House Dems seethe over superdelegates plan

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

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.

...snip...

During a two-hour-plus meeting with a group of House Democrats at DNC headquarters, Perez laid out two options under consideration for superdelegates by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. The rules committee will meet on the issue Friday, and there’s a June 30 deadline for any proposed amendments to the DNC charter, which will be voted on during a key August party meeting, right in the middle of election season.

The first proposal — a product of the “Unity Reform Commission” established at the 2016 convention to “revise and reduce” the role of superdelegates — would create three categories of superdelegates. Some superdelegates would be allowed to vote in the first roll-call vote for the presidential nominee, while others would not.

...snip...

The second option, which Perez supports and which appears far more likely to be enacted, would allow superdelegates to continue to exist, but they couldn’t vote during the first round of the presidential roll-call vote. They could, however, vote during the second round or any subsequent roll call, and they would still be permitted to support any candidate they wanted.




Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/superdelegates-house-democrats-630357

[CentralMass]

1. The superdelegates are there to usurp the will of the electorate. They should be eliminated.

[Luciferous]

2. +1

[Uncle Joe]

4. +2 one person one vote n/t

[Codeine]

28. Then we can get rid of caucuses

and utilization of electoral college votes to choose the nominee as well? Add up all the popular votes cast (in closed primaries only, none of this open primary or goddamned caucus bullshit) state by state and let that be the final answer?

Or so you want to pretend that 1 person/1 vote is a real thing when flyover country votes count like eight votes compared to votes in real places where people aren’t outnumbered by cattle, sheep, and corn silos?

[LostOne4Ever]

50. I would accept all of that if it made the results more democratic!

I prefer open primaries (which despite the meme here on DU actually have a moderating influence* and are more democratic) but would gladly take your proposal.

Caucuses in particular NEED to go. Superdelegates undue influence too. I don’t mind them coming in on close races where the first vote is too close to call or if a majority can’t be had to decide though.

I am replying to:

Then we can get rid of caucuses and utilization of electoral college votes to choose the nominee as well? Add up all the popular votes cast (in closed primaries only, none of this open primary or goddamned caucus bullshit) state by state and let that be the final answer?

Or so you want to pretend that 1 person/1 vote is a real thing when flyover country votes count like eight votes compared to votes in real places where people aren’t outnumbered by cattle, sheep, and corn silos?

*As proof, Hillary won most open primaries

[Gothmog]

84. Caucuses are not democratic and are easy to game

We need to get rid of caucuses in any event

[Jim Lane]

103. The DNC doesn't have the power to revamp the system completely.

A rules change that makes the process more fair is a good thing, even if some unfairness remains.

[yurbud]

149. Those are separate issues, but the Electoral College is at least as important.

[Gothmog]

83. So you want to punish the Congressional Black Caucus?

You do not think that members of the Congressional Black Caucus deserve to be delegates to the national convention? I know that this group did not support sanders but they should not be punished for this

[saidsimplesimon]

128. Yes, someday, "I can feel a change a coming"

[Sophia4]

6. Yes.

[sheshe2]

39. OMG

You are back! Thank goodness. Many of us were worried when you left so abruptly after your post. I know, happens to me as well when taking care of mom. Home care is difficult. Hope you are not going through similar trials as well.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. LOL

[Gothmog]

85. Are you going to call the CBC corrupt again?

That was an amusing argument on the other threads that did not work for you

[Eliot Rosewater]

123. I worry that if THIS site is not willing to call out

those who did you know what on FB and elsewhere to guarantee a rump stolen election then we wont do it anywhere

[jmowreader]

13. The "will of the electorate" put Trump on the general election ballot

Agree to make it fifty closed primaries and no caucuses, and I'll listen to your ideas for eliminating superdelegates.

[brush]

27. Yes. None of this bs of non-Dems voting in our primaries...

and ditch those discriminatory caucuses where only a small percentage of voters can participate.

Only then we get rid of super delates.

[jmowreader]

30. Open caucuses like we have in Idaho are the worst

If the GOP sends a half-dozen bully boys to the Democratic caucus, they can swing it pretty easily: just scream and threaten until the Democrats give up and let them have what they want.

[samnsara]

127. that kinda happened at the dem caucus here...

...was all our own ppl tho

[LisaM]

129. Many women I know in Washington were afraid to go to caucuses if they supported Hillary.

I think our fears were very well founded as I read the results of what went on in many of them (including keeping venues open till past 11:00 pm or going outside when they were kicked out of buildings that were closing; they started at 10:00 a.m., by the way, so this is 13 hours that you had to stay or lose your vote in subsequent rounds).

I don't call that democratic.

[2naSalit]

141. That's one thing

I don't miss about Idaho, among numerous other reasons why I chose to leave ID.

[ehrnst]

67. Hear hear! (nt)

[pecosbob]

16. I concur.

No loaded dice.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. +1,000,000!!!

[sheshe2]

42. Bernie Sanders is a superdelagate.

CentralMass
1. The superdelegates are there to usurp the will of the electorate. They should be eliminated.

You want him eliminated as well or are you saying...your quote that he is there to

there to usurp the will of the electorate.

Confusing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Where is the response to your question, did I miss it?

[sheshe2]

111. Nah.

You didn't miss it.

[saidsimplesimon]

134. I don't think I am

"authorized" to respond to sheshe.

My two cents, yes, open primaries and no super delegates, except breaking ties or to keep a lunatic like rump from being nominated. As long as they exercise the least amount of influence, unbiased judgement and reflect the diversity of our party members.

[pnwmom]

43. The Congressional Black caucus vehemently opposes eliminating the superdelegates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502

"We passed a resolution in our caucus that we would vehemently oppose any change in the superdelegate system because members of the CBC might want to participate in the Democratic convention as delegates but if we would have to run for the delegate slot at the county level or state level or district level, we would be running against our constituents and we're not going to do that,” said Butterfield. “But we want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents."

The opposition to open primaries is based on the fear that allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in Democratic primaries would dilute minority voting strength in many places.

SNIP

Multiple CBC members conceded that the superdelegate system has its flaws, but also argued it's not worth scrapping. "I've been listening to both sides, all sides of the debate and I think both sides have made persuasive arguments," said one CBC member, who asked to not be named.

"The superdelegate system is not perfect but it has worked for us quite well over the years and frankly the superdelegates have never needed to cast any superdelegate votes to alter what the voters did during the primary elections," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. "Never. That's not the case this year either. The concern many of us have, of course, is that our numbers would shrink in terms of having influence over and involvement with what happens at the convention."

[Gothmog]

86. I stand with the CBC

Members of the CBC are important leaders in the party and this plan is designed to hurt them

[zipplewrath]

110. No, it's not

Look, I understand the purpose of Super delegates and it isn't quite as nefarious as it seems. As the quote says, it has worked to date, and hasn't yet changed the outcome of the convention. The CBC's basic argument is they want to play. It isn't that somehow their interests aren't being represented by the existing delegates.

I actually think these compromises have some merit. No voting on the first ballot, after that they get to participate. That way, if there is some kefluffle, these people can step in and bring the convention to a conclusion in the best interest of the party. I might add that they be allowed to participate in various procedural voting during the convention as well.

[Gothmog]

113. I stand with the CBC and think that they are a far more important part of the party

compared to Our Revolution. These changes are not needed and I understand why House Democrats including members of the CBC are against these changes.

I value the members of the CBC far more than I care about the opinions of Our Revolution or sanders

[zipplewrath]

120. It's just that they have no reason

The CBC, or any of the other super delegates really can't make a case for it. Their entire justification is that they want to be able to vote, but they don't wanna have to actually, ya know run. They even make the case themselves that they serve no purpose right now as the super delegates don't change the outcome of the convention. They make a great safety valve in case there is a mess of some sort, but otherwise it's virtually "delegate emeritus" or something.

So keep 'em around for when you need them and let them participate in various party business votes.

I do wonder if they'd agree if they could at least get rid of open primaries and/or caucuses.

[Gothmog]

125. I strongly disagree with your attempt at analysis

These are party leaders who were all elected to serve this role. Why should party leaders not be sent to the National Convention? There are the leaders of the party.

This is from the article cited in the OP https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/superdelegates-house-democrats-630357

In their view, that means elected Democratic officials — who have been put into office by hundreds of thousands or even millions of constituents — won’t play a role in nominating their party’s presidential candidate.

“I believe this decision, if they go forward, is going to do terrible damage to party harmony,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who raised his objections with Perez during Tuesday’s dinner. “It disenfranchises the elected leadership of the party. The last time we allowed that to happen was 1972, and we had the worst landslide in our history.”

“I believe that elected officials across the country — Congress and governors — I believe they provide a ballast for the party that we very much need,” Connolly added. “With all due respect to somebody who thinks we don’t need it, when we haven’t had it, Democrats have had disastrous results.”

“I think this is absolutely an insult to us,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “We’re no better than anybody else, but we stand for election. That has to mean something, that has to stand for something. That’s a lot of baloney.”

I think that the sanders supporters who are pushing this idiotic measure should be ignored. Voters ignored these sanders supporters on Tuesday. Leaders of the party who were elected by the vote of millions or thousands of voters have the right to be delegates.

[zipplewrath]

147. It's their analysis

They point out that they don't vote significantly different than the outcome of the primaries. As such, they don't serve a purpose until something goes bad. We can still allow them to participate. It is merely about the selection of the candidate, and only on the first ballot. As I've suggested, I suspect it would have value to allow them to participate in many of the votes having to do with procedure and platform. Think of it a bit as a "House of Lords" or upper chamber of some sort.

[Gothmog]

162. No it is not-do you tire of being wrong?

These are valuable leaders of the party who have earned the right to be delegates to the national convention. I understand that sanders hates the Congressional Black Caucus but I value the contributions of the members of the CBC over sanders.

I stand with the CBC on this issue

[zipplewrath]

164. And they have all kinds of votes

There is one vote they are being asked to abstain, one in which they claim their vote wouldn't change the outcome of the convention. But somehow that one vote is amazingly important to them, even though they claim it won't change anything.

[Gothmog]

165. These are valuable leaders of our party

I am sorry that bernie supporters hate the Congressional Black Caucus but this plan is wrong. These quotes are from the article posted in the OP

In their view, that means elected Democratic officials — who have been put into office by hundreds of thousands or even millions of constituents — won’t play a role in nominating their party’s presidential candidate.

“I believe this decision, if they go forward, is going to do terrible damage to party harmony,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who raised his objections with Perez during Tuesday’s dinner. “It disenfranchises the elected leadership of the party. The last time we allowed that to happen was 1972, and we had the worst landslide in our history.”

“I believe that elected officials across the country — Congress and governors — I believe they provide a ballast for the party that we very much need,” Connolly added. “With all due respect to somebody who thinks we don’t need it, when we haven’t had it, Democrats have had disastrous results.”

“I think this is absolutely an insult to us,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “We’re no better than anybody else, but we stand for election. That has to mean something, that has to stand for something. That’s a lot of baloney.”

In an interview, Pascrell said that he told the same thing to Perez during Tuesday night’s closed-door dinner but didn’t like Perez’s retort.

Is it a smart move to insult the CBC when we need African American voters. Look at the Doug Jones race.

I still stand with the CBC

[zipplewrath]

168. But they weren't elected for the convention

They were elected to political offices. If they want to be delegates, they are more than able to run and in fact will be at the head of the line. They virtually admitted as much in their statements by suggesting that if they have to run for a "regular" seat, someone else will lose it.

[joshcryer]

170. The selection process for delegates is almost random.

And there are diversity quotas that must be met. It's far more likely that a superdelegate would not even be able to be a delegate than they would be able to "run" for it.

[zipplewrath]

172. But they'd be constrained

Generally, on the first ballot, many of them are constrained one way or another in their vote. Super delegates are not (and that's basically the point). If they became delegates (and they have some ability to change the way they are selected) they could find themselves constrained.

[Gothmog]

175. Why does bernie hate the CBC so much?

I helped Juanita Jean be elected to the national convention in 2012 and I ran and was elected as a delegate in 2016. It is a pain and took a great deal of time.

Leaders like John Lewis, Maxine Waters and Senators Harris and Booker should not have to go this. Again why does sanders and his supporters hate the CBC?

I stand with the CBC

[zipplewrath]

178. Not sure that he does

God knows I don't. My objection to super delegates has nothing at all to do with the CBC. Quite honestly, my objection is fairly mild. It appears however that the party has an interest in changing the system, and the changes make sense.

[Gothmog]

181. And yet I was at the national convention when Sanders delegates booed John Lewis

I have the misfortune to see the delegates that sanders sent to the national convention up close. The booing of Congressman John Lewis was a planned stunt that the Clinton campaign whips knew about in time to give the Clinton delegates twenty minutes advance notice. Sanders evidently knew of this stunt and did not try to stop it.

I know a couple of members of the CBC and they are strongly against these proposals. I value the opinion and contributions of the members of the CBC over the opinion of sanders

[zipplewrath]

188. And mine

And apparently my opinion as well. Of course mine has nothing to do with the CBC or Bernie. Quite honestly it predates Bernie by several cycles.

[joshcryer]

169. I think the reason is that they're afraid they'll lose their influence.

There are quite a few black leaders in the Democratic Party and I suspect that they're afraid they'll lose their influence and sway if they lose the super delegate powers. Having sway over the first ballot is very important, because the rest of the proceedings for the entire convention are based around it.

[zipplewrath]

171. Sorta

I do think it is connected with some sense of "prestige". But since they themselves suggest that super delegates don't change the outcome of the primary, there seems to be little purpose in voting on the first ballot. Let them vote on everything else, including a second ballot if necessary.

[joshcryer]

173. As long as they don't change the outcome I think they are fine.

And I really don't see the need to piss off our best allies in the CBC because of some two minutes hate toward a system which has not changed the outcome and because people don't like it "just because."

[zipplewrath]

174. It's their influence prior

I think a valid compromise might be an insistence that no one "pledge" prior to the last primary, or at least until someone has sewn it up. The entire purpose of that is to cut off debate in the primary and create the "inevitable" tag. There are down ticket races in these primaries and we really need to let the system play out.

[joshcryer]

176. The reality is this is just a big F you to the CBC.

There is a contingent on the left who is still quite sour about how Clinton got nominated due to the AA vote in southern states, and that same group wants to overly appeal to a group that will never vote Democrat: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-racist-side-of-bernie-sanders-supporters

The sad part about this is that it's probably fueled by the right wing, through ratfucking (ie, dirty tricks) to appeal to certain people. Seed a good idea that no one can really disagree with (ideally we wouldn't have supers and I'd be all for it), but which has an ulterior motive (alienating the CBC and other minority groups be weakening their influence in state party politics is a good start toward damaging the party).

[Gothmog]

82. Not in the real world-superdelegates have never gone against popular vote winner

[Eko]

140. "usurp the will of the electorate. They should be eliminated."

Out of all the words you could have chosen you used those. Very telling. Personally, I don't trust the will of the electorate,,, but what ya gonna do?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. Without question!

[Vinca]

157. Agree a million per cent. Every vote should be equal.

[DownriverDem]

177. Why Superdelegates?

They were put in place to make sure an un-electable candidate doesn't get the nomination. It came about after McGovern got skunked so bad. So I guess we can get rid of them and let the chips fall where they may.

[Plucketeer]

3. Stuper-delegates

WHY is it that we don't just trust the people to choose who they want????????????????????????????????????

[marybourg]

14. In the era of tRump, that shouldn't even

be a real question.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Yessss!! Exacta-mundo!!!

[Codeine]

26. Have super-delegates ever changed the

result of a Democratic convention?

Of course not. All this wailing about nothing.

[rpannier]

49. No, they haven't

But the reporting on their position has given them a larger voice in the whole process
Their support for one candidate or another is reported as a given before the convention
If candidate A wins a primary with 20 votes to B's 11, but thirty-eight super delegates announce their support for candidate A it is reported as 58-11
That is a problem because it skews the perception of where the numbers lay

[MarcA]

54. Exactly. But point that out and you get the remarks

about how you are making a big deal out of nothing. Sounds suspiciously
like DNC Super Delegate thinking. Closed primaries only, no caucuses,
no SDs. After all if they have never changed anything, then its no loss.

[bahrbearian]

66. Then Why have them.

[Gothmog]

96. So that elected officials like members of the CBC are delegates

I was a delegate to Philadelphia. I am also friends with a couple of members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Most super delegates are elected officials like members of the Congressional black caucus. This is why the CBC is against the proposal.

I know a number of super delegates and they are all elected officials or party leaders who were elected to their positions. I have no issue with party leaders and elected officials being super delegates.

Again, I have actually attended a convention and I know how the process works

[Gothmog]

87. No, super delegates have never gone against the winner of the popular vote

[Sneederbunk]

5. No superdelegates.

[Takket]

7. Democrats: the electoral college sucks! Now, let's pick our superdelegates

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Sums it up nicely... thought Democrats stood for democracy.

[Gothmog]

98. The electoral college is separate from the Democratic Party rules

People are working on the National Popular vote interstate compact. I support the National Popular vote plan but I do not support eliminating super delegates

[LeftInTX]

118. Trying to explain this is like herding cats!

People have Congressional Black Caucus mixed up with caucus primaries (like they have in Iowa)

[Gothmog]

126. The CBC includes leaders like Congresspersons Lewis, Waters, Cummings. and Clydburn

Maxine Waters deserves a seat at the national convention as does Congressman John Lewis.

This group also includes Senators Harris and Booker

[marylandblue]

8. The ship has sailed, but I am totally the opposite

I say we go back to the smoke filled rooms. Primaries don't produce any better candidates than the old way. And if the Republicans had superdelegates, they would have kept Trump out.

[still_one]

11. Super Delegates do NOT determine our nominee, but it acts as a safety value to avoid convention

chaos

[marylandblue]

15. The idea was they could swing the outcome if the party didn't like the primary outcome

They are sort of a holdover from the days when the nominee was chosen by delegates at the convention. I believe we should go back to that. But that's an unpopular opinion, so it isn't happening.

[still_one]

17. It isn't happening because the party would be even more divided

[marylandblue]

22. It isn't happening because few people agree with the premise

[still_one]

25. For the reason I just stated

[marylandblue]

37. I don't think that's why

I've become a small 'r' republican. I think too much democracy is a bad thing. It makes us vulnerable to demagogues. It can happen on the left as well as the right. There are few takers for this view. It's not that it would divide the party to do what I am suggesting. It's that changing back would be viewed as "undemocratic." And that's correct, it is undemocratic. Deliberately so. And nobody wants to go there. It isn't even on the table.

[Gothmog]

88. Super delegates will vote in the best interest of the party including down ballot races

Super delegates are party leaders such as elected officials. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are all super delegates. These party leaders will vote in the best interest of the party

[brush]

29. Also to avoid trump-like candidates. Until we get rid of open...

primaries where non-Dems vote for our candidates, and also ditch discriminatory caucuses where only a small percentage of eligible voters can participate we need the "just in case" protection of super delegates.

[still_one]

31. As far as I am concerned brush that would have to come first before the elimination of SD

[brush]

36. Yes, those two conditions would have to be agreed upon before...

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2018, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

getting rid of the super delegates.

[4now]

9. It sounds like the makings of a good compromise

I do not want some Democratic version of Trump taking over our party.

[KPN]

44. Democratic version of Trump? Never happen.

Democrats tend to think.

[still_one]

10. If you really want to eliminate SD because you believe in one person one vote, then whoever gets the

most votes wins

Of course I wonder if those asking to get rid of SD would be for that, but instead would love to see a fight on the convention floor, because that is exactly one of the reasons SD were created to avoid that

It is a red herring. Superdelegates have never determined the nominee, in spite of what is said, and they are very unlikely ever to do so.

[Codeine]

32. "Let the people choooooooose!"

“They already do. The SDs have never tilted a race the other way.”

“But, but, but LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE!”

[Gothmog]

90. Most superdelegates are elected officials and party leaders

The people did decide when they elected these officials to office. The Congressional Black Caucus is a good example. These officials are all members of congress and they represent an important voting block for the party.

I stand with the CBC who were all chosen by the people when they were elected to office

[Codeine]

97. I absolutely agree. nt

[Gothmog]

100. I worked to get Juanita Jean and her husband elected as delegates in 2012

I was a delegate in 2016. I know how the process works and I do not think that it should be changed

[KPN]

46. No, but pledged SDs can and have created a perception

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2018, 08:58 PM - Edit history (2)

of winner/loser well before the primary voters have created a sense of winner/loser based on actual primary votes. They can have an effect on turn out and primary votes both in my view, not unlike polls. Why muddy primary votes if we are going to have a primary. I like the compromise position as long as the practice of pledged SDs is banned. SDs can serve a valuable purpose if used when actually needed.

[still_one]

63. I would inclined to get rid of super delegates if they got rid of open primaries. Democrats should

choose who their nominee is

[KPN]

73. But that's a State elections call not a Party call, is it not?

I'd prefer just getting rid of super-delegates. Hillary would have won the nomination by almost 500 votes (2,271 - 1,820) at the convention were the magic number not set to 2,354 votes needed for the nomination because of the 616 SDs. SDs made up 13+% of the overall delegates in 2016. That's ridiculous.

I don't ascribe to the notion that the voters need to be saved from themselves, which is the basis for SDs in the first place. Anyone who points to Trump as an example is discounting two key things: the electoral college, and the sheer illegitimacy of his election in the first place (he didn't win WI, MI and PA legitimately).

Having said all that, I'm okay with a compromise to Perez's position provided SDs are not figured into the 50% plus 1 vote number needed to win the nomination. Base that on a simple majority, i.e., what the people elected.

[Gothmog]

138. Clinton would have had a greater margin if we had closed primaries and eliminated caucuses

There are so many games you can play with caucuses that it is not funny. Caucuses are not democratic. Sanders got a significant amount of his delegates from undemocratic caucuses and states with open primaries

[ehrnst]

68. Like the Vermont Democratic establishment does when they

choose the official Senate nominee before the primary?

[ehrnst]

69. Do you have data that show SDs effect turnout and votes?

Any clear examples?

I don't see any examples of data in a google search.

Don't believe everything you think...

[KPN]

74. Answer my questions first.

[ehrnst]

75. What questions did you ask me?

And I see you don't have any data or examples of SDs affecting primary voters or turnout, because if you did, you'd have whipped them out.

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. Yeah but I FEEL this or I THINK that therefore you MUST make me comfortable

about it or I WONT vote for a Democrat.

here we FUCKING go again

[ehrnst]

112. Yes, the feels here, no matter how strong, are no substitute for facts. (tn)

[KPN]

94. See my post 48 above.

[ehrnst]

109. Fervent but failed attempt at deflection. Can't provide any backup for your claims...

when called out, so you try to derail.

Look, if it's your opinion, just say so. Don't mistake your anger about SDs as having any basis in fact or history, and you won't be caught with your agumentative pants down, and won't further embarass yourself with an attempt to evade the emotional base of your accusations.

Just because your sun rises and sets on the words of one particular Superdelegate doesn't mean the rest of Democrats follow suit with any others.

[KPN]

122. Lol. Of course it's an opinion. My opinion.

Why would I be embarrassed or for that matter have anger about SDs? You are making assumptions and drawing faulty conclusions that are uncomplimentary no less.

I think you know full well what is opinion and what is not. Asking for facts is a ploy when a statement is obviously an opinion. Fine if that's what you choose to do, but I see no need for aspersions.

[ehrnst]

146. And now you backpedal... Let's review:

No, but pledged SDs can and have created a perception

of winner/loser well before the primary voters have created a sense of winner/loser based on actual primary votes. They can have an effect on turn out and primary votes both in my view, not unlike polls. Why muddy primary votes if we are going to have a primary. I like the compromise position as long as the practice of pledged SDs is banned. SDs can serve a valuable purpose if used when actually needed.

So, no, you have no reason to believe that "they can have an effect on turn out and primary votes." You just want that to be true.

pledged SDs can and have created a perception of winner/loser well before the primary voters have created a sense of winner/loser based on actual primary votes, in my view.

That's a baseless statement, and following it up with "in my view" doesn't make it less of an accusation, any more than "You stole my car, in my view."

Apparently being called out on your unfounded pronouncements on the damage that SDs "have and can" inflicted on primaries embarrasses you so much that you try to deny it, even though it's right there in the thread.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

[Gothmog]

91. I was a delegate to the national convention and I have read DNC rules on voting

No delegate is pledged including super delegates. I was a pledged delegate to the Philadelphia convention for Clinton. I could have changed my vote at any time and vote for anyone. In fact a group of Sanders delegates came to the caucus breakfast to demand that the Texas delegation condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders. It was a mess See https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/26/clinton-sanders-delegates-clash-convention-breakfa/

A contentious scene unraveled here Tuesday morning at a meeting of Texas delegates after one criticized Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and a favorite of Lone Star State Democrats.

The tension erupted while delegates supporting Bernie Sanders, Clinton's primary rival, were arrayed on the stage at a daily breakfast convened by the state delegation. It was meant to be a show of unity, with one of them, Russell Lytle of Denton, speaking hopefully of dialogue with Clinton supporters.

However, several minutes into his remarks, Lytle took a sharp turn against Clinton in what other Sanders delegates later described as an isolated incident.

Under party rules, a candidate has the right to vet all of their delegates. I was vetted by the Clinton campaign. However all delegates are able to vote for anyone they want including "pledged delegates." There is no such thing as a pledged superdelegate. Any delegate including super delegate can change their votes at any time

[Gothmog]

137. There is no such thing as pledged super delegates

I was a "pledged" Clinton delegate to the Philadelphia convention. Under DNC rules, I was free to vote for anyone I wanted. There is no such thing as a "pledged super delegate" in that like all delegates, super delegates are free to vote as they want.

The DNC rules do provide that each campaign gets to vet and have absolute approval rights over their delegates. I was vetted by the Clinton campaign. The vetting process picks people like me who will honor their commitments even when I have to watch sanders delegates yell obscenities at my daughter and call her the c-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. We had Sanders delegates walk up in mass at the Texas delegation breakfast to demand that we condemn Hillary Clinton and change our votes to Sanders. That tactic did not work but was allowed under the DNC rules. Again, the Clinton campaign's vetting process worked and they selected people like me who honor their word.

Again, the concept that pledged super delegates exist is amusing.

[KPN]

144. You are right. I stand corrected. I confused the term with

commitments made to a contending candidate by a super-delegate. The media consistently reported the delegate count of the two candidates as including SD commitments giving a predestined impression of the ultimate outcome in so doing. At any rate, you are absolutely right and I'm glad you corrected me.

I'm sorry to hear you and your daughter had to endure that kind of inexcusable behavior. There's no place for that. It definitely reflects poorly on Bernie's supporters and campaign leaders -- and that makes it doubly inexcusable.

[Gothmog]

183. Normally, campaigns carefully vet their delegates

I know that I was vetted by the Clinton campaign. The sanders campaign vetting of delegates involved making sure that these delegates all hated Clinton. One Texas delegate who was elected at his Senate District caucus was removed and replaced because he would not state that he hated Hillary Clinton. Luckily that young man came to the National Convention as a guest of the state party.

Vetting of delegates is important. The Clinton campaign was careful in this process. The delegates who cleared this vetting were all hard core types who were not going to change their vote even if yelled at by sanders delegates.

Commitments made a super delegate are never binding and they are subject to the same rules as pledged delegates.

[LostOne4Ever]

52. Yes I would support that! Nt

[Equinox Moon]

12. I will be calling the DNC tomorrow - NO Super Delegates!!

They need to hear from us. NO SUPER DELEGATES!

One person = one vote
Period.

DNC
1-877-336-7200

Democrats.org

[still_one]

20. Fine, I will go with that as long as they eliminate Open primaries and the caucuses

[Eliot Rosewater]

79. Wonder why nobody agrees with you when you say this. weird

So you dont misunderstand my meaning, I AGREE with you but I wonder why others dont.

[still_one]

115. I suspect a certain percentage feel that way because they have no desire to be part of the

Democratic party

[Eliot Rosewater]

116. This propaganda campaign that perfection can be demanded

but since it was never before, I ask why do this NOW?

If you are ignorant of politics then you have an excuse, but if you are not then knowing such a goal WILL perpetuate control by the NAZI PARTY, you are therefore assisting in that when doing this.

I keep saying " you" and of course dont mean you, you know what I mean.

We are inches from a totalitarian, fascist government and there are MILLIONS of alleged liberal progressives whining about perfection.

wow

I mean millions too, because I am not referring to the relatively small handful here or on other social media platforms. Well Twitter and FB are not small and that is where you will find them.

[still_one]

117. I sure do understand what you are saying Eliot. That some suddenly believe SD are the most vital

issue at this time is quite interesting. Midterm elections coming up, and the fact that SD have NEVER determined who the eventually nominee is, tells me there are other motivational forces behind it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

119. EXACTLY...of course, ANYTHING to divide the party.

From this MOMENT on it is my conclusion ANY attempt to divide or reduce interest in voting for the D in a race is the actions of a KGB agent.

And even if they are not a KGB agent (I refuse to use their new name) it doesnt matter since the RESULTS of what they are doing are identical.

[Codeine]

33. Which race did the superdelegates actually change?

I’ll take my answer off the air.

[brush]

34. Ok, but no open primaries or caucuses. Just Dems voting for...

for Dems in our primaries where every Dem can vote, not just those who don't work during the day and can participate in discriminatory caucuses.

[MattP]

23. I think the caucus is a bigger problem than super delegates

How many people can take hours off work to do it? It disenfranchises many working people superdelegates have never decided anything

[GulfCoast66]

24. As long as we have caucuses, we need super delegates

No need trying to pretend that anything is fair when so many states pick their delegates in a few hour time frame when the loudest, most privileged, most white get to attend.

Caucuses badly skewed our results in 16. We need super delegates, not the most Democratic institution, to be a firewall against caucuses, an even more anti-democratic institution.

Get rid of caucuses and I will be the first to call for the elimination of superdelegates.

[brush]

35. And don't forget the elimination of open primaries where...

non-Dems can also skew the results.

[GulfCoast66]

38. Right there with you on that.

[BlueMTexpat]

41. Exactly! eom

[yurbud]

148. I would not link the two issues

[BlueMTexpat]

40. It seems as if too many commenters

here have neither known the history of superdelegates nor understood why they were initially put in place.

Throughout the history of their existence, SDs have NEVER thwarted the popular vote in Dem primaries. They did not do so in 2016 - when a big fuss and unnecessary hullaballoo was made about them - and they never will.

Some here need to educate themselves more fully before their knee-jerk reactions take over their - hopefully - better instincts.

[KPN]

48. Ummm ... can you say with certainty that

pledged superdelegate numbers had no effect on the actual overall primary vote? The media gave 2016 to HRC well in advance of completion of primaries based entirely on her pledged SD count. Can you say with certainty that had zero effect on voter turnout or how voters voted? I don't think so. That's the rub.

I like Perez's option: use SDs if they are needed after the first vote. I don't like or support subverting the clear choice of Democratic Party voters via SDs.

[Kenneth Almquist]

56. Even in 1972

which was the primary that inspired the creation of the superdelegate system, it's relevant that Hubert Humphrey got more votes than George McGovern, but McGovern got more delegates. So if there had been superdelegates in 1972, and they had voted to give Humphrey the nomination, they would have been giving the nomination to the candidate who got the most votes.

The only time there has been a serious effort to convince superdelegates to use their power to change the convention results was in 2016, when Bernie Sanders argued that the superdelegates should vote for him even though Clinton was expected to get more pledged delegates. The Sanders effort was spectacularly unsuccessful. It obviously didn't help that Sanders' earlier comments about superdelegates made it rather hypocritical for him to ask them to overturn the will of the voters, but the fact remains that it fell flat. The superdelegates are mostly elected officials, and they need a strong reason to act. The inspiration, as I noted, was the 1972 election, where the party nominated a candidate who lost 49 states. An even better example would be Donald Trump, who even the Republican leadership could see would be bad for the country if he won.

[BlueMTexpat]

62. Thanks for your very

informative and on-point description!

[Schedule]

45. Eliminate super delegates and the caucus system

Good compromise

[brooklynite]

72. In your scenario...

The campaign would be played out exclusively through TV ads and Trump-type rallies. No time for small group campaign events, no chance to see how a candidate relates to ordinary voters, and a focus on urban centers (which maximize Democratic voters), which isn't consistent with the national electorate in November. Not good preparation for the GE.

FWIW - I go to New Hampshire before each Presidential Primary to take in each campaign and see if they really have their act together; I find it much more informative that a TV campaign.

[Gothmog]

93. Who would pay for this nationwide primary?

State governments pay for primaries in the real world. That is why the state legislatures get to decide when to have a state's primary.

The real world does things for a reason.

[Gothmog]

92. Have you ever worked in a campaign or for a party in the real world?

Your proposal makes no sense in the real world. Most primaries are set by the state legislature. The party has no control over this. The mechanics of holding an election are expensive which is why the state has to pay for it. I live in the real world and I have been an election judge (I try to serve as an election judge once a cycle to make sure that I know what is going on). You have to pay election judges and officials which is why the state runs these elections.

Please get out into the real world. Go work on a real campaign. Go attend some party meetings or a state convention. The real world is a nice place and there are people living in the real world who work on primaries and the nomination process

[dembotoz]

51. In my state the primary vote went one way and all the super delegates pledged the other

Folks still remember that.
Super delegates allow elected officials participate in a covenention without dislodging selected delegates.
It would be nice if their vote would reflect the primary outcome. Will of the voter is important only to some I guess

[radical noodle]

57. What state was that?

In 2016?

[dembotoz]

64. Wisconsin

[Gothmog]

99. Most of your states super delegates were members of Congress or your Democratic senator

I have no issue with elected members of Congress and US senators being super delegates.

[dembotoz]

114. elected officials, party muckity mucks, dnc reps

[Gothmog]

131. All of whom were elected either by voters or the leaders of the party

I know a number of super delegates. A couple of congresspersons who are member of the CBC. The party chair and vice chair are friends. Other super delegates were elected by the vote of the delegates at the state convention. These are all senior leaders of the party who I have a great deal of respect

[dembotoz]

143. And they ignored the primary..let's just have the smoke filled rooms

And pretend we care what people think

[Gothmog]

151. Wisconsin had an open primary where non-democrats supported sanders

I think that open primaries are stupid and that only democrats should vote for our candidate. The elected officials who were super delegates were correct to support a real democrat.

bTW, even with non-democrats helping him, sanders did not win that great of victory in Wisconsin

[dembotoz]

154. gee i think folks have a right to vote...guess we disagree

enjoy your smoke filled rooms

[Gothmog]

155. Democrats should be selecting the Democratic nominee

As for smoke filled rooms, sanders got a good number of his delegates in non-democratic caucuses. Caucuses are not democratic

[dembotoz]

163. hey nothing says join the dems more than you are not worthy to vote for your candidate

so on monday i am at a strategy meeting on how to get more dems elected to the state assembly.
We have access to the VAN......Its a red county......the van shows more gop than dem....and its not squeaky close.
What the van does show is a large number of no data which means they vote but the van doesn't know for whom. Obviously these are your targets......In one district i have the joy of 3 candidates on the ballot for a dem assembly primary.

So to follow your logic. The only folks who could vote in that primary are the minority declared dems...Just fuck the no datas in the middle who the candidate will need in november if he/she has any fantasy of victory.....

so much for transparency....

[Gothmog]

166. I and others are also involved in bringing new voters to the party

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2018, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Asians make up an significant portion of the population of my county. Instead of encouraging Asian voters, the local Our Revolution group decided to attack a candidate because he was Asian and had a funny first name. http://www.indoamerican-news.com/local-democrats-infighting-attempts-to-smear-sri-kulkarni/

Like many other youngsters going through their tumultuous teen years, Kulkarni attributed the episode to youthful indiscretion, similar to what George W. Bush, Barak Obama and Bill Clinton experienced in their youths.

But Beaton, who is backing candidate Steve Brown in the primary, is throwing out all sorts of minor issues to sideline Kulkarni’s bid. He has challenged Kulkarni’s full name, his residency in the district, his voting record and even his registration application saying he wanted to run in Massachusetts.

Inspite of these diversions, the Indian American community as well as the rest of the South And East Asian communities are staunchly behind Kulkarni and they have shown it by the sheer numbers who have come to his events and are donating funds to his campaign, sensing a chance to have an Asian in Congress from the Metroplex. They came together last night, Tuesday, February 20, at Madras Pavlion to rally behind Kulkarni and push back against these charges.

Encouraged, Kulkarni is counting on their support. “We’re pushing back against this stigmatization and slander,” Kulkarni said. “The Asian communities need to come out and vote to get us over the top in the primary.”

From another article http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/texas-congressional-candidate-sri-kulkarni-acknowledges-teen-drug-arrest-youthful/article_54a39be6-1e55-11e8-8db1-6f520552146f.html

Doug Beaton, the leader of the chapter, warned Fort Bend County Democratic officials on Kulkarni's previously undisclosed past in a letter posted on social media, it said.

The letter suggested that Kulkarni, whose full first name is Srinivas, is running under an assumed name and that he had previously registered with the Federal Election Commission to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.,,,,

Fort Bend County's past Democratic chair, Don Bankston, a member of the party's state executive committee, said the attack on Kulkarni is off base and potentially slanderous, according to the report.

The head of the Our Revolution group told voters that Sri is "not one of us" and we do not want "one of them on the ballot." These attacks failed. Sri won and the candidate endorsed by Our Revolution did not make the run off.

BTW, every state party has a VAN or voter activation network. I am a precinct chair and use the VAN all of the time. This is how we know that a ton of new voters came out for Sri. One precinct with a heavy Asian population went from less than 50 voters in the Democratic primary in 2014 to over 800 voters in both the primary and the primary run off.

You work on bringing in new voters your way and I will work in my way. Sri will be a speaker at an event for the local Democratic Lawyers Association next week.

[dembotoz]

179. So being a lawyer makes u right...? best giggles of the day

[Gothmog]

180. Again, please try to bring in more diverse voters

I am very amused by your posts. Thank you for the laughs.

I know that sanders only cares about while male voters but the party needs to bring in a diverse set of voters. Please consider contacting non-male white voters in your efforts.

BTW, we have a meeting next week of the party's County Executive Committee to select a candidate to run for a vacant judicial position. I am leaning heavily towards voting for an immigrant from India who has a nice resume. This would add more diversity to party's ticket. I have no doubt that the Our Revolution idiots will be against this candidate since he is "not one of us" but I really do not care. Having non-white males on the ticket is a good thing in the real world.

[dembotoz]

182. Well u live in ur strange world and I will live in mine

[Gothmog]

184. The Texas Democratic Party used to believe that it could win with white voters

For decades the party believed that it could win if only it could convert white voters in east Texas. The former state party chair was from East Texas and the party sank a great deal of money into East Texas. East Texas is trump country where the KKK is active and there are still sundown communities (whites need to be out of town before sundown). Going after white male voters is a waste of resources.

The Texas party is now focusing on non-white voters and is doing well. In 2016, Harris County went blue by mobilizing Latino and other non-white voters. Texas will turn blue but this will not happen by focusing on the white male voters who make up sanders base and who are evidently the only voters sanders care about.

I am looking forward to hearing the Our Revolution leaders lecture us about the need to select a candidate who is "one of us" next week. I will be ignoring this idiot just like I ignore all Our Revolution types

[dembotoz]

185. don't know where you are getting your coffee but i see exactly the opposite. maybe u get too much

sun or i don't get enough.
i live where i live
so what do you suggest? Tell the assembly candidates sorry but don't waste your time trying to run. cause the state party ain't gonna back you? grass roots is for other places.....its just too bad your schools are getting sucky and the roads are getting really sucky and the air standards have just been downgraded....hope your asthma inhaler was on sale.....
flokes we are talking to are pretty fucking fed up
if i run into a bernie bro i embrace them with open arms....i would hope the bad guy is trump and not you

[Gothmog]

186. Your posts continue to amuse me

Texas will turn blue but not by paying attention to sanders or the racists who run Our Revolution

I still stand with the CBC. This email gives me hope that this ignorant rule change will fail https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/08/dnc-considers-reform-that-would-block-superdelegates-from-voting-on-first-presidential-ballot/?utm_term=.43b0d93edf1e

But every idea for curtailing superdelegate power has been angrily opposed by a rump of Democratic Party leaders. Bob Mulholland, a pugnacious former California party chairman and current DNC member, included reporters on an email he sent to the chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee and addressed to Perez and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the DNC’s vice chair.

“The two of you are conspiring with Bernie Sanders to block Congress members John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and the rest of the congressional delegation, Governors, State Party Chairs and the rest of us DNC Members from entering our Convention floor in 2020 as voters,” Mulholland wrote. “I don’t know if you will have paid thugs at the doorways to beat up Congressman Lewis and the rest of us or not.”

To emphasize his point, Mulholland attached a photo of police beating Lewis at the 1965 march for voting rights in Selma, Ala.

[dembotoz]

189. U did so well in16..

[Gothmog]

190. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[dembotoz]

191. Sorry closed primary is bullshit

And folks wonder why the DNC is hated

[Gothmog]

192. Economist--Berned out

This article makes me smile https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/09/berned-out

None of Mr Sanders’s other big ideas—including free college and massive public works—is getting much play. Nor have Sanders-endorsed candidates fared well in the primaries. Our Revolution, a group Mr Sanders formed to promote his acolytes, has been a failure. “It doesn’t do anything,” gripes a strategist for one of its candidates.

Rumpled, crumpled, Trumpled

The energy on the left is focused on opposing Mr Trump’s attack on liberal democracy, not on carrying forward Mr Sanders’s revolution. The success of moderate candidates in the Democratic primaries suggests this is making the party more pragmatic and mindful of party unity than Mr Sanders, an ideologue who is not a Democratic Party member, might like.

[dembotoz]

193. And the continuous DNC rep for sleaze makes me sad

[Gothmog]

194. Do you tire of being wrong?

Link to tweet

[dembotoz]

195. i dunno do you? so when do your purity oaths start

[Gothmog]

196. From Hillary Clinton

Link to tweet

[dembotoz]

197. So?

[Gothmog]

95. Do you understand how the process really works?

I was a pledged delegate to Philadelphia. I was vetted by the Clinton campaign and I voted for Hillary. I could have changed my vote if I wanted to. We had a group of sanders delegates come to the caucus breakfast (this is where we meet and get credentials for the upcoming day) and demanded that we condemn Clinton and vote for Sanders. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/26/clinton-sanders-delegates-clash-convention-breakfa/ My daughter was my guest to the convention. A group of sanders delegates screamed obscenities at her and called her the c-word because she would not agree to get me to change my vote. The sanders delegates engaged in this conduct for a reason.

Campaigns vet delegates carefully which is how the campaign has confidence that a delegate will vote the right way. Super delegates are normally elected state officials who were elected by their voters. I have no trouble with elected officials such as members of the CBC being super delegates.

[radical noodle]

102. I've heard other stories like this

Another thing that turned many Dems against that bunch.

[Gothmog]

104. I was at that breakfast

I had to calm down a Clinton delegate sitting next to me who wanted to go hit the sanders supporter who demanded that we condemn Hillary. It was not a fun meeting.

[radical noodle]

108. They acted abominably

at the entire convention. They pay a price for it now.

[dembotoz]

121. they got screwed

[Gothmog]

124. Who? The sanders delegates?

One had his credentials suspended but that delegate was the last night of the convention.

The sanders delegates made their "case" and that case was rejected.

The sanders delegates were no poor behavior. My daughter was screamed at and called the c-word by sanders delegates because she would not try to get me to change my vote. On the first night, I was warned by my whip that the Sanders delegation was planning on booing Congressman John Lewis and sure enough these idiots booed Congressman John Lewis.

This behavior was not acceptable

[dembotoz]

132. In my state they got fucked. Thanks super delegates

I may forgive but I won't forget.

[Gothmog]

135. So you are mad at Mark Pocan, Ron Kind, Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin

Wisconsin had an open primary where sanders was helped by GOP voters. The only change that I would make is to close the Wisconsin primary so that only Democrats vote for our nominee. Wisconsin was an open primary which helped sanders.

The super delegates from your state did the right thing.

The Texas delegates who disrupted the caucus meeting and demanded that Clinton delegates condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for sanders did not get screwed.

[dembotoz]

142. Gwen Moore I understand, believe her CD was the ONLY ONE that hrc carried. I forgive the others

[Gothmog]

152. Wisconsin had a open primary where non-democrats voted

I see nothing wrong with real democrats such as the Wisconsin super delegates doing the right thing

[LostOne4Ever]

53. Yes!!! This is a great change!!!!

Now we need to get rid of caucuses and make all primaries open primaries!

If we are going to be called the Democratic Party we should act like it!

[radical noodle]

58. No! Primaries should not be open

for republicans to mess with.

[LostOne4Ever]

59. Democrats can mess with Republicans too

Open primaries are democratic and have a slight moderating effect that makes our candidates more competitive in the general election.

It also shows we are open to independents making them more likely to vote for us in the general.

Usually only the super far left opposed them so as to increase the ideological purity of the party.

That said, I am open to having closed primaries so long as caucuses and super delegates stop getting undue influence on the primary. I would like to see them removed entirely from selecting our candidates but would be willing to have them allowed in provided that it is only after the first round of voting to help with too close to call election.

[radical noodle]

61. Independents aren't going to vote for

our Democratic candidates because we allowed them to vote in our primary. They will vote for the candidate they want in the GE, whoever it is.

I agree we need to get rid of the caucuses, but I don't think it hurts anything to have superdelegates vote in the first round. Why are we talking about this? The 2016 nomination wasn't that close. In 2008 when it was much closer, the loser didn't complain it was the fault of superdelegates.

[Codeine]

70. No. Democrats only in a Democrat primary.

It’s a private party decision and need not be open to external opinion.

[SunSeeker]

106. NO open primaries!! No ratfuckers!!!

If we are a political party, we should act like it, as in protect our party from ratfuckers from the outside of our party choosing our candidate for us. How can we "act like it" and have candidates that represent our values if ratfuckers pick our candidate?!


But I totally agree with you about getting rid of caucuses. Nothing democratic about caucuses, it's just a bully fest.

[stonecutter357]

55. .

[tirebiter]

60. I've had to followthis argument since 1968

Noone's ever happy when their candidate loses. That's what I've learned.

[lostnfound]

65. Random number generator, diispense with elections

I have no faith in American public anymore...
👀

[FSogol]

71. The minute I saw the word 'seethe' I knew this was a Politico hit piece on the Democrats.

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. My reaction as well, certain folks are DETERMINED to keep GOP in power

And these folks are EVERYWHERE

[Gothmog]

133. This proposal is a good way of attacking the CBC

The Our Revolution types were rejected by the voters last Tuesday but still want to control the party and punish leaders who did not support sanders.

I stand with the members of the CBC

[Gothmog]

81. Congressional Black Caucus: Keep superdelegate system in place

I agree with the CBC 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.

[murielm99]

101. It looks like there is still only one

person and his supporters who like this idea. It is designed to weaken the Democratic Party. We don't need this.

[Gothmog]

105. We need the Congressional Black Caucus far more than we need Our Revolution

[SunSeeker]

107. Hell yes. nt

[Gothmog]

130. I respect the leadership of persons like John Lewis and Maxine Waters.

The sanders faction pushing this proposal does not

[rollin74]

136. superdelegates are a terrible idea and un-democratic

get rid of this corrupt bs

[Gothmog]

139. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are corrupt?

Letting elected leaders like members of the Congressional Black Caucus be delegates is corrupt??? Are you claiming that members of the CBC are corrupt?

[Devil Child]

145. It is time to end the superdelegate system

Close our Democratic primaries and end the caucuses as well.

[yurbud]

150. Is the DNC or any centrist Dem group working to end the electoral college?

via the interstate compact or by other means?

[Gothmog]

153. The two issues are not related but so far only blue states have adopted National Popular Vote plan

The only feasible way to eliminate the effects of the Electoral College is the National Popular Vote interstate proposal were states that have 270 electoral votes sign a treaty or agreement to vote for the winner of the popular vote. Right now, this concept needs states with 98 more electoral votes are needed to sign on.

[still_one]

158. Anyone who wants open primaries wants NON-Democrats to decide who the Democratic nominee is, and

and that quite simply is bullshit

Get rid of Open Primaries, and I will have no issue with getting rid of SD

[Hortensis]

159. Yes, it's a giant red flag for hostile, subversive intent.

Oh, granted, a few who imagine they support it are probably too genuinely misinformed to realize what they're doing, but that emphatically does not go for political players.

[Jose Garcia]

160. Does anyone here want to be a Delegate to the next Convention?

Then getting rid of superdelegates may make that a bit harder for you. How would you like to have to run againt a sitting member of Congress for a delegate position?

[yurbud]

161. I'm a progressive, but unless I'm missing something, Perez idea is almost as good as

getting rid of them altogether.

[zipplewrath]

167. No, not quite

The very idea of super delegates is about some variation of a contested convention, or where there is an inability to form a consensus, mostly on a candidate. The super delegates, for whom the good of the larger party is their primary concern (presumably), are seen as that feature. They can in essence force a majority, even if there is none among the delegates. There's no real reason in an uncontested environment for them to participate. They virtually suggest that they'd never alter the outcome that way.

[Gothmog]

187. E-mail from the former chair of California Democratic Party gives me hope

This e-mail to members of the DNC gives me hope that this rule will be defeated https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/08/dnc-considers-reform-that-would-block-superdelegates-from-voting-on-first-presidential-ballot/?utm_term=.43b0d93edf1e

But every idea for curtailing superdelegate power has been angrily opposed by a rump of Democratic Party leaders. Bob Mulholland, a pugnacious former California party chairman and current DNC member, included reporters on an email he sent to the chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee and addressed to Perez and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the DNC’s vice chair.

“The two of you are conspiring with Bernie Sanders to block Congress members John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and the rest of the congressional delegation, Governors, State Party Chairs and the rest of us DNC Members from entering our Convention floor in 2020 as voters,” Mulholland wrote. “I don’t know if you will have paid thugs at the doorways to beat up Congressman Lewis and the rest of us or not.”

To emphasize his point, Mulholland attached a photo of police beating Lewis at the 1965 march for voting rights in Selma, Ala.

[ucrdem]

198. +1

perfect response!