Should this be the last time we have superdelegates?

[Ken Burch]

Corollary question

If not...at least next time, should superdelegates be required to remain unpledged until the primaries are over?

59 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, this should be the last time we have superdelegates.
	44 (75%)
	No, we should keep having superdelegates
	11 (19%)
	Other
	4 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[saltpoint]

1. Yep. Pack 'em up, ship 'em out. eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. The current rigged system is absurd... Bernie will clean it up, no doubt.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[saltpoint]

39. The cry against the supes is getting

louder and coming from more and more different quarters.

I hope they're out of the picture soon. I won't miss 'em one little bit.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Nope... nor will I miss Hillary's establishment politics. You hear her latest lie that Bernie has not had one negative ad run against him?

DWS had only exacerbated the situation. Can't wait til she packs her bags, and hightails out outta town, once Bernie raps this thing up.

He's got a lot of cleaning up to do... can't come soon enough!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[saltpoint]

45. Yep. DWS has been on the take a long

while now. National Democrats have lost significant ground under her watch.

I'd like to see a vigorous replacement chosen, and he or she could start tomorrow morning as far as I'm concerned.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. lol, tomorrow morning would not be soon enough! DWS has become a parody of herself and a liability to the Democratic Party.

If she had any decency, she would have resigned a while ago for the good of the party.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Ash_F]

2. it was a terrible idea from the beginning

"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."

[randome]

28. Activists are not always kind and gentle creatures.

The statement can be seen in its most negative connotation -and obviously you've chosen to see it that way (and it was a poor choice of words for DWS)- but the statement stands on its own. Superdelegates exist to keep fringe factions from taking over the party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ash_F]

34. Interesting viewpoint when 63% of Americans support a $15 minimum wage in 4 years

Sanders plan is over 6 years, objectively to the right of the majority opinion.

Not that fringe. It would appear the system is rigged to ignore the will of the majority.

[randome]

35. Not fringe at all, I agree. But it wasn't superdelegates who prevented him from winning.

Getting $15 through Congress is a Mount Everest type of climb. I'm not sure it can be done, which I think is why Clinton is trying the only way she thinks will work: floating a trial balloon of $12. Now $12 and indexing for inflation might work? I don't know. But as for "aiming high" and negotiating, it would be a dead balloon if she tried $17 or more in order to reach $15.

Congress is our common enemy. That's where we need to make ourselves known.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ash_F]

42. A leader should stand out in front

If a growing majority of Americans want $15, then that is a great issue to start targeting congress people over and changing the makeup of congress one district at a time.

But Dems need to put $15 out there first so we can see who comes out of the woodwork against it. Right now those congresspeople are in hiding. That is where a strong president can help.


Being dragged along behind a movement is not leadership and it is not how to get things done.




PS - I don't think Clinton will even strongly advocate for $12 if elected, but I get it if you do. She does not really talk about it much in her speeches so I am skeptical.

[Ash_F]

43. PPS - I do blame superdelegates to some degree because they came out so early

People like to bandwagon with the winner so they gave Clinton a huge boost.

[StayFrosty]

3. No

The superdelegate system worked by preventing a hostile takeover of the party by an outsider with no desire for unity or compromise.

[Scuba]

5. No it didn't.

Hillary and her right-wing policies are outside the mainstream of Democratic principles, yet she's succeeded in her hostile takeover of the Party.

[StayFrosty]

11. Yes it did

The majority of Democrats prefer Hillary to the old rambling-breadline loving socialist

Most Democrats are moderate centrists with common sense and don't live in fantasy land. That's why they have chosen Hillary to be the nominee

[Exilednight]

54. You just argued both sides of the argument. And you accuse others of living in fantasy land?

[morningfog]

6. None of that is close to reality.

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[oldandhappy]

12. clinton had what -- 400 delegates in her pocket

before the campaigns began? I do not see that as democracy.

[StayFrosty]

13. They would have happily switched

If Bernie had shown that he could actually win the majority of the support from Democrat voters but as we all know by now, he failed

[Ken Burch]

59. "Democratic voters"...not "Democrat voters".

Using "Democrat" in that way is a Joe McCarthy-era RW slur.

And Bernie has steadily gained ground among Democratic voters as the primaries went on.

[Ken Burch]

14. There isn't anything hostile in what Bernie's trying to do.

It's not as though we benefit as a party from any part of the status quo(corporate donors, luxury boxes at conventions of what is supposed to be "the people's party", the grassroots being kept out in the cold on policy and strategy).

Right now, nothing is working. If things were going well, we wouldn't be in a minority in both houses of Congress, reduced to handful of governorships, in powerless, irrelevant minorities in most state legislatures.

[randome]

31. No one said there was. Superdelegates did not prevent him from winning.

Sanders is responsible for his own success or lack of success. The voters decided that Clinton was preferable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ken Burch]

53. The poster I was responding to there described Bernie's campaign as a "hostile takeover attempt"

I'll grant you that HRC is ahead, but there was nothing Bernie is doing that is hostile to the Democratic Party.

[randome]

60. Other than trash-talking it for the past 25 years.

That's not how you make changes. It's how you make enemies.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ken Burch]

61. In the last 25 years, it's been mostly impossible to be a progressive within this party,

other than at the level of completely-disregarded local party activist.

Why should he have spent that time inside a party that would have rejected everything he fought for?

[baldguy]

36. +1000

What's to stop a Trump, McCain or Romney from buying his way in & taking over like the Teabaggers did to the GOP? The answer is: superdelegates.

[Recursion]

4. Meh. I like the institution having an emergency brake. We should have fewer of them, though

Stick with just the state DNC chair, vice chair, and secretary. That's 168 superdelegates (DC, Guam, etc. get them too). They can keep a narrow-plurality candidate in a 3-way race from winning, which is their purpose, but they don't present an overwhelming obstacle in a two-way race.

[Scuba]

7. What's wrong with "a narrow-plurality candidate in a 3-way race" winning?

Their purpose is to keep grass roots candidates from winning, per DWS herself. That's wrong.

[Recursion]

15. Say Alice, Bob, and Charlie are running

Charlie is somebody that 60% of the party hates, but 40% of the party loves. That 40% vote for him. Alice and Bob split the remaining 60%, getting 30% each. (This is roughly a description of Carter's nomination in 1976.) The idea behind the super delegates was that they would get together and unite behind either Alice or Bob, and put them over the top.

This and super tuesday as a concept date back to a time when
a. there were a lot of white southerners in the party, and
b. there were generally at least three candidates who carried their campaign through to the convention (as a corollary, this also means they're from a time when running a campaign was much, much cheaper)

So in some sense they're kind of an anachronism right now, but then again I do think the party institution should have some say.

[Scuba]

21. You're wrong about the idea behind the superdelegates, at least according to DWS.

In your example, Charlie deserves the nomination, as he garnered the most votes.

[Recursion]

23. DWS didn't create them; they were from a panel Jim Hunt of NC chaired in 1982

Part of the problem here is that at no point has the party said what makes someone "deserve" the nomination, and it's probably something the committee should talk about.

[baldguy]

37. And Clinton deserves the nomination, since she got the most votes.

Do you even read what you're posting?

[Scuba]

40. If she gets the most votes fairly she deserves the nomination. I've never suggested differently.

[Ken Burch]

22. I was never sympathetic to the position of the white Southerners on this

in 1984, there were at least three white Southern candidates(or candidates acceptable to white Southerners if you count John Glenn) running. They didn't lose because the system was unfair to them...they lost because white Southern voters didn't coalesce around a single candidate. Nothing unfair happened to them at all-it's just that they weren't given the special deference they felt entitled to.

[Ken Burch]

10. That might be an option we could all live with.

What would you say about requiring the supers under that plan to remain unpledged as long as the primaries go on?

[Recursion]

16. I definitely agree with that idea

They aren't supposed to be part of a bandwagon. I think limiting it to the state party officials would help with that because 90% of Democrats have never heard of them.

[Ken Burch]

17. I like the way you are thinking on this. n/t.

[Tal Vez]

8. I think that there should be small number of seats reserved for party leaders. The input of people

with experience, even if they are out of favor this year, is important.

[oldandhappy]

9. How do you get rid of them?

I think 15 super delegates is plenty. Having what -- 700? for 50 states is ridiculous. Maybe you need a few to inject some wisdom and sanity into hot situations. But 700 is not democracy.

[grasswire]

20. Maine just voted to eliminate super delegates...

...and I think Alaska may have done the same thing.

[oldandhappy]

47. tis a beginning

I do not know where super delegates come from. Can states vote them out? Maybe they are appointed? I am way behind the 8 ball on this issue. No idea how someone becomes so super.

[onehandle]

18. Superdelegates have never been used to select our nominee.

Superdelegates exist to prevent a Donald Trump from being our nominee, not a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

[Ken Burch]

24. Well, since we've never come close to having anyone remotely similar to Trump as our nominee...

isn't it time to admit the supers aren't really necessary?

It's kind of insulting to most Dems for the party leaders to take a "we need to save you from yourselves" attitude towards the nominating process.

[onehandle]

26. No, this year proves the point of superdelegates.

Trump was a Democrat for decades more than Bernie.

Do the math.

[Ken Burch]

27. What matters is what you stand for.

Not how long you've been in the party. Bernie was outside the party because the party wouldn't have allowed him to be himself. It's on the party to change that, to make activists welcome and to stop treating the left as the enemy when the left isn't to blame for anything.

[oldandhappy]

48. Repub do not have them.

[oldandhappy]

49. well, I heard Trump say Repubs do not have them. ha ha

[jeff47]

55. Until this year.

Neither candidate will be able to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination without superdelegates. For example, Clinton would need to win all of the remaining primaries about 85-15. Not gonna happen.

IIRC, this is the first time this has happened since superdelegates were created.

[andym]

58. In 2008 Obama needed 2117 delegates to win, he had 1828 1/2 pledged delegates (majority of pledged)

The rest of his delegates to reach 2,285½ total delegates were supers. So this year isn't the first time supers were needed to win.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. The ONLY reason for their existence is to protect the party elite from The Proles.

They aren't going to help in a few more cycles.

[PufPuf23]

25. The 2016 campaign for POTUS has raised my awareness of the issue of super-delegates.

My initial reaction is that super-delegates are undemocratic.

But super-delegates do serve a purpose.

Ideally the super-delegates have a bigger picture and a longer time horizon than the regular Democratic party voter.

I do think that super-delegates should not reveal their votes until the convention. Proof of this approach is exhibited by what has occurred in 2016. The DNC and Clinton campaign pre-stacked the deck on the primary season by commitment of super-delegates before any primaries took place then widely stating that Clinton had a near insurmountable lead. The is approach has backfired because the tactic caused negative perceptions and also the super-delegates are a path to the nomination of Sanders.

The positive role of the super-delegates depends on them acting in good faith and not overly partisan regards incumbents and political machines (such as Bushes or Clintons). The super-delegates are a firewall in case there is a fundamental situation of gravitas discovered in course of the primary campaign. What if a candidate gets ill or has failed to disclose a medical problem? What if a candidate has a legal problem or a too big to ignore conflict of interest? What if candidate has cheated and there is not time for a full and comprehensive investigation? What if there is the unusual circumstance where there is a relatively close primary result where the presumed "loser" has a far better chance versus the GOP candidate in the general election?

So I have concluded that there is a place for super-delegates.

[House of Roberts]

29. What if super delegates could not vote on the first ballot at the convention?

After the first vote fails to get a nominee above 50%, and then the pledged delegates are also free to vote their own choice, then maybe the super delegates could be included.

[LiberalFighter]

30. You all don't get a say in the matter.

[Depaysement]

32. Yes

Along with an end to braced voting machines, phony counts and corrupt chairpersons.

[andym]

33. 1972, 1976, 1980 = no superdelegates

1972 George McGovern won the nomination with 25% of the votes in the primaries. He was the most liberal/progressive nominee ever. Result: a historic win for Nixon. McGovern's loss pushed the Democratic party to the Right. Both Clintons worked on his campaign...

1976: Jimmy Carter wins the nomination and beats Gerry Ford.

1980: Jimmy Carter beats Ted Kennedy in a hotly contested primary, goes on to lose to Reagan in a landslide.

[scscholar]

51. Came here to post this

Things didn't go very well those three times.

[Peachhead22]

46. I voted "other"

I believe the superdelegates should stay. They serve a useful purpose. You could say they are "undemocratic", and you'ld be right. But I'm sure the Republicans wish they had superdelegates. And we could conceivably face a similar situation someday. Through fuckery or some other bizarre folie à deux we could have someone dominate the primaries that make most people wonder "what the f*** are they thinking!?" So it's basically a failsafe.

However, in my opinion it's totally wrong for superdelegates to be wooed by a candidate or to disclose their allegiance to any candidate before the last state primary. In a similar way that the news media won't talk too specifically about exit polls or how the vote totals look before every polling station in a state is closed. Because early returns can influence people who haven't yet voted. I have no doubt that Hillary's and her advocates' constant harping on a giant lead in superdelegates have unnaturally skewed people's opinions and votes. Counting people who have yet to vote as votes already in her column. It's like a dishonest Enron accounting trick. And it can hurt the entire party in the long run.

I would make a rule that any superdelegate who openly talks about their future vote for a particular candidate risks being immediately replaced as a superdelegate. I'm not sure what sanctions I would assess against a candidate who prematurely courted a superdelegate. But IMO there should be some sort of sanction.

[Jitter65]

52. It should be the last time we have caucuses. nt

[Ken Burch]

57. OK. It's not Bernie's fault that we had them this year.

DWS and Co. set that up.

And he'd have done just as well if we hadn't had them.

In future, we should have party-run primaries with mail-in voting and same-day re-registration.

The party should also cap donation limits for the primary campaign at 30$ per person. That's more than enough.

[haikugal]

56. Last time should be the last time!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

62. Let's end the conventions and directly elect the nominees

Party-run elections
Every state votes on the same day. Up to two run-offs if necessary.
Paper ballots mailed to registered Democrats two weeks prior to election day.
Vote at home. Return by mail.
3rd party accounting firm oversees counting.

[EndElectoral]

63. Kind of shocked anyone voted for supepdelegates.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

64. No! SDs did EXACTLY

what they were intended to do--they protected the party against a hare-brained demagogue and sore loser who would, like his role model McGovern (1972), have led the Party to devastating defeat in all but two states.