The ignorance of Superdelegates is astounding. We lost 49-1 TWICE in little more than a decade

[themaguffin]

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

It would be nice if everyone who supposedly cared so much about the party would at least acknowledge, better yet understand what happened in the 70s and 80s that created superdelegates.

And if a change is needed, it should be done like in most organizations, because there is data to back up a need for a change.

Perhaps there is, but it's certainly not for the conspiracy theories that popped up in recent years.

Come on, we are not the GOP. We are better than this - and by the way, the GOP WISHED it had had superdelegates in 2016.

[NCTraveler]

1. Is this a maguffin? nt

[themaguffin]

8. I'm a Hitchcock fan, yes.

[ehrnst]

2. Indeed. (nt)

[boston bean]

3. My reasoning for opposing the change is we will have more

second ballots. In in doing so, more of a risk that on the second ballot the highest delegate candidate could lose.

It makes it even more likely the top vote getter won’t be the nominee.

So all those people whining and ringing their hands about how unfair it was weren’t really concerned about the will of voters.

They were just upset they didn’t get a second bite at the apple.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Chardonnay?

[boston bean]

5. No, I wish. iPhone typing.

[Adrahil]

6. Some people are confused by what party nomination processes are.

Some folks seem to think that party nominations should be purely democratic. But they are not, and should not be. They are about the PARTY selecting who could best represent the party in the actual elections. And yes, they means party "establishment" people have an outsized say in the process. That's a feature, not a bug.

[marylandblue]

7. That's what I think, but it's been a losing argument for 50 years

IMHO, the whole primary system is screwed up, as it's now a patchwork of party selection/election and state regulations and operations. I think parties should pick all candidates period. If the party chooses to have elections, then they should be party-funded and operated, with no state involvement at all.

[JCanete]

12. Some people are confused about who the Party is or at least should be.

it SHOULD be the voters, not those who we elected or who our elected previously or who were appointed by our elected officials deciding things. And hey...that's us! What exactly do you object to about that? What is the feature in leaders having a disproportionate say in our "democratic" process that you are so proud of?

[LiberalFighter]

35. Personally, I think it is democratic.

Regular delegates are elected at state conventions as determined by the average of the past three presidential general election results for the Democratic Party candidate.

Superdelegates are the elected Democratic members of Congress and other current and past leaders. i.e. Past Presidents, National Party Chairs, Majority or Minority leaders. Mostly after winning elections in their state before going to Congress.

The regular delegates are not elected at a primary election. Those are state delegates going to a state convention that elect the national delegates.

I do disagree that establishment people have an outsized say in the process. If you look at where they live. They live all over the country and they will be influenced by party politics but they are also influenced by local politics. The process does provide a sense of order and understanding that experience provides. Superdelegates comprise less than 15% of all delegates and by themselves cannot change the outcome of the nomination. Sanders would have needed 553 out of the 714 superdelegates to win the nomination without getting the majority of regular delegates.

One of the advantages of superdelegates is that they understand and know the inner workings of the party. That the rest of us don't. Who has a good campaign. Who is raising the necessary funds and applying those funds to expenditures wisely. Who is doing the work and hitting the right targets. Who might run into problems because of past improprieties. Who really has the support and the right message. That rightly influences their support of a candidate. And send a message to others a strong candidate is the right person or send a flag if certain respectable people support someone else other than the perceived winner.

Another thing that people forget is that the primaries last nearly half a year. A lot could happen during that time.

[JCanete]

9. what are you talking about? what case are you making? What is it about superdelegates you think

is so important to preserve? The opportunity for the party leadership to decide that another candidate has a better chance at the general, thus flipping the result away from the democratic voters?

The GOP's problem isn't that it didn't have superdelegates, its that it has a farce of a primary process where candiadtes don't speak to issues or set up debates that are intended to actually vet their candidates. They are dog-and-pony shows. This time the dog with the funniest hair-cut and the foulest mouth got the most attention. They own their own garbage.


Are you suggesting that democratic voters can't be trusted in the same way that Republican voters can't be trusted? that we are as easily led by side-shows and away from the issues? As you say but then seem to contradict, we are NOT the GOP.

[pnwmom]

18. The Congressional Black Caucus wants to keep them as a way to preserve

at least some influence for African Americans in the process.

[LiberalFighter]

37. It ensures that they are given a voice just as they have in Congress

because the people in their district elected them.

[LiberalFighter]

36. You are mistaken. Republicans do have superdelegates. Just not the same as we do it.

As for our superdelegates. People making a big deal about it don't know how it works. First, they make up less than 15% of the delegates. The party leadership cannot flip it. Second, voters change their mind too when circumstances change. Their candidate drops out. Their first candidate goes nuts. Their candidate doesn't do well.

Superdelegates didn't decide the outcome of 2016. Sanders and his people are just making superdelegates their excuse for losing the nomination.

The rules used in 2016 were democratic. Regular delegates were elected but not by the voters in the primaries. They were elected by delegates to the state convention. Superdelegates were elected too. Either by state delegates, local district Democratic party leaders, or by holding the office they hold because they were elected by voters in their state or district, or in the case of Speaker of the House or Minority/Majority leaders by their Democratic peers. One way or another they were elected by Democrats.

[JCanete]

39. That clarification of how most of these supers got their power, that they were once elected to

office, is not in question. I'm not okay with a vote cast before my lifetime affecting whether or not my vote counts in the next election. I don't ever want my vote, along with 10,000 others, invalidated by one person's disagreement with the will of the democratic voters.

I have not once suggested that the 2016 election was decided by superdelegates and 2016 is not the reason I want this change.

Votes change their mind but they get to cast one vote. Unless we're going to have a second vote where voters reenter that process and then by virtue of their will allow superdelegates to vote differently than the will of democratic voters, then Superdelegates should not get to "change the mind" of the party.

I have no idea what you mean by they "can't flip it." Yes, they can theoretically flip the popular vote.

What does "their candidate doesn't do well" mean? At what point is that decided? Who decides it? The supers apparently?

There should simply be a condition in which if the leading candidate drops out the runner-up get the nomination. Then you dont' need supers to step in for that. I see no likelihood of a democratic Presidential candidate suddenly going crazy. I've seen the argument that supers are used for candidates like Edwards who become disgraced, but again, that should simply be a function of that candidate removing himself from the ticket and the replacement runner-up automatically being chosen.

[mythology]

10. And how would superdelegates have changed that?

There is no way to know ahead who will win or lose a general election.

[themaguffin]

11. Really?

[JCanete]

13. It was a good question. Do you ahve an answer?

[themaguffin]

14. Do you understand the purpose of the SDs? I really think that you should read about the context of

the time. I'm not saying this to be snarky or whatever, but because it matters.

[JCanete]

15. What is the context? Why don't you explain it. If you think that the supers should have

or could have -had they existed -chosen somebody over McGovern or Carter and that doing so would have ensured us a victory in the GE after contravening the will of the primary voters, I have no idea where that evidence is coming from.

If you don't think that supers would have or should have been employed in such cases, then both losses are entirely irrelevant to the argument you seem to be presenting for superdelegates, since theoretically they would not nor should they come into play in such circumstances.

Of course the very well could come into play, and that's the issue.

[themaguffin]

16. I'm sorry, but I can't get any more basic. You are too dug in and not rational. Also it was Mondale

not Carter who was the second candidate to lose 49-1.

One last thing, 49-1 is a statement in itself. By definition a candidate is terrible if they lose virtually the entire country.

[JCanete]

20. And you know who's going to lose 49 to 1 before it happens? And you know if

you replace that candidate with the runner up in popular votes that that candidate will not lose 49 to 1?

I hope you use your witchcraft for good.

[themaguffin]

22. I noted that it was because of TWO such losses in 12 years that resulted in the

the system.

Jesus, the party responded to issues and should do so again if needed, but context matters.

[Kentonio]

27. Their solution was a nonsense though

Because as repeatedly pointed out above, if they were ever to actually overrule the will of the primary voters, their appointed candidate would probably lose in a massive landslide anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

38. You don't know if they will overrule the will of the primary voters.

People change their mind. During a long campaign that can happen. And voters don't get to do a do over. With the exception of the state of Washington in which the voters picked Sanders in the caucus but Hillary won the primary election. The delegates though were based on the caucus.

[Kentonio]

42. So if they're not going to try and interfere with the public vote

Then what is the point of them?

[pnwmom]

17. I misread your post -- it sounded like you were arguing against superdelegates.

Just for the record, now that I realize you weren't, they didn't start till 1984.

[themaguffin]

23. Correct, in response to recent years, they made those changes

[TCJ70]

19. I've been told repeatedly that they've never made a difference in a primary...

...so my question is why keep something around that serves no purpose, has never served a purpose, and creates a perception that is false?

The only answer I can come to is that they shouldn’t be a thing.

[themaguffin]

24. They were created in response to what happened in the 70s and the Reagan losses

[theaocp]

25. Maybe I missed it.

I get why they were created, but since they serve no purpose and can't (or haven't) affected outcomes, but demonstrate a perceived bias, where's the harm in getting rid of them?

[TCJ70]

32. I'm fully aware of their origin

My point still stands. Do you think they could have changed the outcome of the elections they were founded because of if they had existed?

[themaguffin]

34. I think that there is potential and additionally, I think that

there should be a valid reason to get rid of them.

The bias thing is crap, but at the same time, the party has done little to reiterate why they were created.

[LiberalFighter]

40. It opens up more spots for party activists that otherwise would be taken

by those now superdelegates.

It allows superdelegates to still be part of the process.

It serves as a safety measure if an event occurs requiring their vote. They are also the mediators if a situation needs to be resolved.

Democratic Party leaders say new rules adopted for this year's convention have fulfilled their purpose and created a more stable and predictable nominating process that favors mainstream candidates and policies.

This judgment was reinforced by a New York Times poll of the convention delegates that found that the new rules produced a group of ''superdelegates'' who were older, more experienced, more moderate and more loyal to the party than the delegates chosen by primaries and caucuses. (NYT, 7/15/84)

would restore to the convention flexibility and an ability to respond to changed circumstances. (CPN committee report, via NYT 3/27/82)

Party officials insisted that most members of Congress would not want to be delegates if they had to run for the job, and that the only way to bring them back into the process of nominating a candidate and writing a party platform was to reserve delegate seats for them. That was done in 1982 by a special commission headed by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. (NYT, 12/22/83)

"We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

So, rather than to override the will of the electorate, superdelegates were created in some sense to enforce it in elections whose results were skewed by odd delegate allocations or weak multi-way fields that would allow a fringe candidate to win a plurality.

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, chairman of the commission formed last July to draw up the proposals that were adopted today, insisted that despite the changes the Democrats would remain ''the only major political party in the nation that is truly open.'' He said the changes were necessary if the Democrats were to be controlled by the interests of their party as a whole and not its factions. (NYT, 3/27/82)

There is not any sense that superdelegates have a mandate to express what is essentially their own personal preference for President; rather their duty is to look out for the best interests of the Party.

During the numerous discussions that have taken place on the subject of super delegates, the notion that super delegates can vote for whoever they wish is continually raised. Let me make the best counter-point to this argument as simple as possible:

DNC rules do not obligate super delegates to thwart the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers. Just as DNC rules allow for super delegates to thwart the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, those same rules allow for super delegates to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers. Both are well within the rules. The decision is up to the super delegates.

The difference is that if super delegates decide to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, then super delegates are upholding both the rules of the DNC and the principle of democracy. In other words, voting to thwart the popular will upholds our rules, but not our values, while voting to ratify the popular will upholds both our rules and our values.

Super delegates should uphold both our rules and our values by ratifying the popular will. That is as simple as I can make it. Source: Chris Bowers

[Cha]

21. Hear Hear!!

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. The purpose is to avoid electing people like Trump

The super delegate concept is a fail safe to protect us against corrupted elections. Just like the court system in which the judge can overturn a jury verdict when it clearly is beyond legal authority, super delegates can protect us from choosing someone like Trump as a candidate under the Democratic party.

[Kentonio]

28. Good luck winning an election after telling the voters they can't have the candidate they voted for.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Or did they?

[Kentonio]

30. I don't understand your question.

If someone wins the primary popular vote and has their victory over-ruled by the superdelegates, then that's going to cause a huge schism in the party. It's inevitable. Think about the optics of that for a moment, a small group of establishment party figures telling the voting public that they aren't allowed to have the person run who they democratically voted for. It would be an absolute nightmare for the party.

At some point you just have to trust the voters to vote for who they want. If it leads to a landslide loss then that's a bitter pill to swallow, but its STILL a better thing than trying to impose a candidate onto the electorate.

[aikoaiko]

31. I'm glad to see superdelegates' roles minimized.

We don't need them.

[fishwax]

33. super delegates helped pick Mondale

The 1984 election was the first time the party used super delegates, and while Mondale probably would have won the nomination anyway the superdelegates helped put him over before the top before the convention.

We had outsider candidates in 1972 (McGovern, who then got trounced by Nixon) and 1976 (Carter, who then went on to win the election). The 1980s saw big losses with conventional insider candidates (Mondale in '84 and Dukakis in '88) before another outsider campaign won the primaries and the white house in '92.

[JHan]

41. There's a lot of ignorance.

The modern primary process really came into being in 1968. I really wonder how some of these critics would contextualize how old Dem stalwarts won their nominations - the stereotypical backroom dealing in smoke filled rooms was often the reality in old politics and that changed.

Never have superdelegates overturned the will of pledged delegates. In 08 when Hillary had a lead over Obama in SD's, SD's switched support to Obama when Obama gained a lead on her. She and Bill went on to vote for Obama as SD's.

SD's are symbolic and aren't meant to be effective in run of the mill races. They were created for situations in the 70's where an unelectable candidate squeezes out a plurality in a crowded race.

But, facts don't matter anymore so whatevs.

This way it's one less thing for perennial complainers of the Democratic party to fuss about.