this question.

[lapucelle]

334. I don't need the "conversation" explained to me, thank you very much.

[lapucelle]

306. ,,,

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

307. Since you are NOT full of shit, and since that ATTACK is visible I want to make sure I say over and

you are NOT full of shit, so I will

You are NOT full of shit!

[Eliot Rosewater]

308. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[George II]

317. No one knows in advance what "Supers would or would not do." We certainly know....

....what Supers COULD or COULD NOT do. We don't even know who many of them will be, how can we know what they'll do?

[Gothmog]

323. Supers and all delegates will do what is best for the party

In normal campaigns, a candidate carefully vets their delegates. That means these delegates are normally long time party activists who have a track record in the party and who cares about the party. I got to meet a number of vetted Clinton delegates at the national convention and these people love the party and would do what is best for the party

[Eliot Rosewater]

309. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[George II]

335. Thank you sir.

[Eliot Rosewater]

311. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Eliot Rosewater]

310. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Eliot Rosewater]

312. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Gothmog]

337. I am not sure what you are trying to say here

This argument makes no sense

[Mike Nelson]

135. Not giving an opinion on...

… superdelegates, but on this being a "Sanders-backed" thing... Bernie Sanders should have remained a Democrat and continued to strengthen the Democratic Party. He was a good influence and voted for the nominee & best candidate for President - Hillary Clinton. However, Bernie should not be backing rule changes, after re-identifying himself as an Independent.

[Garrett78]

137. Especially when he's not also calling for the end to undemocratic caucuses.

Without caucuses, the need for the superdelegate insurance policy would be lessened. So, failing to also call for the end of caucuses is inconsistent.

[Mike Nelson]

138. I agree, the...

… caucuses are not democratic. I know people say they encourage grassroots participation and I like that idea - but we have do it more democratically. Both the superdelegates and caucuses need to be looked at, for reform consideration. The caucuses are more of a problem, in my opinion. I don't think the superdelegates changed the outcome in the Clinton-Sanders race. I can't remember exactly, but I think the Obama-Clinton race was closer... I hope we get it right in 2020 because the country (and world) will be watching, with greater interest.

[Garrett78]

140. They absolutely didn't change the outcome in 2016. They never have.

They constitute an insurance policy.

And, yes, 2008 was much closer. Many superdelegates who had supported Clinton had no problem voting for Obama, who they knew was electable.

There are many people who are either not able or not inclined to take part in a lengthy and very public caucus process. It's rather embarrassing that the Democratic Party continues to hold caucuses. But traditions can be potent. Like the tradition of starting the primary off with Iowa and New Hampshire, even though neither state is remotely representative of the Democratic electorate.

[Kentonio]

144. How are they an insurance policy?

What exactly do you think would happen if they ever over-ruled the voting public about the nominee? It would absolutely cost us an election.

[Garrett78]

157. See post #88.

[Gothmog]

275. I agree with your analysis

[Eliot Rosewater]

314. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Gothmog]

300. This rule is being pushed to make sanders happy

The quid pro quo for this rule is a rule that would require candidates to actually join the party if they want to run for the nomination

[Mike Nelson]

340. Since he dropped the -D from his name...

… there should be no attempt to make "Sanders happy." Instead, Democrats should look at the superdelegate system for fairness. As I see it, there has been no real impact on the nominee... Hillary would have won the nomination without them. I do wonder if there might be a time, in the future, when that might not happen. The person receiving the most votes should get the nomination. We should prevent something like the "Electoral College" happening before it happens. Also, the caucus system is not exactly Democratic. Reform for fairness, not for a specific candidate. Sanders did run as a Democrat and I would want to consider the ways he found the system unfair.

[Gothmog]

341. I agree that it is dumb to adopt this rule just to make sanders and his supporters happy

As for fairness, super delegates are elected leaders of the party who deserve a seat at the table. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus represent an important demographic that is key to the party winning elections. African American women voters are the most reliable segment of the party's base and we should not punish the leaders of this base just to make sanders happy

[Voltaire2]

139. Lulzd

It’s going to be adopted and there is almost no controversy over it.

Stop being played.

[Kentonio]

145. They should absolutely be scrapped

The entire rationale for them existing is patronizing and ridiculous.

[dansolo]

146. Do superdelegates also get to vote on the party platform?

If so, then that may be a bigger aspect of this fight.

[Gothmog]

264. The platform is written by platform committee and voted on by all delegates

We did not consider any changes to the platform at the 2016 convention

[Eliot Rosewater]

315. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Gothmog]

336. Thank you

[NewJeffCT]

161. I'd back lessening the influence of superdelegates

if it was in exchange for every state holding a closed primary instead of caucuses or open or partially open primaries.

[Hortensis]

167. Russia's working hard to defeat us on November 6.

I'd love to know their part in pushing this dissension. The DNC is already redoing the rules to reduce superdelegate power somewhat, but NOT so much that they likely couldn't stop a very bad candidate who'd do America harm, even a Russian agent, from being nominated.

That's not enough? WHY?

[Squinch]

228. This. I'd like to say das vidanya to some of our suddenly resurrected

friends here.

Zombies are real!

[Gothmog]

263. Yep

[Vinca]

170. I still don't think we should have superdelegates. No one's vote should have the power to negate

another person's vote.

[Garrett78]

174. If I vote for the person running against the person you voted for, am I negating your vote?

[Vinca]

175. You may if you're a superdelegate. It depends on the final numbers in the primary.

[Garrett78]

176. There are 4763 delegates (4051 pledged) sent to the convention. One must reach 2382...

...in order to secure the nomination. If no candidate reaches 2382 (without counting superdelegates) but one candidate has far more pledged delegates than the other candidate(s), only in extreme circumstances would those superdelegates not support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

In other words, this is much ado about nothing.

[Vinca]

180. It's not fair.

In the primary, if my choice - Candidate A - gets 10 delegates based on the popular vote count and Candidate B gets 8 delegates, the supers might weigh in with 3 delegates and give the state to the person who received the smaller number of popular votes. Kind of sounds like the 2016 presidential election, doesn't it? The person with 3 million more votes didn't win. Not fair.

[Garrett78]

184. That's not how the system works.

[Vinca]

193. This is a sore spot for me since I live in New Hampshire.

In the last primary, Bernie won about 60% of the popular vote and Hillary won about 40%. Because the 6 superdelegates in New Hampshire stood with Hillary, Bernie and Hillary came out of New Hampshire with the same number of delegates. Unfair.

[Garrett78]

194. Breaking it down by state seems silly to me. It's the total that matters.

Clinton won far more pledged delegates in total. And the only reason it was even remotely close was due to undemocratic caucuses.

With or without superdelegates, Clinton is nominated.

[Vinca]

207. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Blue_Tires]

171. LOL

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

181. Oh yeah! Superdelegates for me but not for thee.

Great reminder from this Twitter post on July 12, 2018.

[JCanete]

190. more likely that was justification to stay in the race when so much noise was being made to get

him to abandon it. The truth for my money is that everything Sanders campaigned on was at stake. The democratic establishment was very very ready to move on and brush that whole unpleasantness under the rug. Sanders had to take it to the Convention to get a compromise on the DNC and Clinton platforms which would address those of us at the left of the party. Its one of those stupid elements of politics where you can't actually say you don't expect to win and keep running. You have to always profess a potential path to victory.

[Gothmog]

209. Magic does not work in the real world

There was no magical voter revolution and super delegates were not going to magically support this candidate

[JCanete]

212. I literally said in my post I ddin't think that was ever the expectation. nt

[Gothmog]

214. Eliminating Super delegates will not help sanders but will help Harris

Eliminating superdelegates is not a magical fix for sanders and will not help sanders win the nomination. In fact, this plan will help a real Democrat, Senator K. Harris https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/democratic-party-superdelegate-system-benefits-kamala-harris/

Harris, not Sanders, will be the probable beneficiary of the rules change because of the demographic makeup of the Democratic primary electorate. It would not be an oversimplification to say that the Democrats divide into three rough groups: progressives, centrists, and non-whites. African-Americans are by far the largest share of the last group, totaling nearly a quarter of all Democratic voters nationwide.

Democratic party nomination fights have followed a similar pattern since at least 1984. A candidate appealing to educated, more liberal Democrats challenges a relatively more centrist rival favored by the party establishment; the progressive wins most primaries and caucuses in New England, the West, and Wisconsin, while the centrist wins most of the remaining states. This outcome has historically doomed the progressive, from 1984 challenger Senator Gary Hart to Sanders himself, because there are more centrists than progressives or liberals.

The non-white vote, and especially the African-American vote, plays an underappreciated role in this process. Non-whites almost invariably back the more centrist candidate, providing that person with key support to defeat his or her more liberal challenger. African-Americans and Latinos backed Walter Mondale over Hart in 1984 and Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown in 1992, delivering the nomination to both men in the process. They did so again in 2016, backing Hillary Clinton by margins as large as 80 percent, allowing her to win most Southern and Midwestern primary states as a result.

African-American voters do break from this mold, however, when a serious African-American candidate is running. Jesse Jackson won two states dominated by African-American Democrats in 1984 and swept six Southern states in 1988. Crucially, Barack Obama owed his nomination in 2008 to African-American voters, riding their overwhelming support to win seven Southern states and many delegates in Midwestern and Northeastern states with large, urban black populations. If not for their support, Obama would have merely been yet another failed progressive challenger.

Magic does not work in the real world and eliminating super delegates will not help sanders magically win the nomination

[JCanete]

218. I've explained my issues with Superdelagates in the past, one of which major issue is how they are

reported, but I don't like their existence at all. That said, their actual function, no would not have changed the outcome of the last election. The question is, had it been close, what would have happened if Sanders or anyone, were in the lead of popular vote but hadn't clinched? I don't want the superdelegates flipping a vote because of their disproportionate power.

But you keep on strawmanning about magic.

[Gothmog]

219. Magic does not work in the real world

The whole sanders platform is based on a magical voter revolution that did not and could not happen in the real world. The sanders supporters also believe that the elimination of super delegates will somehow help sanders win in 2020. Again, magic does not work in the real world and the elimination of super delegates will help Senator Harris and not help sanders.

[JCanete]

220. The whole Sanders run was based upon moving the party to the left, which, if you look at the

issues mainstream candidates are championing, has proven to had an impact. Do you really think Sanders thought from the get-go that he was going to have as much success as he had? He was looking to draw a small contingent of voters as a representative of that voting block, giving them a voice and getting the mainstream candidates to take notice of a contingency they may want to court.

That he got as far as he did was an astonishing achievement none of us, including those of us who were early donors, thought would happen.

Again, if you want to make up what it was we were shooting for just to say we didn't achieve it, by all means carry on, but you're only convincing yourself.

[Gothmog]

221. Sanders platform was based on unrealistic assumptions about a so-called revolution

Sanders platform could never be adopted in the real world without a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Without the use of magic, none of sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world. Sanders admitted that his platform was based on a voter revolution.

Sanders supporters also evidently believe that getting rid of super delegates will magically help sanders get the 2020 nomination. Again that belief is based on magical thinking. The best guess right now is that getting rid of Super delegates will not benefit sanders and will benefit Senator Harris.

I am very happy with the other new rule that will require that Sanders have to run as a Democrat is fhe announces a run for the nomination The quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule is a rule that will require candidates to be real members of the party. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

According to the draft rule change adopted Friday, “At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat.”

The draft goes on to require that any candidate pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president confirm in writing to the Democratic National Committee chairman that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will “run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting in Providence, R.I., made no final determination on superdelegates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has proposed prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at the national convention. Rules committee members also discussed a modified version of that proposal, in which superdelegates would be allowed to vote on the first ballot if a candidate had already earned enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

This rule is in effect the quid pro quo for the change in the super delegate rule

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August

[Eliot Rosewater]

316. You are NOT full of shit!

You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!
You are NOT full of shit!

[Gothmog]

223. Rep. Cedric Richmond, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, blasts proposed superdelegate changes

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

208. That effort failed

[Gothmog]

210. I was a delegate to the national convention and was at the Texas breakfast where we had a revolt

It was a fun experience

[bucolic_frolic]

178. Pure democracy and the flaccid emotions of the masses

brought us Trump. The populace is easily swayed.

Our superdelegate system is to inject wisdom into the process and prevent radical candidates who will not be perceived as able to win and mainstream by the general electorate in the general election.

We have passed through an age when the center could not win, but we are not there any longer.

Leave the superdelegate system as-is.

[tirebiter]

203. We used to have a right wing

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2018, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

When George Wallace was shot he was high in the polls. The CBC remembers this.

[Devil Child]

211. Eliminate superdelegates, eliminate caucuses, close the primaries

I care little for superdelegates bemoaning their loss of privilege and wails of "disenfranchising the elected leadership."

[Gothmog]

213. House Dems seethe over superdelegates plan

This plan will be opposed by the CBC and member of congress https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/superdelegates-house-democrats-630357

The controversial issue of “superdelegates” and their future in the Democratic Party led to an angry confrontation on Tuesday night between Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and House Democrats, according to several lawmakers.

But the members’ angst may not help them since it appears that the DNC is ready to rein in the status of superdelegates, also known as “unpledged” delegates, no matter what lawmakers say or do.


Superdelegates include members of Congress, governors, party elders such as former presidents and vice presidents, DNC members and other assorted “distinguished party leaders.” They made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention. Unlike other delegates, they are free to vote for any candidate they want.

The logic is that party leaders immersed in the candidates and issues of the day can provide a guardrail against selecting an “unelectable” nominee for the general election. But the party base loathes this elite class of delegates, saying it stacks the primary process against the wishes of regular voters.

[Gothmog]

222. Congressional Black Caucus chair blasts proposed superdelegate changes

I support the CBC on this https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/congressman-blasts-superdelegate-changes-democrats/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-08-14T13%3A16%3A05

The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus blasted proposed changes to Democratic "superdelegate" rules that would limit their ability to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominees.

In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez dated Monday, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond wrote on behalf of "many" of his colleagues in the caucus to urge him to withdraw support of the changes to be voted on at the party's meeting at the end of the month.

"There should be enough room in the process to include the perspective of local party activists and officials, and Members of Congress. One group should not be harmed at the expense of the other," Richmond wrote. "Passage of the reforms in their current form would disenfranchise elected officials for no substantive reason and would create unnecessary competition between those elected and their constituents."

The proposed plan -- known as the "third way plus" option -- does not allow superdelegates to vote at the convention for the presidential nominee on the first ballot unless a candidate has been certified to have earned a majority of the entire convention through pledged delegates only. This ensures superdelegates could not change the outcome of the nomination process on the first ballot, which detractors of the plan point out has never happened since they were created in the 1980s.

[Tiggeroshii]

235. "Disenfranchising"

"You say that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means."

[Gothmog]

250. You are wrong

The head of the CBC used this word correctly and actually spelled it correctly. Do you know what this terms means?

[Tiggeroshii]

256. Well here is one definition:

deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
"the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification"


Keeping somebody from unfairly influencing an election by effectively undermining their influence in the popular vote is the opposite of how that term is generally used. See how I did that without surreptitiously insulting you? You should try it sometime

[Gothmog]

258. You do understand that the proposed rule deprives superdelegates of the right to vote?

The rule meets the definition of disenfranchisement. These are elected leaders of the party who are far more important to the operations of the party compared to the non-democrats pushing this rule. I value the influence and wisdom of the members of the CBC.

You should not use terms that you do not understand the meaning of.

[Tiggeroshii]

259. Surreptitious insulting again?

Clearly the pot calling the kettle black here. Have a good day.

[Gothmog]

262. Word have meanings

I understand what these terms mean and the head of the CBC correctly used this work

[PubliusEnigma]

251. Bernie needs to ride off into the sunset.

[Gothmog]

296. Ballot access laws may help on this

Sanders will have to provide his tax returns to get onto the ballot in a number of blue states

[Fiendish Thingy]

254. Yes, the timing IS wretched...

Superdelegates should have been abolished right after the 2016 election- now the midterms will be used as an excuse not to change, and the business-as-usual approach will impact turnout for the next cycle...

[Gothmog]

299. I was at the convention

I know the lady who was on the rules committee. The rules committee met until 2 AM in the morning the Saturday night/Sunday morning before the convention. The punting of this issue was the best that could have been done.

The Congressional Black Caucus are the leaders of an important demographic of the party. We need African American voters and telling the leaders of this group that they are not important is not a good idea

[Gothmog]

269. Here is the letter from the head of the CBC

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

332. GRU and GOP have done an amazing job getting Democrats to go against their own party

and safeguards like SD.

Remarkable thing to watch, I just wish we could keep the GRU operatives off this board.

[CentralMass]

326. Super Degates should be eliminated, period.