Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

silvershadow

(10,336 posts) Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:01 PM Apr 2016

How many current registrations of people (surrogates) does DU have now?

How do the surrogates fall? The only option I have is to check the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton groups, but many surrogates (people) choose not to belong to one group or the other. Last I remember, there were over 100,000 registered surrogates here.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How many current registrations of people (surrogates) does DU have now? (Original Post) silvershadow Apr 2016 OP

A surrogate is asubstitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #1

Oh, okay. I knew someone would have an explanation. silvershadow Apr 2016 #3

Newest registration... Agschmid Apr 2016 #2

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)

1. A surrogate is asubstitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.

Reply to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:05 PM

Apr 2016

I see lots of sopporters, but know of no official surrogates.

silvershadow

(10,336 posts)

3. Oh, okay. I knew someone would have an explanation.

Reply to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:18 PM

Apr 2016

It may not be apropos to the way it is being bandied about here, but there it is ... (I guess)

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)

2. Newest registration...

Reply to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:06 PM

Apr 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=332858

So a few hundred thousand registrations (332,858)... Not active members.

And I don't think the numbers were entirely sequential.

Reply to this discussion