Discussion for article #246181
Superdelegates need to be done away with.
6 Likes
Superdelegates are no advantage in the general election. They do feed the general cynicism of many toward politics, however. I can’t imagine the cynicism improves GOTV. The optics of this announcement so early in the primary race is remarkably________________?
5 Likes
Secretary Clinton: A Democrat for decades. Has campaigned for many many Democrats up and down the ballot. Has supported countless party fundraisers.
Senator Sanders: A Democrat for a few months. Deliberately did not campaign for Democrats for fear of tarnishing his independent status. Has not supported, and still does not support, party fundraisers.
Gee whiz isn’t it a real scandal that Democrats are endorsing Secretary Clinton! But, it is reassuring to know that the Bernie Bullies are on the job, correcting this gross unfairness.
17 Likes
Yes it is unfair that someone who gets the most votes in a primary would not get the nomination. However, it is still early and superdelegates can change their vote. But they are bad for the democratic process in general.
4 Likes
AP’s gotta stir that pot. Can’t let the Democratic Party be all on the same page and all.
6 Likes
The superdelegate thing is kind of a sideshow. Either they fall in line with whoever wins the majority of elected delegates, or they use their unelected position to nominate someone the majority of the party’s rank and file have just rejected – which would be a big f-you to the rank and file that would all but guarantee a low turnout and a big loss for Democrats in November.
I can see how the superdelegates could play a more forceful role in a 3 or 4 way race, but this is a 2 way race. I’d put the chances that the winner of the nomination is the winner of the majority of elected delegates at about 99.9%. Most of that, of course, is the high liklihood that Hilary will win a majority of the elected delegates, and will already have most of the superdelegates as well. But even in the (in my estimation) 5% ish chance that Bernie wins the majority of the elected delegates, I think enough superdelegates would come his way to give him the nomination.
To do otherwise would risk both a huge loss in the fall and a party fracture the likes of which has not been seen in modern times, and the results of which are impossible to predict.
14 Likes
We inside the game, with a focus on the mechanics of this election-- do over-analyze.
There’s really no surprise as to this early and current apportionment of superdelegates.
But what caught my eye in the article was this comment by a Sanders operative:
Sanders campaign adviser Tad Devine:
“We are confident that superdelegates
want to be behind the strongest candidates in a general election
and have a nominee to help candidates win up and down the ballot.”
Now. I have been as even-handed as I can be in my assessments of both Sec Clinton and Sen Sanders here-- and elsewhere. As I was in 2008 when BHO flourished and I decided he was the better candidate; though I began the election season an HRC supporter.
But this comment has no basis in truth-- when applied to Sen Sanders.
From a seasoned political observer’s perspective?
What is this guy smoking?
I don’t usually speak in absolutes-- but HRC is the only candidate on either side-- who has the capability to affect downticket races in a positive fashion for their party.
jw1
http://corporispublica.org/images/e/e5/D-FTW-300.png
[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]
10 Likes
Clinton up 6 in latest Nevada poll buried in the poll tracker section of the site
4 Likes
It largely does not matter much. If the primaries stay close than they matter but one would think if Sanders went on a tare and won bigger states than some of them would flip over and make the point sort of moot. I do not really see that.
They are odd systems but they are party systems anyway. A small number of people are picking these folks from the population anyway. It makes sense that leaders have some say in the matter too. I do not remember many complaining about this with Hillary vs Obama, but I do not think it was as one sided.
Probably true. I think the others hurt a bit. Maybe not as much as once given the districts are already fairly well decided who is going to win each area though.
There have been one or two polls done where they ask about support for Sanders, and then start making the statements that you’d expect the Republicans to make in their attack ads. Sanders starts off winning against the GOP candidates, but by the end he is losing, badly…the Republicans know this, which is why they aren’t hitting him, they want him as the candidate so they can crush him. Sanders is also not a Democrat, not supporting the party structure or working to get other Democrats elected, and isn’t fully explaining his plans and how he will get them done (“we’ll need a revolution” is not a realistic plan).
Put these together, and this is why the super delegates are supporting Clinton. Her plans are laid out in detail, and mostly extensions and improvements on the Obama administration (which has been decent all things considered). She is working to get Democrats elected, not just herself. And, the Republicans are not going to be able to crush her in the same way…the best they can hope for is one of the made-up scandals finally takes her down. The Republicans don’t want to face her, she’ll mop the floor with any of them in a debate and she’s a tough campaigner who is likely to bring the women and minority votes at record levels.
7 Likes
Oh jeez. You’ve got to feel for the kids at their first rodeo. We’ve already been through all the emotion and sturm and drung regarding the superdelegates, those loyal Democrats who spend their life and work in advancing the causes and the platforms of the Democratic Party. It’s only been 8 years. Yes, they get a super vote on who we Democrats stand for election, as well they should.
Undemocratic my ass. It’s a political party. Not an every-four-years apparatus to advance the causes of stray people who are too lazy or unwilling to actually belong to the party.
Don’t like it? Organize! Form your own goddamn party and do the work it takes to build a national party, groom your own people for office, run in the elections, until you get somewhere. Make your own rules. Ralph Nader and Lyndon LaRouche are just waiting to be asked.
14 Likes
“Super delegates”? I always thought America was a democracy?
We need a third party. Something like the Greens but in better clothes with better haircuts.
1 Like
Bernie’s supporters can be argued as more passionate. Actually, because I am far to the left of most (including Bernie–for example, I would have a mandatory service for all young people after high school…not necessarily military…I would have a national school system, supervised by a mixture including a greater percentage of professionals), my support of Bernie was not volcanic, just reasoned. Bernie, to me, is a moderate. Based on what I believe about the oppo which would come his way from the GOP in the General, as well as what the GOP could do to him as a burden potentially harming Down Ticket office seekers, I have reluctantly shifted my position to supporting Hillary. I believe that American voters vote with passion. I agree with Bernie on that. What I do not agree with him is his downplaying an aspect of American history and culture in which people have passions which are permanent, unchanging, unrelated to facts (for example, the unreasonable hatred of Barack Obama). And voting accordingly
What is disturbing to me about this so-called Bernie-Hillary schism is the relative lack of appreciation of the menace we face from the GOP (leading to yells of “He can’t win” on the one hand and “She’s just as bad as the Republicans” on the other).
[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]
7 Likes
Well, to Democrats who watched the 1972 and 1988 train wrecks, the super delegates are necessary emergency brakes, the adult supervision this party needs and the Republicans have lost. As to anyone who thinks this is cynical, get out a pencil and paper and do the math on Bernie’s proposals, and then also contemplate how likely it is that a septuagenarian socialist atheist will be elected, especially because minority and young voters’s attendance at the polls these past several years has not been that great.
7 Likes
Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses.
The only thing “superdelegates” are good for is as an excuse to deny Sanders is the front runner at this time.
2 Likes
In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
Keep in mind that in 2008, a large majority of supers/lobbyist had made empty promises to Hillary, but as soon as Obama got the majority of real people normal delegates … almost all switched to Obama.
Many supers are also elected officials who don’t want their own constituent voters coming after them with torches and pitchforks
The time to change the superdelegates rule is between elections, not during an election when the rules aren’t benefitting your candidate.
.
Fair Warning superdelegates: 2017 
28 Likes
She certainly knows what it’s like to be on the other end of that. Just look at what happened in California,Texas,New York and Massachusetts in 2008 after she won those states comfortably. Don’t recall Sanders having any issue with that.
2 Likes
Love the frowny face…
I have switched to supporting Hillary.
However, if she gets to the General by having to depend on SuperDelegates in a way such that it gives the impression that the people have LESS say in the matter…then she is toast.
And WE are toast.
4 Likes