Strange Primary Strategy: Fearful Crony Superdelegates

I mean how undemocratic is it to have these hidden "superdelegates" who hide their identities and hold all the power to make or break a candidacy? That's not the structure of a republic, let alone a democracy. In a republic, the representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, not a circle of secret cronies who get together before a campaign and troth their sacred honor to protect the candidate no matter what their quotient of integrity, consistency, courage, reliability and decency throughout the campaign, not to mention the nature of the will of the people. I understand the delegate process, but this is a cynically-based sabotage of the concepts and pricesses of the arepublic, when you arrange the superdelegate lineup ahead of time. 

On the right, it appears that the courting of the delegates has become a sort of "wining and dining" which is another way of saying "bribing."  

If Hillary goes in that direction, heaven help us all.

The entire process is a jumble. Each State has a different method for picking Delegates. Different States vote on different days. By the time I get to vote in NJ it probably won't matter.

The system is not just undemocratic, it's irrational.

And then after the candidates are chosen we have this odd Electoral College system.

I just think the Hillary superdelegates are a little too entrenched, rich, enmeshed, cozy. Let some sunshine in there, folks, at least a little air. It has a little whiff of corruption. 

springgreen2 said:

I mean how undemocratic is it to have these hidden "superdelegates" who hide their identities and hold all the power to make or break a candidacy? That's not the structure of a republic, let alone a democracy. In a republic, the representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, not a circle of secret cronies who get together before a campaign and troth their sacred honor to protect the candidate no matter what their quotient of integrity, consistency, courage, reliability and decency throughout the campaign, not to mention the nature of the will of the people. I understand the delegate process, but this is a cynically-based sabotage of the concepts and pricesses of the arepublic, when you arrange the superdelegate lineup ahead of time. 

On the right, it appears that the courting of the delegates has become a sort of "wining and dining" which is another way of saying "bribing."  

If Hillary goes in that direction, heaven help us all.

The Democracts and Republicans are free to choose candidates as they please.  It wasn't all that long ago when candidates were chosen in smoke-filled back rooms.  Now, having said that, I think it would be a really bad idea to override the majority decision based on the primaries and this notion of super delegates is just inflaming an already angry electorate.

SG, oh stop. I'd take you more seriously if your candidate was even a member of the Democratic party. He's trailing in the popular vote, by the way, by over 2 million votes. I see this coming as the new excuse why Bernie can't win: it's the corruption.

springgreen2 said:


On the right, it appears that the courting of the delegates has become a sort of "wining and dining" which is another way of saying "bribing."  

If Hillary goes in that direction, heaven help us all.

Why should she need to bribe them? They overwhelmingly support her.

Why do they support her? Because Clinton supported them. She was in the trenches helping local candidates and helping them with financial support.

Unlike Sander's who has done squat for the party that he now embraces. If anything he's been inimical to them: 

“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” ~
Bernie Sanders  

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
~ Bernie Sanders  

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic
Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
~ Bernie Sanders

A change in attitude !!!  

Hillary didn't make up the rules. Are we at the point where we need to start shaking our fists and yelling "Thanks Hillary!" instead of "Thanks Obama!" whenever the toilet backs up?

Can't start going all sour grapes until the primaries/caucuses are over and the grapes are truly sour.

If a national major Political Party is having a National Convention it makes sense that high ranking elected officials of that Party would have voting privileges at that Convention.

BG9 said:

springgreen2 said:


On the right, it appears that the courting of the delegates has become a sort of "wining and dining" which is another way of saying "bribing."  

If Hillary goes in that direction, heaven help us all.

Why should she need to bribe them? They overwhelmingly support her.

Why do they support her? Because Clinton supported them. She was in the trenches helping local candidates and helping them with financial support.

Unlike Sander's who has done squat for the party that he now embraces. If anything he's been inimical to them: 

“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” ~
Bernie Sanders  

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
~ Bernie Sanders  

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic
Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
~ Bernie Sanders

A change in attitude !!!  ">

I meant Trump was bribing them. I referenced the 'right' going after delegates as well.

What do you expect when it doesn't matter how many go out to vote. The cronies have developed a rigged superdelegate system. We cannot overcome.

BG9 said:

springgreen2 said:


On the right, it appears that the courting of the delegates has become a sort of "wining and dining" which is another way of saying "bribing."  

If Hillary goes in that direction, heaven help us all.

Why should she need to bribe them? They overwhelmingly support her.

Why do they support her? Because Clinton supported them. She was in the trenches helping local candidates and helping them with financial support.

Unlike Sander's who has done squat for the party that he now embraces. If anything he's been inimical to them: 

“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” ~
Bernie Sanders  

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
~ Bernie Sanders  

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic
Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
~ Bernie Sanders

A change in attitude !!!  ">

I ask myself if i'm happy with the democratic party and I can't answer yes.   I ask myself if there is any alternative where the party represents more of my values as a humanist, and I can't find one, so I became a democrat to support those in the party that do share my values as there is strength in numbers.

Many times i've found myself asking whats wrong with some of these people elected into the party.  Many times i've thought exactly the things that you've quoted here.  But at the end of these thoughts the one thing that comes through is that it is impossible to make any change outside of the party because of the numbers.

I trust that when you say nothing for the party, you arent including the enthusiasm that Sanders has generated among many Americans, who registered for the first time, nothing when you see the policies of the preferred democratic candidate move much further left than they were prior to Sanders entry and popularity.  So at minimum his contribution will be a more liberal platform.

I doubt that Hillary is going to help swing Congress to the dems as the candidate, but I wonder if Sanders would have the type of influence that could.

springgreen2 said:

What do you expect when it doesn't matter how many go out to vote. The cronies have developed a rigged superdelegate system. We cannot overcome.

In fact President Obama did "overcome" to beat HRC in 2008.  It was then the same system then that we have now.  

I don't think the party system is inherently wrong. I think the delegate system is entrenched, has been abused and does not allow for real democracy. Our nation is a Republic when it comes to representation in the legislature. it's the election process, itself, that rather than representing the will of the people, ignores it. When does this non-democratic process get repaired??? Why does it matter who I vote for when it's already decided?  There's no room for a change, or a challenge.

What's "classic" about this.

springgreen2 said:

I don't think the party system is inherently wrong. I think the delegate system is entrenched, has been abused and does not allow for real democracy. Our nation is a Republic when it comes to representation in the legislature. it's the election process, itself, that rather than representing the will of the people, ignores it. When does this non-democratic process get repaired??? Why does it matter who I vote for when it's already decided?  There's no room for a change, or a challenge.

LOL

RobB said:

springgreen2 said:

I don't think the party system is inherently wrong. I think the delegate system is entrenched, has been abused and does not allow for real democracy. Our nation is a Republic when it comes to representation in the legislature. it's the election process, itself, that rather than representing the will of the people, ignores it. When does this non-democratic process get repaired??? Why does it matter who I vote for when it's already decided?  There's no room for a change, or a challenge.

LOL

What's so funny?

Another classic, keep 'em coming.

What;s the problem?

springgreen2 said:

I don't think the party system is inherently wrong. I think the delegate system is entrenched, has been abused and does not allow for real democracy. Our nation is a Republic when it comes to representation in the legislature. it's the election process, itself, that rather than representing the will of the people, ignores it. When does this non-democratic process get repaired??? Why does it matter who I vote for when it's already decided?  There's no room for a change, or a challenge.

You are aware that Clinton is winning the popular vote, right?

mjh said:

springgreen2 said:

I don't think the party system is inherently wrong. I think the delegate system is entrenched, has been abused and does not allow for real democracy. Our nation is a Republic when it comes to representation in the legislature. it's the election process, itself, that rather than representing the will of the people, ignores it. When does this non-democratic process get repaired??? Why does it matter who I vote for when it's already decided?  There's no room for a change, or a challenge.

You are aware that Clinton is winning the popular vote, right?

And that she won it in 2008.

Too funny.

Not in Wyoming, she's not. Are you aware that she got 11 superdelegates when he had 13 points up in the popular vote? And Bernie got 7.

Spring: Stop posting.  You are hurting Bernie!

Everyone else:  Please stop feeding the troll.

springgreen2 said:

Not in Wyoming, she's not. Are you aware that she got 11 superdelegates when he had 13 points up in the popular vote?

Yes, it's not a "winner take all" state.  Would you prefer a "winner take all" rule, or do you think apportioning the delegates in line with the popular vote is the fair way to go?

So you are saying that because she got the popular vote in the first half of the primaries she gets to barrel through the rest of the states regardless of the real numbers? Why would anyone bother to vote?

LOL

It's not a winner-take-all country.

Bernie's top aide Tad Devine helped to create the superdelegate system.   No use cursing it.  Keep phone banking for Bernie.    There are 2000 delegates left and he's only 200 behind.  

New primary system: Loser take all!

I simply couldn't resist.

springgreen2 said:

So you are saying that because she got the popular vote in the first half of the primaries she gets to barrel through the rest of the states regardless of the real numbers? Why would anyone bother to vote?

No, I didn't say that.  You seem to conveniently miss the point.

But nevermind, I have work to do.  

Can you imagine a basketball game where the winning side in the first half says, "OK, We won. Sit down and shut up because we won the first half, so we won the whole thing."

mjh said:

springgreen2 said:

So you are saying that because she got the popular vote in the first half of the primaries she gets to barrel through the rest of the states regardless of the real numbers? Why would anyone bother to vote?

No, I didn't say that.  You seem to conveniently miss the point.

But nevermind, I have work to do.  

Well maybe you can come back later and defend your opinion.