SUPERDELEGATES

LOST

This was a very controversial issue leading up to the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Now the Chair of the DNC has a new proposal but is being strongly challenged by Members of Congress.

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


Like  
Michael

Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  



Like  
LOST
mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  


 It's one of the issues that creates the infighting.

And it's inside baseball. Very few voters will be interested, but MOL political afficianados might


Like  1 Like
drummerboy

Where's nan when you need her?


Like  
Morganna

I'm about to read the link but I ranted all through the primaries about 2 things, that super delegates were an awful idea and primaries should be held if not on the same day than at least closer together. We all argued about which candidate was better and we had no chance to weigh in. As for the GOP, same thing with the primaries. I'm convinced that Trump would have had a tough fight against either Kasich or Rubio and that would have changed the dynamics with the Dem candidate.


Like  
Philip
Morganna said:
I'm about to read the link but I ranted all through the primaries about 2 things, that super delegates were an awful idea and primaries should be held if not on the same day than at least closer together. We all argued about which candidate was better and we had no chance to weigh in. As for the GOP, same thing with the primaries. I'm convinced that Trump would have had a tough fight against either Kasich or Rubio and that would have changed the dynamics with the Dem candidate.

 I think if the GOP candidate hadn't been Trump, they would more easily have won the general election (ie winning both the popular and electoral vote). Conditions favored Republicans -- 8 years of a Democratic president, , so-so poll numbers for the outgoing president, middling economic conditions. Clinton was only the favorite because Trump was the candidate (and the election was close enough that any number of factors, from misogyny to Russian meddling, can plausibly be argued to have been enough to have tipped it to Trump).

As for the super delegates, I agree they should go. They weren't a deciding factor in 2016 -- Clinton won the majority of votes in the primaries -- but they certainly were talking point. And if they ever were actually used -- eg to overturn the decision of the majority of primary voters -- that would have a catastrophic effect on voter morale come the general. They're a bit like a nuclear safeguard in that respect -- there's no plausible scenario where it ever actually makes sense to use them.


Like  
Morganna
PVW said:


Morganna said:
I'm about to read the link but I ranted all through the primaries about 2 things, that super delegates were an awful idea and primaries should be held if not on the same day than at least closer together. We all argued about which candidate was better and we had no chance to weigh in. As for the GOP, same thing with the primaries. I'm convinced that Trump would have had a tough fight against either Kasich or Rubio and that would have changed the dynamics with the Dem candidate.
 I think if the GOP candidate hadn't been Trump, they would more easily have won the general election (ie winning both the popular and electoral vote). Conditions favored Republicans -- 8 years of a Democratic president, , so-so poll numbers for the outgoing president, middling economic conditions. Clinton was only the favorite because Trump was the candidate (and the election was close enough that any number of factors, from misogyny to Russian meddling, can plausibly be argued to have been enough to have tipped it to Trump).
As for the super delegates, I agree they should go. They weren't a deciding factor in 2016 -- Clinton won the majority of votes in the primaries -- but they certainly were talking point. And if they ever were actually used -- eg to overturn the decision of the majority of primary voters -- that would have a catastrophic effect on voter morale come the general. They're a bit like a nuclear safeguard in that respect -- there's no plausible scenario where it ever actually makes sense to use them.

 You may be right that the GOP candidate would have had a better chance and since we agree that the chances were better for that party anyway, I would rather  see the country in the hands of Kasich or Rubio than Trump. Not sure Rubio had enough experience but Kasich would have been a better choice. I thought of him when I heard about the wedding cake decision. He had been on a news show and the issue came up, over a year ago. His response was something like, Why not just make them the cake?

What are your thoughts about the need to push NY, NJ and CA into an earlier spot in the primaries?


Like  
Jolynn

It is very seldom the case that the superdelegates initial vote actually lines up with who wins the primary. They almost always get it wrong and then change their votes as the primary moves forward to line up with the popular vote. If they are going to keep it, then they should not have them vote until later, which seems to be the proposal they think will pass.


Like  
ml1

The complaints from the superdelegates just show that they are oblivious as to why this happened.  The party belongs to all of its members, and the DNC and superdelegates didn't care about that.  In 2015-16 they engaged in a scheme to a) sideline any strong contenders who might have wanted to run against Clinton, and b) worked their hardest to send a message to voters that the nomination was a fait accompli, and that a vote for anyone other than Clinton was a wasted vote.

Some people point out that Clinton won the majority of delegates in the primaries, so didn't actually need the superdelegates.  But when the superdelegate tally was released before voting even started, and Clinton already had an apparently insurmountable lead, we have no idea of knowing how that affected the primary process.  We don't know how much more support Sanders could have received if he appeared viable, and if the race was deemed competitive.

The superdelegates and the DNC made this bed, so let them lie in it.  The rank and file Democratic voters have every right to feel like they were sidelined in '16.


Like  1 Like
LOST
PVW said:


 I think if the GOP candidate hadn't been Trump, they would more easily have won the general election (ie winning both the popular and electoral vote). Conditions favored Republicans -- 8 years of a Democratic president, , so-so poll numbers for the outgoing president, middling economic conditions. Clinton was only the favorite because Trump was the candidate (and the election was close enough that any number of factors, from misogyny to Russian meddling, can plausibly be argued to have been enough to have tipped it to Trump).

 I disagree. JEB Bush would have had many of the same problems as Hillary, part of the Establishment and same old- same old. And to give the devil his due none of the others had the charisma and start-power of Trump.

Of course we will never know.


Like  
Nancy
mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  


 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  


Like  1 Like
cramer
nan said:


mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  

For starters, preventing kids from being killed with guns.  


Like  
Nancy
cramer said:


nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
For starters, preventing kids from being killed with guns.  

 Both parties claim to have ideas on how to prevent kids from being killed with guns.  The Democrats often mention ideas about gun control, but they don't have a unified Democratic view.  Some of them sound more like Republicans.

THE GUN DEBATE IS STARTING TO DIVIDE DEMOCRATS

https://www.ozy.com/politics-and-power/the-gun-debate-is-starting-to-divide-democrats/85281



Like  1 Like
cramer
nan said:


mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  

 Restore what Trump has undone: 

- Paris Climate Accord

-Iran Nuclear Deal

-DACA 



Like  1 Like
drummerboy
nan said:


mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  

 Welcome back! I missed you.


Like  
Nancy
cramer said:


nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Restore what Trump has undone: 
- Paris Climate Accord
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-DACA 


 These are deals/Accords, not positions. Lots of Democrats vote for things that hurt the environment, immigrants and promote war. What do Democrats stand for?


Like  1 Like
Nancy
drummerboy said:


nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Welcome back! I missed you.

 Thanks!  I needed a break. Not planning on doing much posting, but some topics really scream out for different comments.


Like  
cramer
nan said:


mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  

 - Reproductive rights 

 - Social egalitarianism, anti-racism

- Gun control

- Education

- Immigration 

- Voting rights 


Like  2 Likes
LOST

For whatever reason my "Like" button does not work. I like cramer's last post


Like  
LOST
nan said:


cramer said:

nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Restore what Trump has undone: 
- Paris Climate Accord
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-DACA 
 These are deals/Accords, not positions. Lots of Democrats vote for things that hurt the environment, immigrants and promote war. What do Democrats stand for?

 Supporting the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Deal and a path to citizenship for DACA people are positions. The consensus of the Democratic Party holds those positions. The Major Political Parties are not monolithic and have never been so.

If you want purity you have to go Third-Party and even then you might not get it.


Like  
LOST


LOST said:



If you want purity you have to go Third-Party and even then you might not get it.

 See what I mean:

Factions within the Pirate Party include left-libertarians, classical liberals, anarchists, progressives, and radical centrists. Many Pirates explicitly decline to identify with any particular political ideology or philosophy. They are driven to "do what works" rather than being driven by a particular ideology.[12]

The Pirate Party's platform originally centered on issues of copyright. "Like its international counterparts, the USPP’s main practical concerns are digital intellectual property and privacy laws—specifically, the abolition of a 1998 digital U.S. copyright law, the reduction of copyrights to 14 years (from 95 years after publication, or 70 years after the author’s death), and the expiration of patents that don’t result in significant progress within four years (as opposed to 20 years)."[13]



Like  
Michael
nan said:


cramer said:

nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Restore what Trump has undone: 
- Paris Climate Accord
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-DACA 
 These are deals/Accords, not positions. Lots of Democrats vote for things that hurt the environment, immigrants and promote war. What do Democrats stand for?

 Most democrats are in favor of supporting those deals/Accords.  Republicans were not.  

Trump and the repubs who support him are clearly not in favor of protecting the environment.  

Dems are in favor of affordable healthcare for all.  Dems are in favor of properly funding social security and medicare.  Dems were not in favor of massive tax cuts for large corporations and increasing the deficit.  

And yes, there is a  lot of anti-Trump sentiment -- for a lot of good reasons.  

And as for gun control- but clearly most dems are in favor of requiring guns to be registered, not allowing automatic weapons, having background checks, etc.    




Like  1 Like
Nancy
cramer said:


nan said:



mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 - Reproductive rights 
 - Social egalitarianism, anti-racism
- Gun control
- Education
- Immigration 
- Voting rights 

 These are just topics, not positions.  You need to be more specific, and when you try you might find some contradictions.  For example, Obama's education policies (Arne Duncan, Race to the Top) were as bad as No Child Left Behind.  They paved the way for Betsy Devos. Many Democrats also support charter schools and other privatization schemes.  So saying the Democrats stand for education is just not even true.  

The same could be said for the other things you listed.  I'm looking to see what exactly do the Democrats stand for.  For example, Bernie Sanders and other Progressives stand for Medicare for All, free college and a $15 minimum wage.  Those are very specific things, not vague topics like "education" or "immigration"    




Like  1 Like
Dennis
nan said:


cramer said:

nan said:



mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 - Reproductive rights 
 - Social egalitarianism, anti-racism
- Gun control
- Education
- Immigration 
- Voting rights 
 These are just topics, not positions.  You need to be more specific, and when you try you might find some contradictions.  For example, Obama's education policies (Arne Duncan, Race to the Top) were as bad as No Child Left Behind.  They paved the way for Betsy Devos. Many Democrats also support charter schools and other privatization schemes.  So saying the Democrats stand for education is just not even true.  
The same could be said for the other things you listed.  I'm looking to see what exactly do the Democrats stand for.  For example, Bernie Sanders and other Progressives stand for Medicare for All, free college and a $15 minimum wage.  Those are very specific things, not vague topics like "education" or "immigration"    




 Ah.......Nan-one-note returns. 2016 is OVER. Try to say something relevant to 2018/2020.



Like  
Nancy
mikescott said:


nan said:

cramer said:

nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Restore what Trump has undone: 
- Paris Climate Accord
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-DACA 
 These are deals/Accords, not positions. Lots of Democrats vote for things that hurt the environment, immigrants and promote war. What do Democrats stand for?
 Most democrats are in favor of supporting those deals/Accords.  Republicans were not.  
Trump and the repubs who support him are clearly not in favor of protecting the environment.  
Dems are in favor of affordable healthcare for all.  Dems are in favor of properly funding social security and medicare.  Dems were not in favor of massive tax cuts for large corporations and increasing the deficit.  
And yes, there is a  lot of anti-Trump sentiment -- for a lot of good reasons.  
And as for gun control- but clearly most dems are in favor of requiring guns to be registered, not allowing automatic weapons, having background checks, etc.    




 Of course the Democrats are better than the Republicans.  They are the lesser evil.  But, they should not just run on being better than the evil monsters.  They should also stand for something and get people excited about voting for them.  As for the environment, Democrats are not unified on that at all, beyond the Paris Accord (which was viewed by many as being very weak).  Obama allowed drilling in the Arctic twice and Hillary promoted fracking all over the world.  Dems also do not stand up for taxing the rich. Obama let the Bush tax cuts stay permanent. Wealth inequality rose under Obama, and the economic recovery after the crash mostly helped the 1% while leaving the poor destitute.  He bailed out the bankers and left the homeowners on the hook.  He did not stand up for unions.  Traditionally, Democrats are the party of the people, but they seem to have forgotten that.

Still trying to figure out what Democrats stand for?


Like  1 Like
Dennis
nan said:


mikescott said:

nan said:

cramer said:

nan said:

mikescott said:
Dems have a lot more problems than worrying about super delegates.  this kind of wasteful infighting is why they are not getting their message across.  
 So, what is their message?  What do the Democrats stand for?  
 Restore what Trump has undone: 
- Paris Climate Accord
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-DACA 
 These are deals/Accords, not positions. Lots of Democrats vote for things that hurt the environment, immigrants and promote war. What do Democrats stand for?
 Most democrats are in favor of supporting those deals/Accords.  Republicans were not.  
Trump and the repubs who support him are clearly not in favor of protecting the environment.  
Dems are in favor of affordable healthcare for all.  Dems are in favor of properly funding social security and medicare.  Dems were not in favor of massive tax cuts for large corporations and increasing the deficit.  
And yes, there is a  lot of anti-Trump sentiment -- for a lot of good reasons.  
And as for gun control- but clearly most dems are in favor of requiring guns to be registered, not allowing automatic weapons, having background checks, etc.    
 Of course the Democrats are better than the Republicans.  They are the lesser evil.  But, they should not just run on being better than the evil monsters.  They should also stand for something and get people excited about voting for them.  As for the environment, Democrats are not unified on that at all, beyond the Paris Accord (which was viewed by many as being very weak).  Obama allowed drilling in the Arctic twice and Hillary promoted fracking all over the world.  Dems also do not stand up for taxing the rich. Obama let the Bush tax cuts stay permanent. Wealth inequality rose under Obama, and the economic recovery after the crash mostly helped the 1% while leaving the poor destitute.  He bailed out the bankers and left the homeowners on the hook.  He did not stand up for unions.  Traditionally, Democrats are the party of the people, but they seem to have forgotten that.
Still trying to figure out what Democrats stand for?

 Gee nan...didn't realize it was still 2016. When do you address the present/future, instead of the past???


Like  
Nancy
Dennis_Seelbach said:


n Gee nan...didn't realize it was still 2016. When do you address the present/future, instead of the past???

What has changed with the Democrats since 2016?  They have not learned a thing.  They still want to select the candidate and keep superdelegates.  The other day they put in some rule against non-Democrats running to keep Bernie Sanders from running in 2020.  They would rather lose than change. 


Like  1 Like
LOST

What an odd idea? One must belong to a political party in order to be its nominee!


Like  3 Likes
Jolynn
nan said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:

n Gee nan...didn't realize it was still 2016. When do you address the present/future, instead of the past???
What has changed with the Democrats since 2016?  They have not learned a thing.  They still want to select the candidate and keep superdelegates.  The other day they put in some rule against non-Democrats running to keep Bernie Sanders from running in 2020.  They would rather lose than change. 

The rule can not keep him from running as a democrat


Like  1 Like

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business