Dem precinct chair/Sanders voter appalled at slams against super delegates being launched here.

[blm]

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 09:43 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm a Sanders voter, but, I find it appalling that some of you understand so little about the election process that you label super delegates as 'unfair'. It is set up so that those who pay closest attention to elections over a number of years and decades and have worked for electing Democrats to office for many years/decades or have been elected after years of being scarred by the process might gain an added voice by doing so.

I am a longtime Dem party GOTV activist in a purple state and go through long days and nights every election year, and not just presidential years. I am not a super delegate and will never even bid to become one, but, I do understand why they are given the slightest privilege within the party infrastructure and process that they are given. Without these people the party and the organized left, itself, would have collapsed long ago, especially under the pressure of the muscular Bush years.

Elections are HARD WORK year in and year out. Some of you need to get a grip and start facing reality that you are standing on the shoulders of some of the very people you are trying to kneecap. Sanders would be the last to complain about what some of you complain about in such a knee-jerk fashion. Want to know why? Because he's been in an office for 3 decades. He knows how hard it is and how hard it is to MAINTAIN. Some of his greatest assets to his campaign are also super delegates who EARNED their position the hard way - by being there many more hours, weeks, months, and years than 99.5% of the party. Sanders and I are thanking our stars for these super delegates WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE ARENA for decades. They are and will be making a difference for the Sanders campaign on levels that some of you (apparent by your posted complaints) don't even understand.

Sanders and DU is better than these displays of petulance - act like it.

Guess some of you also forgot the celebrations here every time Sanders was endorsed by a super delegate - it means far more than one vote because it also means it brings in DECADES of organization and goodwill from a party stalwart who has paid far more dues than most of you will ever know. Sanders knows. So do I. Get into the arena and try sticking it out year after year and decade and after decade.

For those of you who don't like super delegates being in the process then WORK TO CHANGE IT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. What you're doing now is a waste f energy and serves only one purpose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280104022

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Thank you, someone had to say it and explain it.

[roguevalley]

42. only those with connections, are politicians or have their tiaras firmly

in place become super delegates here. It sucks.

[George II]

93. John Lewis is a Super Delegate. I'd like to see you say that to his face. Yes....

....he has "connections" and has a tiara firmly in place. Unfortunately it would have fit his head better had his skull not been fractured during the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1960s.

[billhicks76]

118. Your Hillary Only Group Shocking

Every comment was all of you smugly putting down the voter and laughing that Bernie will NEVER be allowed to be the nominee even if he wins every primary. What is wrong with you people? You obviously want a rigged system and even worse a Democratic Party that loses all support. I read all those comments and they were ALL like that. People were saying in unison that Bernie should not be allowed to even be in the Party. Stunning. People get banned on DU for saying about Hillary. The double standard hubris will bite you back. What goes around comes around.

[neverforget]

131. The jury is in:

On Wed Feb 10, 2016, 07:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your Hillary Only Group Shocking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1197204

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Can we keep this meta food fight and abuse of groups to a minimum please?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 10, 2016, 07:26 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hear, hear.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems fitting for GD: P
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I voted to leave.

[billhicks76]

136. They Flagged Another Just Like This One And Won

Ironic they censor their private group to no end and then fan out to stop the truth from getting out here.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

161. Why the hell would people go onto a private group: Hillary's or Bernie's and read then complain?

They must be masochists to begin with and then a bunch of whining control freaks to top that off. Mind your own business people and stop complaining. I'm a mental health clinician and some people here make my sickest clients look completely well-adjusted. I'll be glad to go back to work and deal with some rational people (in comparison). And I guess I'm a macochist to read and respond to some of these really dumb threads too. Guess I need to back for a refresher course.

[billhicks76]

166. You Need To Change Your Tone

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

The Hillary "private" groups comes up in Trending Now and Greatest Threads. It shouldn't. The programmers need to change this. No one knows it's a private, censored group. And I wasn't trying to post in it now. I was reading what people were saying and it was as bad as anything I've read in FOX News threads. They ALL said they will not recognize the will of the people. Great strategy. It's a sure loser in the general. They were laughing about how super delegates will ensure that Bernie loses even if he wins every primary. It was disgusting frankly and I encourage everyone to read what they are shamelessly putting out there. I'd have an easier time holding food down listening to Martin Shkreli. This is not an exaggeration. They are out of control. And they are abusing the Jury system and I mean in all threads not just their special group.

[Voice for Peace]

190. The jury system is not amused.

[Sheepshank]

239. you need to stop whining.

When Bernie supporters out post and out jury Hillary Supporter 8:1, you have no room to complain.

[billhicks76]

245. It's About Facts

Clintonites said they won't allow a Bernie win. They support rigging so he's not nominee even winning every primary. That's a War declaration.

[Sheepshank]

253. OH ffs....a "political revolution" is as politically hawkish as it gets

Are you trying to imply that its only Hillary Supporters that are working hard for a win? Your name calling and editing of the political process is ridiculous.

[billhicks76]

254. Supressing Votes Isnt Working Hard

And no one said Clinton and her ilk aren't working hard. They work way to hard and are a danger to this country as they keep pushing the center further to the right. That is why those republicans have gone off the charts into crazyland as they want to be differentiated from us for cultural reasons. This, when people like Hillary define the center at what used to be the moderate right, the extreme right has to go further and further right. Thats why we are seeing demagogues like Trump now. And excuse me but encouraging party insiders to vote against the number of popular votes cast t make sure the winner doesnt win isnt hard work. Imagine if a republican did that. We would call for people in the streets protesting them and labeling them a corrupt criminal and a cheater.

[truedelphi]

134. Of course these folks want their candidate to win the Party Nomination,

Even if Bernie wins every primary.

The inner circle of political cadres has not had an original thought in over thirty years. Well, maybe the exception being their once successful meme: "vote lesser of two evils." But finally people are now wiser than in 2012, and they do not want to vote for lesser evil - they want and NEED someone who will turn the establishment on its end and set up a new manner of government that works for everyone, not for just a few.

[billhicks76]

142. Want Or Force????

[truedelphi]

173. I guess they will do everything they can to force it to happen.

We sure do need to have election protection units out "in force" to make sure things are handled properly and fairly.

[OLDMADAM]

197. I for one am sick and tired of being spoken for.. I have my own voice..

I say this as an AA, and a woman, two realities I am especially proud of..

Rep Lewis has had my respect, and will always hold a special place in my heart.. However, that respect allows his opinion to rank as high as it doesn't conflict with my own personal assessment of the topic.. His former efforts and that of all of our early pioneers of our cause, allows his opinions to be honored, heard and considered, but not obeyed..

[blm]

229. Then there is a time to fight to abolish this part of the primary process - in the years BEFORE the

prez primary.

I would welcome this initiative and will work for it alongside other Dems committed to changing the process. I constructed this post as a GOTV worker reacting to what I have been reading here over the last few days.

[questionseverything]

238. this cycle has brought a new level to the super delegate thing

because of the way the msm and hc's campaign are reporting them

they are not reporting earned delegates in a separate category from supers,this is dishonest

it gives the false impression that hc is ahead when she is not

i assume that the sd will follow the will of the people and if they don't the repubs will win...it is that simple

[berniepdx420]

176. +1

[George II]

217. Who mentioned the Hillary Clinton Group? This is GD - P.

And the discussion is about Super Delegates.

[Empowerer]

120. Someone here told me the other day that Lewis is now "irrelevant" - and that his "past" sacrifices

"aren't enough for me to overlook the fact that now, after having been in Congress for quite a while, he has now only made himself useful to the mainstream narrators of our existence who dutifully call upon people like Mr. Lewis to make a comment on today's battles for civil rights"

That's the mentality that we're dealing with here . . .

[Fawke Em]

154. And you have a whole thread dedicated to dismissing Bernie's past accomplishments on civil rights.

So, what Lewis did years ago is relevant, but what Bernie did isn't?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[billhicks76]

167. Lol Mentality We Are Dealing With?

Clintonites hypocrisy amazes me.

[Art_from_Ark]

168. Hear, hear!

[billhicks76]

170. Nation Says Hillary Decimated Black America

Try reading this. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

[roguevalley]

138. you are laughable. I don't live in South Carolina and what I told you about my

state is true. I also know about John Lewis because you're talking about my time back when during the moments it all happened. Take your comments and do what you will but don't hand them to me.

[George II]

140. I'm just pointing out that you essentially referred to John Lewis' position..........

......in the Democratic Party as "irrelevant".

And yet the candidate that you support still won't, after all of this, call himself a "Democrat".

Laughable? I think not.

[roguevalley]

141. bullshit. You're on ignore so have a nice day. Awesome how you know everything

about everyone everywhere.

[bravenak]

155. He is no where near irrelevant and the idea he wears a tiara is damn offensive

[Gothmog]

157. I have signed copies of both March 1 and March 2

John Lewis is a national treasure

[bravenak]

159. Yes he is. They should have respect.

[Gothmog]

156. Have you ever been to a state convention?

I am active in my county party and in the 22 counties that make up the state Senate District where I live. The process of being elected to the DNC involves a ton of hard work for the party operations and infrastructure. I know four or five DNC members and every one of these people worked very hard for the party in order to be elected to that position.

As for elected officials, I have seen the toll that it takes on candidates to run for a political office. Elected officials are in a good position to look out for the best interests of the party because they know the importance of the party

[billhicks76]

117. Doesn't Change That It's Corrupt

[CentralMass]

145. Except the explanation falls flat.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/139315-how-do-delegates-work-these-candidate-representatives-play-a-huge-role-in-who-gets-nominated

"Overall, there are 4,763 Democratic delegates, and a candidate must win more than half of them (2,382) to earn the nomination. Superdelegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination. This is particularly important in 2016, because in November, 359 of the 712 superdelegates told the Associated Press that they were already committed to Clinton, as opposed to only eight for Sanders.:

Super delegatesoft are free to support the candidate of their chosing. As of November 359 had already committed to Hillary. So take NewHamshire. It has 8 super delegates and 6 of them have committed for Hillary.

[merrily]

179. Democratic politicians have been under considerable pressure to support Hillary.

Several politicians who are supporting Sanders have said this publicly. Given the actions of DWS, I totally believe them.

That is not what I call "free."

[Voice for Peace]

191. Overriding popular vote of their constituents.

Debbie won't be able to save them.

[Voice for Peace]

192. Don't be appalled, or belittle people for the confusion.

It's good and helpful to read this.
No need ro scold. Backfires.

[CentralMass]

201. I'm not scolding anyone. I am providing facts.

[merrily]

248. Thing is, Debbie and the state parties are far likelier to notice how they cast their super delegate

votes than are their constitutuents.

[Voice for Peace]

255. Well then... There must be already 3 or 4 petitions

Out there to the SD's.

I vaguely remember this concern w Obama but do NOT recall anything like the kind of publicity this is getting.

In cases where SD's defy the popular vote and constituents don't notice well then.. we tell on them. People are suddenly becoming very powerful, I love it.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

242. My understanding that if absent supers Bernie has the lead, the supers then will go

with him or whoever it was that won.

Someone else here can confirm, but if you LOOK at the delegates earned in each primary excluding supers, and in that calculation if Bernie has more, then the supers go to him traditionally.

I am pretty sure this is how it has worked in the past.

[Skwmom]

2. The voters should decide not political insiders (many who are corrupt or bought off). n/t

[blm]

5. Yeah…. working thousands of volunteer hours year after year (EVERY election year) is corrupting.

Get into the arena and tell me about it after a 8-12 years.

[jwirr]

14. Google "After Sander's Big Win in New Hampshire Establishment

Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. by Shana Ryan.

Superdelegates are not volunteers such as yourself. They are governors, congressmen and women, DNC leaders, etc.

The above article is a must read for all.

I am old enough to have participated in politics long before there was such a thing as a superdelegate.

[blm]

58. heh….same here…worked on Kucinich's very first political campaign as a schoolgirl.

Damn, I'm old. ; )

[AlbertCat]

130. thousands of volunteer hours

Well, if they volunteered, they shouldn't expect perks, like "super delegate" powers. It's ridiculous and unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to reward long service.

[dflprincess]

151. Most "super" delegates sre elected officials not volunteers

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

And the whole system was developed so the establishment Dems could put.the brakes on if the voters/caucus goers went off in a direction the party doesn't like.

This precinct chair thinks the system stinks.

[blm]

207. No - it's representatives who vote everyday in the name of their district or state.

The representative vote is part of the primary process, too. Those who wish to see it changed should work on that in the years BEFORE the election instead of wasting energy and adding fury to the process DURING the primary election that will only further divide the party going into the general.

[AlbertCat]

231. No - it's representatives who vote everyday in the name of their district or state.

Then they don't need special representation in the primary.

[blm]

234. Work to change the process BEFORE prez primaries, then. Screaming about process DURING is

downright counter-productive.

[eomer]

256. No, it's not actually.

It's likely the only time the question can get the attention broadly of most constituents of the party. And they are the ones who ought to run the party and decide issues like this - it ought to be a democratic party in addition to being the Democratic Party.

I've also put in thousands of hours (as a precinct captain during general election) and don't think that I should get any more of a vote than my one vote in the primary in my state. My GOTV efforts already mean that I have more effect on the result than just my one vote; I don't need or deserve any more than that.

And let's be clear - the intent and effect of the super delegate system renders the democratic process of selecting a nominee a sham. In effect the people are allowed to select their nominee so long as they select the right one. If they select the wrong one then the party establishment (most of which is corrupt) will nullify democracy (which means it was never real) and substitute their choice for the choice of the people.

And this system is painfully reminiscent of the way the U.S. handles elections in other countries all too often. If the people elect the right person (with our covert money and propaganda tilting the scales) then the election was "democratic". If they don't elect the right person then we know how to fix that, one way or another.

Sorry but, no, the kind of privilege you think you deserve is anti-democratic and part of the problem, one of the reasons (one small one out of a plethora) that our country is not a democracy.

[Skwmom]

163. Do you volunteer so you can override the people's vote? Should a reward for volunteering be the

ability to decide who the nominee is, no matter what the people vote for? Really?

[blm]

198. Elected officials REPRESENT constituents in congress for a reason, too. Don't like superdelegate

system then work to change it BEFORE the next election, or do you find it more productive to use it to further divisions DURING the heat of primary races?

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Heck! Cory Booker campaigned for Chris Christie's 2nd Term over the Democratic Woman Candidate!

.


Should someone like that be in the position to override 10,000 voter's wishes?


.

[JonLeibowitz]

59. Is this true? I am a NJ expat who left around that time -- do you have some good links to read?

Never cared for Cory Booker as a Newark resident.

[brooklynite]

114. Cory Booker endorses Buono to challenge Gov. Christie

The Star-Ledger:

Barbara Buono received another key endorsement today — from the man once considered the favorite to challenge Gov. Chris Christie in November.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker joined a growing list of powerful Democrats throwing their support behind Buono, the state senator from Middlesex County who seems likely claim the party's nomination in the governor's race.

“I am honored to endorse Senator Barbara Buono for governor," Booker said in a statement. "Senator Buono has been a leader in fighting for the interests of taxpayers in New Jersey. She understands what it takes to grow our economy while not giving up on those that need our help most. She has never shied away from taking on the special interests to do what’s right for the people of this state. I admire her tenacity in fighting to curb gun violence, expanding access to healthcare and working tirelessly to get New Jerseyans back to work.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy...

[Empowerer]

122. Someone claimed the other day that the DNC endorsed Christie - when in fact it endorsed Buono AND

DWS personally went to NJ to campaign for her.

Now they're just making sh*t up...

[Art_from_Ark]

183. Sixty New Jersey Democratic officials endorsed Christie

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/democrats_who_endorsed_christie_now_appearing_in_mailers_with_the_governor.html

[mythology]

150. Delete this absolute bullshit

At best, you have no idea what you're talking about. As others have already posted Cory Booker endorsed Christie's opponent.

[TheBlackAdder]

243. Yeah, endorsed her, was a virtual no show, then spoke highly of things Christie was doing.

.


He was late to decide not to run for governor, giving her almost no time to build a team.

He was a friendly adversary, because Christie was pushing for Steve Lonogan for senate.

Especially when Sandy struck, Buono was left out to dry.


.

[bettyellen]

196. Never happened, but Booker is under the Bernie Bus so all bets are off- right?

[Codeine]

101. Dedicated party workers matter less

than non-party voters in an open primary vote? Why, exactly?

[treestar]

110. There's no reason to assume that

not without the most negative view of other people possible. How would one end up having that view?

[Skwmom]

165. Really? There is something extremely troubling about a system that would override the

will of the people. And as for looking at Washington and the political parties as filled with a bunch of corrupt bought and sold politicians and people, I'd suggest that you follow the money and do a little more reading. The FACTS, yes facts paint a real troubling picture which is why the MAJORITY of Americans, despite a corporate media, view our government and our political system as corrupt.

The genie is out of the bottle and there is NO putting it back in. Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all agree, our system is corrupt and does not work for the people.

[CorporatistNation]

121. TOTALLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!

PLENTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSIDER CORRUPTION! I'm From Florida and IT IS The Worst here...

[yourout]

3. No matter how you want to spin it...one vote should...

Not equal 100s of others votes.
Period

[blm]

4. Get into the arena and volunteer thousands of hours year after year.

Pretty sure Bernie agrees with me.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Oh good...more youth bashing.

It's working so well for you...

[blm]

12. Nope - some of the people I work with are recent college grad and have already logged thousands of

hours since 2012. Or were you taking that shot at Sanders?

[jwirr]

16. And these volunteers are somehow what you think a

superdelegate is?

[blm]

21. No - I am saying that is how many of them start out.

And that is how many delegates start out. And that is how many elected Dems start out.

[jwirr]

28. I see. Some good politicians do indeed start out as

volunteers. But they don't get to be super delegates until long after they have been in places of power and all too many of them have long forgotten the idea that the people are to elect the government.

I managed to select my own candidates long before 1968 and I have never liked the idea of a super delegate being able to override my vote. That is where I am coming from.

However, if you have read the link I posted you know that none of this matters at all - they have never and will never override our votes - it is not in their best interest to do so.

[blm]

44. Exactly. They are a benefit to campaigns like Sanders.

Especially Sanders. I am shocked that so many don't understand that aspect. He needed party organization because he chose to run as a Dem 2 years ago. He is relying (organizationally and GOTV) on those of us who organized within the Dem party process for many years, whether people here at DU realize it or not.

[jwirr]

68. Are you aware that it is the party that is not helping Sanders

and not the other way. Many of us who are volunteers have been turned away from Democratic Headquarters in our own communities because the leader does not want to support Bernie. You must be aware of the deliberate denial of more debates until Hillary needs more. And over the years you must know that party leaders like Rahm Emanuel would not support anyone but DLC candidates with DSCC money.

I am sorry but we no longer trust the party faithful who call themselves our leaders.

And as to the long period of volunteering - many of us have done the same. I have been volunteering since JFK. Ran a headquarters for McGovern. Organized the walking maps in Iowa City for Ed Medvinski (Hillary's son in law's father), worked for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. And am now a working for Bernie. So I do not see why I cannot be angry about the new addition of super delegates to our system. We did just fine without them before.

[blm]

79. Not in my state and county. Or in others I know.

The process and the experience has been working in Sanders' favor. My party chair has recently become Sanders' state chair.

[jwirr]

82. Wow. I envy you. There are enough of us here that hopefully

we can turn this thing around.

[blm]

109. I'd like that, but, as a GOTV activist for ALL Dems I pop up here to give another perspective that

some may not be thinking of because they may be unaware of the difficulties we face, especially in purple states. The pressure is enormous. So, I do urge some caution in wasting energy targeting sinister super delegates and taking wild, unneeded potshots, overall.

[jwirr]

115. I hear you. The link I gave you actually says to let it go as

they are not going to risk their own positions by turning over the results of a win. So I am perfectly willing to turn my attention back to winning the primaries the old way and then worry about the convention.

[blm]

116. Thank you - that is exactly what is needed in my 'GOTV' point of view.

.

[dana_b]

98. I don't give hoot how many hours anyone puts into it. That's their problem.

1 person, 1 vote. Period.

[AzDar]

119. ^ This.

[billhicks76]

123. Amen

Join the private sector if you don't like it. I used to get so riled up seeing how republicans rationalize their actions. It's obviously infected our Party too.

[merrily]

180. Please stop saying Bernie agrees with you.

For one thing, anyone could say that about anything, so it's not impressive or persuasive anyway.

For another thing, if that's supposed to make everyone who supports Bernie fall in line, as though we think he is god and/or we cannot think for ourselves, I doubt that will happen.

[PonyUp]

199. Thank you! My thoughts exactly. n/t

[blm]

208. You don't like it, tough for me, eh? Point being that super delegates and primary process system

has been a benefit to the campaign, and THAT he and his campaign DO know. Why do you think they chose former county party chairs to chair their campaigns in states? For their experience. Mock it and me all you want. I think it's a waste of energy and only foments unnecessary fury right before a crucial election.

[merrily]

247. No, the Sanders campaign would be far better off if the system did not exist and repeating that

Sanders agrees with you is both untrue and pointless. I disagreed with you, ffs. I didn't mock you. You started an OP on a controversial subject. Did you not expect disagreement? No clue why you went to victim mode.

I think it's a waste of energy and only foments unnecessary fury right before a crucial election.

No it is not right before an election. It's not even right before Super Tuesday. Which Presidential would you not describe as crucial? Precisely because it is a crucial election I don't want Hillary Regime Change winning the primary and especially not winning it because pressure has been put on super delegates to back her.

[blm]

250. Baloney - 2016 GOTV efforts have been under way….guess we view the election calendar differently.

Sanders REAL campaign team is taking full advantage of the process players in states, even though it is hard for you to fathom.

So…good night.

[restorefreedom]

6. this. nt

[Fumesucker]

7. If the superdelegates follow the will of the majority there will be no problem

Otherwise I suspect there will be a special place in hell for them.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. If they don't the Democratic Party will be deemed ILLEGITIMATE! Then all bets are off for the party!

[HooptieWagon]

15. It's already illegitimate....

...we're working to restore its integrity and honor.

[Mnpaul]

37. and that hell will be named President Trump

I don't think that most of them will go there. We had one vote Edwards in 2008. This is just more fantasy from camp weathervane.

[PonyUp]

200. Is there room in hell with all the female Sanders' supporters that already have reservations? n/t

[Broward]

10. The race should be decided by the voters, period.

[ozone_man]

104. Absolutely!

One person, one vote.

[Kall]

13. If the super delegates follow the will of the voters, there'll be no problem

If they overrule it, you're going to need to rename the party, and accept the ensuing loss in November, because the current name of the Democratic Party won't fit.

Which really calls into question the purpose of them.

[HooptieWagon]

17. If the voters don't matter, how can the party call itself democratic?

[blm]

23. Who is saying the voters don't matter?

I didn't. I am just explaining the wrong of slamming a process that some apparently don't understand.

[HooptieWagon]

29. If the superdelegates overrule the voters, then the voters don't matter, do they?

Look up the meaning of 'democracy'.

[blm]

46. Show me when that has ever happened.

Or are you just being overwrought?

[HooptieWagon]

52. Hillarians are clinging to that hope, praying it will happen.

I don't think the SD will overturn the majority of pledged delegates, as it would be suicide.
As to it happening before, Chicago '68 was similar. No there weren't superdelegates then, but the party establishment rigged the caucuses to give Humphrey all the delegates. He didn't even bother entering the primary states, where 80% of the delegates were won by the anti-war faction. So basically, the party elites told the voters FU. What happened next is history:
http://www.history.com/topics/1960s/videos/violence-batters-1968-democratic-convention

[billhicks76]

128. DU Hillary Group Bragging About It

All of them comment they won't ALLOW Bernie to be the nominee no matter how many votes he gets. Alright then. These people are insuring a President Trump. They better all shut up about Ralph Nadar. They will be an army of Nadars

[blm]

227. Then they are being @sshats - the gloating is just as destructive for GOTV workers as

the fury and backlash.

[Dragonfli]

77. A poster has already declared it has happened in NH - quite recently

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1192547

Excuse me, no reasonable Hillary supporter would "say wait for NH".

Sanders was ahead by 20% to 30%. I had written off both states and was pleasantly surprised when Hillary pulled ahead in IA, even if it was by a very thin margin.

Besides, it's all about the delegates. Sanders won NH handily, but here's the current delegate count in that state.

Hillary 15
Sanders 13

Would you care to tell this person she/he is lying, or are you too unsure of your statement to do so?

[PonyUp]

202. Good question. Waiting for answer. n/t

[merrily]

181. Irrelevant. That is precisely why the institution of super delegates was created and it

certain could happen.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Same thing went on in 2008, Obama supporters sure the Supers were fixed for Clinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4431443
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4604155

Obama even talked about changing it all 'cause it was such a dust up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6675791


So really it's just a primary doing what a primary does. Making it specific to any given candidate is counter to reality.

[blm]

25. Thank you. It's a process.

And established over the years out of necessity. There were no super delegates when Wallace ran - How many here would be proud if Wallace's bid to be the populist prevailed (ala Trump)?

[madfloridian]

36. Out of necessity?

[blm]

50. Television.

Look how easily television is elevating demagogues.

Super delegate part of the process isn't aimed at Sanders - he's actually benefitting from the years of party activism and process because many of us, including the organizations of super delegates, are now working towards his nomination.


What I think some here are reacting to (in a knee-jerk way) is how some of the Clinton supporters are flaunting super delegates in an insufferable way.

If you look at it dispassionately the process has been benefitting Sanders far more than Clinton this ground. It's the whining about the process that has become my line in the sand today. You think I let one of these Dem party process haters effect my going into a party office and working to get more Sanders voters? Nope. But, I wanted to day my piece based on my observations of the ton of BS being posted here lately - today was attack super delegate day.

[TDale313]

105. So the "necessity" is the risk that the people will be too stupid to make the right choice.

That's their purpose- to protect against the grass roots doing something crazy (ya know, like nominating someone like Bernie)

People are free to defend the super delegates if they want- but they are by their very nature there to make the process less democratic.

[blm]

209. So is Congress - we have a representative government and reps vote everyday for EVERY constituent

in their district or state.

Those who do not like any form of representative government in the primary process, as well, should work to challenge it and overturn it in the years BEFORE the election, instead of using their energy to attack the process during the heat of a primary.

My other point is that you just make it harder for the GOTV workers who are focused on EVERY ELECTION.

[merrily]

182. What necessity? to overrule primary votes if deemed desirable?

And then people wonder why turnout is too low

[Art_from_Ark]

187. But if we don't vote for Their Annointed One,

then we're just enabling the Republicans

[merrily]

189. That argument is plenty bad, but this is not only about Hillary and Bernie.

The extremely undemocratic institution of super delegates has existed since Mondale lost to Reagan and will continue to exist unless we do something to stop it. (They tried to institute it after McGovern, but the conservadems hadn't taken over the party yet.)

BTW, the Democrats led the way on this. Republicans did not institute their version of super delegates until well after Democrats did. How sad is that?

[Bluenorthwest]

216. But my point is that you are holding up Bernie and his supporters as very different from the regular

course of this process when the same complaints arise every cycle, not just with Bernie. Obama's 08 ardents on DU are mostly now Hillary supporters, meaning in 08 they were wailing about the unpledged delegates while now they are claiming it is ultra terrible to be critical of the unpledged delegates. It's a massive hypocrisy.

The fact that voters often do not understand the process and do not trust the process is in and of itself sufficient reason to change that process which exists only to serve the voters. Let's talk about that, not about how it's bad when Bernie does it but not when others do it, ok?

[blm]

225. I have repeatedly said in this thread that it happens every election cycle. And if people are

serious about changing it then work to change it in the years before the next prez primary. You're right - it is hypocritical if those whining in 2008 are gloating about it now.

I wish I also said the gloating is just as destructive for GOTV workers as the misunderstanding or complaining about the process is now.

And, from my pov, both camps have advantages from longtime Dem party workers working within their camps. It's not all us vs them. I know most of my fellow Sanders supporters in NC from working side by side with them over the years at various Dem events and elections.

[sadoldgirl]

19. I think I understand the system reasonably well.

As far as I remember the super delegates came only into
existence due to the McGovern election, a time when the
young people rebelled against the party power structure.

These delegates were "chosen" to avoid any more brokered
elections, iow: they were meant to be the adults in the room.

However, it would have been wise to tell them to vote
at the convention with the majority of their districts/states.

The fear here is that in this election they will vote against
that majority due to the influence of the party apparatus
in DC.

I don't know whether this suspicion is justified or not, and
the issue may become obsolete due to an overwhelming
amount of delegates for one candidate.

But many of the general voters don't want their votes
to become disenfranchised due to a party, which does
not seem to care about representing their issues.

[blm]

27. Every election it becomes fodder for suspicion….and every year it proves to be unwarranted.

.

[jeff47]

72. Then perhaps it's a really fucking stupid thing to keep around. (nt)

[CentralMass]

139. The party mangled the 2008 primary. The party hierarchy

lead by the late (rest his soul) Ted Kennedy rigged the election for the Senator from Illinois. They spit on the voters of Florida and Michigan.

I recall watching MSNBC the night of the Florida primary when Senator Kerry was on doing more campaigning for Senator Obama. In the back drop you could see the Hillary was leading (from memory ) by 280,000 votes. The Senator didn't acknowledge it once and just kept selling Senator Obama'said praises. Our primary in MA was still a month away and Hillary was leading in the our state wide polls by 25 points or more..senator Kennedy had pulled out all the stops for Senator Obama and was rallying his labor union contacts from coast to coast. Hillary went on to win our primary by double digits and yet Senator Obama received more super delegatesoft then Hillary and our Senators Kennedy, Kerry and our Governor Deval Patrick were among them.

I support Senator Sanders this go around but the Super D' process is an unnecessary bastardization of the Democratic process no matter who it's used to elect.

[demosocialist]

48. k&r sadoldgirl

I have logged thousands upon thousands of hours in progressive groups and organizations through the years and I have never expected anything other than the advancement of the cause. Democratic party cause is promoting a Democratic candidate for consideration in a GE through democratic means (I assume). I congratulate the OP for your many years of service and thank you, but you and no one else gets extra privilege in any election. You Volunteered like a lot of people do for the cause you chose to promote, that does not give you or anyone a privileged position in the choosing of a Democratically elected person. I am sure it gives you a considerable amount of influence and respect (as I truly respect you and all volunteers) but not privilege or an extra vote.

I am aware that it has never flipped a nomination at the convention, but that seems to be the reason it was put into the process, almost as a safeguard. I just don't think we should have a safeguard. We may disagree, but I would think that the skepticism is warranted.

Just so you know, I am a Sanders supported, but if this was Clinton in this position or even a Trump like character (god help us) I would still be against Super-delegates. I know that may be hard to believe with the partisanship, but I have always thought it was a weird thing to have in the process.

BTW I think it does hurt candidates when they add the super-delegate count so early in the election and skew the numbers as A LOT of media outlets are doing and did in other elections.

just my 2 cents

[billhicks76]

127. Big Money Corrupts

[HubertHeaver]

20. Who are you to tell us how to think?

You're not a star member.

I suppose I should put this here, just to take the edge off the comment.

Though, I think the post reflects your attitude.
The supers have earned a position of trust but they violated that trust by jumping for Hillary before the first vote was cast.

[FSogol]

30. The super delegates aren't entitled to their opinions? AAR, their votes do not

count until the convention. Then, you'll see that just like every other presidential election ever, their votes will shift to the person who won the most delegates during the process. See the Obama/HRC race for an example. Sanders supporters need to worry about getting out the vote in future primaries, not wailing over the normal election system which hasn't failed in all these years.

[mcar]

22. Thank you for this good explanation

[AtomicKitten]

24. This is a democracy, not the Special Olympics.

I am stunned this is coming from you.

[blm]

31. Because you met me as a staunch anti-Clinton Democrat. I converted you, as I recall. ; )

Why be stunned that I understand the long hours it takes to work election after election? You do know all of us dogged Dems who actually FIGHT in the arena county by county are also benefitting Sanders, don't you?

[AtomicKitten]

39. yes you were my maker :)

I so completely disagree with you on this. Give them a 2-week cruise if you think they deserve a reward. But the vote is sacrosanct. Nobody deserves their thumb on the scale like this. Nevertheless it's nice to see you. Hope all is well.

[blm]

51. It's not a thumb on the scale.

But, I can understand how it can be seen that way.

[JonLeibowitz]

70. If it is not meant to be a thumb on the scale, why not just give all such "boots on the ground"...

passes to the national convention as a reward? I really don't see how it isn't supposed to be seen as a thumb on the scale, when a candidate like Clinton touts her superdelegate lead before the states vote and even after she is behind in the pledged count.

Oh and by the way, what is a good way to get involved in local Dem politics? Not for a presidential candidate, I mean for the actual heavy lifting of the party. I am interested in getting involved.

[blm]

76. Find your county headquarters. It is usually a good way to learn the ins and outs.

Sanders campaign touts his supers, too, but there is no backlash to be heard, because if anyone NEEDS to benefit from the organizations state by state of those supers and those who have worked for them, it is Sanders - and he is. Sanders state chair here was a Dem party chair in my county. The Dem process system is working to his benefit, and I am surprised that many of his voters don't even know it, let alone appreciate it.

[JonLeibowitz]

83. Thanks for the info.

Couldn't those senior political operators, what are now supers, still have that political clout without a formal vote at the convention? They would stilll be party elders, able to help out at the local level in organizing a campaign for that state's caucus/primary?

I guess my question is, isn't the experience and political connections what candidates should be after with the supers, not the presence of a pledged-delegate-overriding (in theory, otherwise why have them) vote at the convention.

Is there something I am missing about all of this? Because it certainly seems to not pass the democracy "smell test".

[merrily]

184. Try answering the question. Super delegates most definitely were created to put a thumb

on the scale and visiting county headquarters has nothing to do with that.


Sanders needs to benefit from supers because (a) they exist; and (b) they've been pressured to support Hillary. If they did not exist Sanders would not need to benefit from them and no one could pressure them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

135. Your own words run counter to it not being "a thumb on the scale."

It is set up so that those who pay closest attention to elections over a number of years and decades and have worked for electing Democrats to office for many years/decades or have been elected after years of being scarred by the process might gain an added voice by doing so.

[blm]

206. Anyone who's been here awhile knows I word things awkwardly. ; ) The elected who are supers already

represent constituents everyday in Congress or their state. We have a representative government. If people don't like the super delegates having a representative vote in the primary process, as well, then challenge it in the years BEFORE the election. It doesn't help the general election or the many workers focused on GOTV to gin up controversy over super delegates in the process DURING the primary.

[cherokeeprogressive]

215. 150 superdelegates AREN'T elected officials. They're simply members of the DNC.

How does that work?

[blm]

224. They were still elected to represent in the PROCESS - Change the process BEFORE not DURING the

primaries.

[AOR]

26. The currently constructed Democratic Party does not represent any "organized left"...

that's your first mistake. Your second mistake is this is a "do you know who I am post." Nobody on the street and struggling gives a shit who you and the party hacks are. Politics is not about YOU or the party hacks. Get your fucking house in order and fight for the priorities of a leftist platform or get the fuck off the stage.

[blm]

38. If that's what you think then you don't understand how it benefits Sanders - thankfully, he does.

I am a nobody with no greater design than to stop the Republican fascists on EVERY LEVEL of government.

Thankfully, you do not represent Sanders, who just happened to choose one of MY co-workers as his NC chair. It takes thousands of hours for tens of years - it doesn't happen just one presidential cycle.

[AOR]

60. Electoral politics and electing Sanders...

is but a very small piece of the puzzle in turning things around. This election is not about Sanders. This election is about the millions who support Sanders who are fed up with a corrupted political system and disgusted with the insider political hacks.

"You dummies and know nothings need to shut up, stop criticizing, and get on the bandwagon with the process" no matter how fucked up (which is basically what you're saying here) takes wind out of the sails of the movement of people supporting the Sanders campaign.

If this is about platitudes, lip-service, and sheep-dogging for the Democratic Party functionaries at every turn rather than about a potential movement of people forcing leftist change, then it will amount to nothing.

[blm]

66. Tell that to the tens of millions of citizens who actually NEED a Dem in office to

get a job, pay rent, feed their family, get to a doctor, educate their children……etc……

EVERY election matters - when the drive by shouters go away next year there are still elections in cities, counties, and states that need workers and volunteers to protect ALL the citizenry.

[AOR]

88. Again...the currently constructed Democratic Party...

DOES NOT represent the needs of the struggling over the priorities of private capital. That you refuse to accept that fact is troubling. This is not the party of any leftist movement. This is not even close to the party of New Deal reform and radical Democrats of the past. This is a party completely beholden to capital and corporate interests. If that continues the people supporting Sanders will look elsewhere for answers. The Democratic Party machine keeps telling em to piss off, fall in line, and be accepting because they have nowhere else to turn. That's gonna change because the anger and dissatisfaction with business as usual is reaching a crescendo.

[FSogol]

32. K&R. Thanks for inserting some truth into the wailing and gnashing of teeth

taking place.

[madfloridian]

33. Act of petulance? blm you are better than that.

I know why the party added them, and it was to make sure only Democrats actively on the inside got to decide the winner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027599674

[blm]

43. That never happened. And it likely never will. I'm surprised that some don't SEE how

longtime party activists and super delegates and their outreach are benefitting Sanders campaign? We know how to organize more than just precincts and know how to GOTV. We learned that from other longtime Dem activists. It's a process - those who don't appreciate it are usually the ones who do their bit for the moment and then leave the day to day, month to month, year to year heavy lifting to others…..then they bash them.

[99Forever]

34. Oh please.

Ignore the will of the people at your own peril, Democratic Party.

Fuck the "arena" and all who think it should grant them special power.

[blm]

41. Please tell that to GOP, too. Or do you prefer Sanders eschew ALL super delegates and

everyone who has worked for the party and against Republicans for decades?

Thank stars Sanders knows how to operate within the process a helluva lot more than some of you here.

[ImaPolitico]

97. It's a tie!

Delegate issue:
According to Dr. Rachel Maddow/MSNBC….Actually Sanders and Hillary are tied even though Sanders beat Clinton last night. It's a tie! Each got 15 delegates a piece. Sanders won the vote and Clinton won the super delegates. In the end it was a tie!

[99Forever]

129. Not my job.

You got something to say to them, do it yourself.

Typical establishment cronyism won't cut it this time.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Hekate]

35. Thank you for being the one to explain this.

Words of long experience from you and others here are being derided and roundly dismissed.

It's gotten so bad around DU I've begun to hear the rumble of the tumbrels ... In other words, "revolution" that's lost sight of friends and allies and has become indiscriminate in its destruction.

[blm]

40. This latest round of arrows being slung at super delegates forced this post.

I'd prefer to stay my anonymous self working in the trenches day after day. I am amazed that so many here are showing they don't understand how those of us in the trenches, including those who are now super delegates, are using that experience and organization to act powerfully on behalf of Sanders and his voters.

[Nanjeanne]

45. These elected officials work HAAAARD

So of course they should get a vote that overrides thousands of regular people's choice.

What's wrong with you stupid people expecting democracy to be real?

[winter is coming]

49. ^^ This. n/t

[blm]

56. That's not how it actually works. Sanders knows that, and, thankfully, so do others

who will be using their years of working within the process to Sanders' benefit.

I am sure that some here want to believe it all happened in a vacuum……but…..it didn't.

[MisterP]

61. that's their same approach to economics

Wall Street works 600,000 times harder than someone getting maced at counter at the GameStop

[blm]

91. Not the same, at all, MisterP, and you know it. ; P

Pretty sure I work a thousand times harder than Paul Singer.

[Eric J in MN]

111. +1 (NT)

NT

[Bill USA]

47. you said: "Sanders and DU is better than these displays of petulance" Sanders yes, his supporters..

I think you are expecting rather too much of the Sanders supporters. I think if you took away their petulance their would be nothing left, but the scream. LOL!!

[moriah]

53. The only people who are doing so are, on both sides, fighting the last war.

The 2008 nomination process was nuts -- we all admit it, and I see Florida and Michigan haven't tried to jump up their primaries again this year.

THIS time, each candidate will get to campaign in all fifty states, attempting to increase interest and enthusiasm in the election so that our Democratic Congressional people running can ride in on the nominee's coattails if we get high enough voter turnout.

Remember that primary turnout is a GREAT indicator of turnout for the General. But it isn't anything similar to a "popular vote" in a general election all on the same day. Getting to fully participate in the Caucus process takes a LOT longer than dropping by the precinct at about 10 AM in a primary. But we couldn't know what the popular vote would have been in 2008, because none of the candidates got to campaign in two major states.

----

Remember that unlike the national elections, the primaries aren't winner-take-all. The Party designed its process to listen to every member of our Big Tent who wants to have a say in our platform and nominee, not just ones in specific states. But if they can't reach the nomination threshold on popular vote alone, or if there is an outright tie, then the unpledged delegates can look at the will of the people if it's obvious one was clearly ahead, or decide -- based on their experience as current or former successfully elected Democrats -- which is truly the best ticket to beat the particular GOP opposition that year.

Stop fighting the last war, both Hillary and Bernie supporters. Remember the lessons we learned from it -- particularly, that negativity online DOES drive the MSM, the GOP, and all the people against our Party who are happy to watch us eat our own. But look beyond focusing on sex, race, religion, labels, or purity contests when if we agree the system is rigged, we agree that no one in Washington is UNtouched by said rigging.

WE aren't the ones selling ourselves to the highest bidder for our own primaries -- even counting outside funds spent already against or for our candidates (less than $2.5 mil positive run by us, close to $5 million negative against us run by them, less than 1 mil against Bernie... yet....) they've spent over $170,000,000 of PAC money for their primaries. And there's far more raised already for the General.

Seriously, even if Hillary is more touched by the rigged system than Bernie, there's no comparison to the GOP machine. At all.

[blm]

63. Salute. Good post.

.

[moriah]

73. Thanks! :) n/t

[merrily]

185. This primary is between Bernie and the Clinton machine, not Bernie and the GOP machine.

[moriah]

211. Okay, since you opened that can of worms...

You remember what he said after Iowa? Claiming that he started his Iowa primary campaign "taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America"?

Well, if you or Bernie really think Hillary Clinton (or her "machine&quot is really more powerful than the entire GOP, that sounds like an endorsement to me.

Edit: It also speaks poorly to his (and his supporters) ability to see the big picture. Which is that instead of eating our own, we MUST keep the White House.

[Bluenorthwest]

218. Your rhetoric seems unconnected with Democratic history. Have you heard of Harvey Milk?

Harvey's first campaign posters did not even name his rival, they said this- Harvey Milk vs The Machine. He ran openly and pointedly against the Democratic Machine in SF, he was opposed by the gay establishment and by the Democratic establishment. It is an absolute fact that defeating the mainstream political Machines can be essential to progress for minority persons and minority ideas. The Democrats back in Harvey's day were not pro LGBT, many had right wing economic views Harvey did not share, many were very segregated from other communities in SF. He had to organize the rank and file, defeat the powerful established Democratic elite in order to get elected and thank God he did because the Democratic Party was not prepared to defeat Briggs and it took brilliant activism inside and outside the Party to prevent that horrible law from passing.

[moriah]

220. Not denigrating Harvey Milk or his campaign or accomplishments.... but that was a local election.

Again, suggesting the Hillary campaign is the "most powerful political organization in the United States of America" is really forgetting who our real enemy is.

And that's the GOP. If you don't see that both our candidates are 100 times better than anything they offer... le sigh.

[merrily]

246. Wow! Where to begin. Um, you misunderstood my post. I never said the Clinton machine

was more powerful than the GOP machine. Not even close. Nor is a powerful political machine an endorsement for the Presidency. Mafia dons have powerful machines. That doesn't mean they should be President.

My point was the the GOP machine has nothing to do with a Democratic primary.

Which is that instead of eating our own, we MUST keep the White House.

First, why the fsck would you assume from my post about primary vs. general that I did not get that was your simple, blatantly obvious point. Second, it speaks poorly --not about me, but to me--that so many Hillary supporters on this board pretended to be Bernie's supporter or neutral when their agenda is apparent in almost every post they make anyway.

Third to extrapolate anything about Bernie from my post is fscking bizarre, especially that point. He ran as a Democratic so as not to be a spoiler. He has said repeatedly that a Democrat must be in the White House. That is, and always has been his position, since before he announced. However, as was my point before, this is the primary. When we get through the primary, I'll think about the general.

[moriah]

249. Definitely, I misunderstood, but...

... but your candidate said that, and it didn't come across very well about what HE seems to think he's dealing with.

I think it's unproductive to use slurs against our own candidates. Search my posts. I don't refer to Bernie negatively. So yes, you referring to the "Clinton machine" kind of pissed me off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Some delegates are more equal than others. Especially, if they aren't voted for but selected.

Or, would that be "rewarded" for being "good" party members. .

[Cheese Sandwich]

55. The superdelegate system is anti-democratic and should be abolished.

Not surprisingly superdelegates love the superdelegate system.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. The slams are not against superdelegates, but the ratfucking

The slams are not against superdelegates, but the ratfucking done by some falsely judging the contest by including superdelegate votes this early in the game. Truth is, we have no idea how they will vote until the convention. Anything prior to that is pure speculation.

[blm]

71. True. The process is there for more reasons than easily understood. Working in the trenches

gives you a different perspective. It's nowhere near the level of 'conspiracy' that fevered minds imagine. There are probably more Sanders supporters in my Dem HQ than there are HRC, but, we have all worked together for so many years that everyone just does their thing knowing we are still working towards one goal - to elect Dem lawmakers and advocate for Dem policies.

[Vinca]

62. I don't think anyone is slamming superdelegates.

It just makes sense that, in the end, if the rank and file Democratic voters have overwhelmingly chosen one candidate, another shouldn't be nominated because of superdelegates. It's a surefire way to destroy a party. If you want the rules to say superdelegates get to choose the nominee, change the rules. And watch the party crumble.

[riversedge]

64. Thank you for your post. It was needed.

[mgmaggiemg]

65. you do really have it right about the displays of petulance

cheers, Maggie

[TwilightGardener]

67. I think we peon voters allowed to "slam" those who wield power over us, don't you?

I mean, I can vote, but it may not mean a hill of shit if one of my supposed party betters overrides me. People are grousing about the POTENTIAL issue of superdelegates ignoring the will of Dem voters, we should be clear it hasn't officially happened yet and maintain some perspective--but I think it's fine to put them on notice that we don't like that possibility. Just lettin' them know, you know?

[bigtree]

69. k&r

[SheilaT]

75. Thank you for posting this.

It is sadly obvious that those here who are pissing and moaning about the super delegates don't seem to have much of a clue about them. They are NOT endowed with super votes, and do NOT overrride the will of the other delegates. They have ALWAYS wound up voting with the majority at the convention.

What apparently confuses so many is that a number of them go ahead and endorse a candidate -- in this case Hillary Clinton -- even before the first primary or caucus. It's further obfuscated by the networks lumping the super delegates in with those chosen in the caucus or primary. As Bernie progresses through this season, as I hope he does, more of the SDs will either openly switch their allegiance, or will somehow mysteriously become uncommitted.

They are not a monolithic group who behave as kingmakers. Never have. I feel quite certain they never will.

Of course, it is possible that Bernie and Hillary will end up splitting all the delegates rather equally, and then perhaps the SDs will actually matter. Somehow I doubt it.

Here's something else no one seems to have paid much attention to. And that is, as the primary season progresses, and as a candidate starts racking up the primary and caucus wins, people who hadn't been paying much attention before, suddenly notice what's going on, and they want to be voting for the winner.

So all of you who are so exercised about how totally unDemocratic this whole thing is, start being very active in the Democratic Party. Work on election day. Volunteer for the local candidates. Become a precinct chair. Run for office yourself. And as you work your way up, start working to eliminate the super delegates you think are so awful. Be an actual agent of change, not someone just sitting in front of the computer complaining.

[retrowire]

78. Hi blm,

I too, am a Sanders supporter. And don't worry, I understand the process.

it does look unfair on the face of it all, but super delegates will change their positions the reflect the will of their people.

I just believe alot of us Bernie supporters are prepared for the worst in regards to rigging and corruption because Bernie is not apart of the status quo.

The logic then, is that we assume the status quo will not support him, even if we play by the rules with our votes.

This election is more important than anything I've seen so I believe people see a lot on the line here. This is fear and distrust. And honestly, why shouldn't the people distrust the process as it is now?

I don't think it's best to reprimand your fellow supporters when you could empathize with the root of our problems to begin with; distrust in the system.

[blm]

84. I do get that, but, as a matter of history, that distrust in super delegates is just not warranted

and, further, has been an enormous benefit to Sanders. Those here who don't understand the entire process and never worked within it on various levels election after election, don't seem to WANT to grasp that reality. Without the decades of trench work and training, Sanders couldn't be as well organized on the ground as he is in more states than just Iowa and NH. There have been many posts today shooting at super delegates, with absolutely no understanding of how that same process has helped give rise to Sanders' campaign.

[retrowire]

85. well, whoever claimed that fear led to rational reactions?

it's fear and distrust. that's all.

[blm]

90. ; )

.

[Iggo]

80. "...gain an added voice..."

That's kinda the thing.

[blm]

213. They are representatives - they vote for ALL constituents every day in congress and in their states.

If people do not want any representative voting allowed in the election process, then work to change it in the years BEFORE the next presidential primary process.

[Iggo]

232. So then they don't "gain an added voice"?

[blm]

236. You can mock me for my awkward wording all you want - but, it's a waste of your energy, imo.

I'm kinda known here since the early days for awkwardly wording my posts. I lost a significant part of my vocabulary in a major earthquake, and I struggle sometimes to remember appropriate words to use. My postings are a bit better than my speaking ventures. ; )

The earnestness remains the same….and very real.

[Iggo]

237. I wasn't mocking you. That looked like very careful wording to me. No awkwardness about it.

[blm]

241. Perhaps to you - But, others who know me better here could probably see the

awkwardness you may not. It took me a few years, and intense focus, before I could post complete sentences. ; )

[GoneFishin]

81. Not buying what you are selling. No one has the right to dilute my vote because they are rich

or well connected, or part of some dynasty, or for any other lame excuse to pretend that they are special.

[blm]

87. Not selling - I'm explaining how the process has also benefitted Sanders for those here who have

tended to let others do the heavy lifting for the party and the mundane every day work year after year, election after election - school board, city, county, state…..one big yawn, surely of no interest to some here.

[A Simple Game]

86. Maybe you should read up on some of the history behind the reason for super delegates.

Voters can't be trusted now can they, we better put a safety check in place in case it's needed. Maybe you should even look up what democratic means and question some of the actions of the party that takes that name. To have super delegates and ones that are so blatantly bias is shameful for any party let alone one that calls itself democratic.

Now tell us why some super delegates claimed to support Hillary before the campaigning even started? Quid Pro Quo perhaps? Maybe all that money Hillary supporters claim she is raising for the DNC is going only to delegates that have pledged to support Hillary.

[blm]

89. Why did all those super delegates support Dean so early on before first primary? Fevered minds can

come up with all sorts of sinister reasons - but, the process doesn't really work like that, does that? I never once suspected that a super delegate for Dean was a quid pro quo situation, even though I well understood that Dean was far more establishment a politician and lawmaker than the majority of his voters in that election cycle, and was too much of a centrist in his governance than I preferred. I wanted the anti-corruption candidate who was the furthest left. But, I never begrudged Dean his supers, and they turned out not to matter within the first month of primary voting.

So……bottom line….there are grips to be gotten.

[salin]

92. thanks and side note:

great to see you blm! Been a long time since our paths have crossed - greatly appreciate the moment.

[blm]

95. Hey gorgeous….I've been trying to stay out of the fray. I pop in to counter unfair potshots being

slung back and forth that I feel may have a detrimental effect on GOTV efforts down the road.


This is one time when I can truly say 'both sides do it'. ; )

[salin]

106. I, too, have been staying out of the fray.

I still try to peek in. Not as focused as you (per effect on GOTV), but am drawn to that effort/point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Shorter explanation

like 2008, super delegates will quietly switch once the process gets far enough, if indeed more primaries are won by Sanders than Clinton.

If they do not, the specter of 1968 comes all over again.

[blm]

100. And THAT is the reality.

Nothing as sinister as some would like to believe. Tremendous waste of energy, especially when the process has actually turned out to benefit Sanders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Well I had to stop following a local party chairwoman

I had it... and for god sakes I am just a lowly reporter.

But I get the nefarious suspicions, from actually being a fly in the wall of party establishments.

My feeling, which will not be a nice one for starters, to the owner of this site, who IS part of the core establishment, is that both party establishments are not happy, and they have a lot less control of the populous than they think. but the populous still believes that both establishments have a lot more control than they actually do.

Once you leave partisanship behind... it is kind of liberating.

[Rocky the Leprechaun]

143. Therein lies the problem. Clinton Machine?

What if the superdelegates fear the Clinton Machine and refuse to change even if it becomes clear that Bernie wins the most delegates in the states?

[TBF]

96. I've worked as a precinct chair & I don't think anyone

owes me anything. This type of lecturing by the establishment is only going to turn off more people. Keep at it.

[blm]

103. I didn't say they did owe me anything. And I am far from establishment. I was explaining to those

posting overthetop potshots at the super delegates that the process has actually been a benefit to Sanders because of the training, experience, and organization learned from participating in the actual process over the years.

Sanders office workers are many of the same people from Dem party HQ I've worked with - and that includes some super delegates. The unfair potshots targeting supers and at longtime party activists working for the entire Dem party inspired this post. You don't like it, tough for me, eh? But, I wrote the truth.

[Bonobo]

99. How DARE anyone challenge the right to have unequal political influence! nt

[Art_from_Ark]

175. Aw, come on-- those backroom dealmakers just have our best interests at heart!

Honest and true! Scout's honor!

[Bonobo]

177. It's because of their deep experience, doncha know! They're like pros at choosing for us, man! nt

[BooScout]

107. Thank you.

This is an excellent post!

[Feeling the Bern]

108. One person, one vote. Superdelegates are one vote, same as regular delegates

What's your problem with democracy?

[CentralMass]

144. That is not even close to being correct.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/139315-how-do-delegates-work-these-candidate-representatives-play-a-huge-role-in-who-gets-nominated

"Overall, there are 4,763 Democratic delegates, and a candidate must win more than half of them (2,382) to earn the nomination. Superdelegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination. This is particularly important in 2016, because in November, 359 of the 712 superdelegates told the Associated Press that they were already committed to Clinton, as opposed to only eight for Sanders.:

Super delegatesoft are free to support the candidate of their chosing. Their electoral weight is worth far more then a single vote.

[Feeling the Bern]

146. Wrong. state goes to someone, they get the delegates

superdelegates are undemocratic. IF you like this system, then we as a party are in deep trouble. 712 people should not have 30% of the nominating power. Why not just let the 1% chose our leaders?

Why not give SD's 100% and end the pretense of voter choice? Nothing you say will convince me this is a good system. It isn't and hasn't been.

One delegate, one vote, following what the State voted based on returns.

[CentralMass]

147. Did you read my post ? That was the point I was making.

[Feeling the Bern]

148. I misinterpreted your post, as I believe you misinterpreted mine

We seem to be saying the same thing. SD's are bullshit.

[CentralMass]

149. Absolutely.

[w4rma]

112. The use of superdelegates seems like a self-destruct button, to me.

If superdelegates *ever* decide the result of a Democratic primary, kiss every Democratic politician who supported overruling the voters' choice goodbye. And that includes the superdelegates' pick. There will be no re-uniting the party after that, until the offenders are jettisoned.

Why even have the anti-democratic rule if it can never be used?

[UglyGreed]

124. Exactly

why have it in the first place? As of right now the superdelegates are being used as propaganda to discourage those who support a candidate who is not supported by those in power.

[UglyGreed]

113. Here have some

cake.

[UglyGreed]

125. .

[davidthegnome]

126. With respect...

If your intent is to educate, you might have chosen different words. You come out swinging, convinced that you are saying the right things for the reasons - and perhaps you are "Displays of petulance" are common enough in the every day world, but what you are seeing here, for the most part, is justified anger at the injustice, corruption - and greed, of our current political system.

At it's base level... the very concept of a "super delegate" is despicable to me. Let's ask ourselves - and answer truthfully, but one question... which is this: Could they alter the vote in favor of one particular candidate, regardless of the popular vote?

Absolutely. Now, I respect those who have worked and fought in the political arena for the masses... some of them, in any event. Others I feel long ago lost sight of their cause. One person - one vote. Why is that not a concept which should be realized? Not out of disdain for super delegates (at least, not on my part) but out of simple common sense and respect for the democratic process. For what, at least, should be a democratic process.

I live in a very conservative part of Northern Maine, which, since the LePage embarrassment, has become even more difficult to live in. Yet, I have heard from moderates and conservatives alike, that they might be tempted to vote for Sanders... if they didn't think the super delegates controlled the vote. Are they misinformed? Perhaps. However, it is entirely possible, even probable, that, at some future date, these super delegates that you are suggesting are warriors for the common good, might instead actually alter the results of an election to devastating results.

The arena? You speak of the arena as if, by merely being in it, one is serving the common good, fighting for the masses in some noble way. While I cannot prove that this is NOT the truth, I believe that if we carefully examined some of these super delegates, we'd be in for a whole lot of surprises.

As for what Sanders knows and doesn't know, well, it's tough to say who knows what he knows and doesn't know, it might indeed be a process of that that could leave us running in our heads like a hamster in a ball.

Frankly, every time I see "<Insert celebrity> endorses <insert candidate" I pretty much react with a shrug. Who I am voting for, or not voting for, is not going to be determined by celebrity, by super delegate, or by external influences... but, rather, by my own ideals, principles, my own notion of what is right and wrong. Not being a super delegate, my vote is worth... well, one vote. Why should theirs be any different?

Talk about the arena... what about the arena of working sixty hours a week for minimum wage until you get injured and can't do it anymore? What about when you can't get health insurance, or afford an education, or rent, or the basic necessities of reasonable living? You know... someone who struggles with that is in their own arena. The people who most deserve our admiration, our appreciation and our respect are those same people who struggle through situations that would be unthinkable to many of us... yet, they come out the other end, decent human beings, working, living... and fighting for the common good, without the benefit of super delegate status.

The arena... life itself is an arena. Earning things the hard way? I know quite a bit about earning things - and losing things, the hard way. My class knows all about that arena, that's why so many of us are supporting Sanders.

I do not say that the struggles and dedications of these *individuals* (super delegates) are meaningless, I say that, if they are truly our representatives, truly fighting for us, than our votes and their votes should each be counted as one vote - nor should they want it any other way. Anything else is so wide open to abuse or corruption that it frankly boggles my mind.

Elections are hard work? So is carpentry, so is being a physician, so is teaching, so is being a fire fighter, or police officer, or a Marine, or a Dish Washer, or a waitress, or a stay at home mom or dad. I can tell you which ones I find to be "harder" work.

I'm sorry, but I do not find the concept of super delegates to be democratic. If Sanders does, than I have found something on which we disagree - but I do not think that either of us can speak for him on the matter with any authority.

Stick it out year after year and decade after decade? Haven't a whole lot of us been doing just that? Your condescension is directed in the wrong place - and at the wrong people.

[noamnety]

132. Some people are just more equal than others.

And that's why their vote is worth 10,000 little people's votes. They've earned 10,000 votes. We call this "the slightest privilege."

That's how democracy works.

Got it.

[MellowDem]

133. Even understanding the super delegate system...

I don't like it or the purpose it serves. Not having a super delegate system wouldn't lose us these people or their experience. It really is there as an anti-populist measure, nothing more. That is its whole purpose.

And when you consider how many Americans don't get any real choice in a two party system, it just makes it worse.

[Android3.14]

137. The question is, should some votes count more than others?

Until we answer that question, your claim of being a Sanders voter adds no weight to your essay. And not to demean the work of election volunteers (are the super delegates all unpaid for their election efforts and only receive the super delegate status as a reward?) put into elections, the level of effort anyone puts into the Democratic process may not be the best criteria for determining who has the strongest vote.

I think history shows that one-person one-vote is the essence of democracy. As Democrats, it seems we should emulate our namesake.

[Thinkingabout]

152. K & R, good post, it was needed to explain the super delegate procedure.

Each state gets super delegates and the Democratic members of Congress are super delegates along with governors, state legislatures and others. In the case of NH they have eight super delegates of which six have endorsed Hillary for a total of 32 delegates for the state.

[CentralMass]

164. She won 38% of the vote in NH but is receiving 75% of the super delegates

[Thinkingabout]

193. And your point is? Do you understand the difference in

The two type of delegates?

[CentralMass]

203. Yes, I fully understand the difference.

Superdelegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination. Superdelegates d's can pledge their votes for the candidate of their choice.
Are you suggesting that there is no problem with a candidate receiving 38% of a states primary vote while getting 75 % of its super delegates?

[Thinkingabout]

205. The super delegates do not make their endorsements based on

The vote count, the super delegates was not designed to vote accordingly to the vote percentage. No there is not anything wrong with super delegates endorsing the candidate of their choice. I don't understand your reasoning to designate the super delegates on the vote count.

[CentralMass]

226. My desire is to eliminate a system that would allow these

Special delegates the power to circumvent the democratic process and will of the voters.

38% of the state's residents voted for Hillary in this case and she got a proportional share of the standard delegates. This is good. Then however, 6 of the 8 super delegates for the state (that is 75%) pledged for Hillary while Bernie who won 60% of the vote, and also recieved a proportional amount of the standard delegates, only recieved 25% of the super delegates.

If you can't see what is wrong with this, I can't help you.

The super d"s make up 30% of the required delegate total needed by a candidate to win the nomination. That is a lot of electoral power being given to a small number of individuals who in this example are disproportionately voting for the candidate that lost the state's primary.

In layman's terms this is bull $hit.

[Thinkingabout]

233. Would it be fair to say if Sanders had the endorsement of the super delegates there

probably would not be a complaint. Furthermore the super delegates did not start in this year and Sanders agreed to the DNC rules. Sanders has been working with these super delegates for twenty five years, he knows why they are not endorsing him. Is this going to change, don't know, for now this is the DNC rules. He wants the DNC organization, this is a part of the DNC organization.

[CentralMass]

235. No that would not be fair to say. The will of the voters should determines the election.

We don't need a party safety valve that allows them to manipulate the process.

Most of us are not blind sycophants who want our candidate to win at all costs. We are issues voters and we want a fair electoral process.

[DesertRat]

153. Thank you for the post

k&r

[bunnies]

158. You wrote that dramatic headline for yourself?

This is the fucking problem. You think you matter more than the rest of us. Just like her super delegates and just like the 1%. Guess what. The 99% are finally waking the fuck up. End scene.

[bkkyosemite]

160. The citizen's vote should be the only thing that counts.

[Zorra]

162. Well, then, don't even think about overriding the popular vote, and we'll all hug

and sing Kumbaya around the trashcan fire until we eliminate the superdelegate system altogether.

Personally, I've been in "the arena" of life year after year, and I'm still trying to wash the piss off my back from the oligarchs who keep pissing on me and insist that it's raining.

[valerief]

171. Super delegates serve no purpose except as hedges for the establishment.

That's why they were created.

[mhatrw]

172. More "pay to play" crap only this time with dues. They paid their dues, so they get to override

democracy. No thanks.

We could not have more potent argument against superdelegates than the biggest victory margin in NH primary history resulting in a net delegate loss for Sanders' record breaking vote tally. Surely you must realize this.

[merrily]

188. +1 Biggest victory margin in NH primary history, but Hill left with more delegates.

Exactly. Speaks for itself. Or it should.

I"m not standing on their shoulder. They are standing on our shoulders. Our taxes pay their salaries, the salaries of their staff, the rent for their offices, the light bill, the phone bill, etc. If they don't think holding office is enough reward for them, up the salary or don't run. The idea that you get my vote to put you in office, my tax dollars to pay your salary and expenses AND you get to have more of a say in who becomes President than I do? Fskc that twice.

[Fearless]

174. The poutrage is strong in this one.

[merrily]

186. Defending something as undemocratic as Super Delegates takes a lot.

[merrily]

178. Long before I thought of Sanders running, I thought Super Delegates undemocratic.

The institution was set up specifically to override the will of a majority of voters.

The Party survived just fine without them until Reagan and can do so again.

As far as running being hard work, obviously, for whatever reason, they want to run. If they should be paid more fine. But the hard work of running should not give them more of a say in who becomes President than any other Democrat has.

[blm]

212. Then join with others to overturn its use in the process in the years BEFORE a presidential election

Until then, representative votes in government include representatives having a vote in the primary election process, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

219. You should explain why you are tagging 'Bernie and his supporters' with this when it is an issue in

every single cycle, Obama and his supporters had the same set of criticisms and fears about the Super Delegates that some Sanders supporters are now expressing. Barack Obama himself talked about it and said we need to change this system, then he won and forgot that it needed changing. But he himself was critical of the unpledged delegate process, in public.
But this cycle you pretend it is a newly minted problem exclusive to Bernie. That lacks the context of historical reality.

[blm]

230. I'm not pretending anything - I'm reacting as a GOTV worker to current posts here at DU

and have said repeatedly in this thread that this same issue comes up in every election cycle during the prez primaries.

[merrily]

244. Thanks. I have joined with others .

Until then, representative votes in government include representatives having a vote in the primary election process, too.

That is not carved in stone. It's a DNC rule, not the US Constitution. No one who votes for a Senator or a Mayor thinks they're voting for that person to have more of a say about who is President than they do.

[blm]

251. Exactly - it is NOT carved in stone - so work to change it.

Don't be like some of the 2008 HRC supporters who complained about it then, but, did not act to change things, and are now gloating about their perceived advantage.

It does NOT really work out the way some here imagine. Super delegates can also change their mind. So can regular delegates…..even if they pledged earlier in the campaign.

Sometimes ya just gotta have faith - and commitment - and elbow grease.

[Kentonio]

194. It was put in place to allow the party to override the will of the people

The fact that it has never been used in that way, doesn't change its purpose. It's second purpose and one which IS commonly used is to allow the party power figures to show preference towards and create momentum for their chosen candidate before the voters go to the polls.

The first will never be used, because it can't be used. It would destroy the party, and everyone knows it. It's the second purpose that makes many of us angry. You working thousands of hours for the party is admirable and I thank you for it, but that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to unbalance a primary before it's even begun. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

[bowens43]

195. complete bullshit. the only purpose of the SD is to over ride the will of the people

[blm]

214. So is congress, then. You don't want it, work to change it in the years BEFORE next prez primary.

Till that is done then its a colossal waste of time to attack super delegates and the process DURING the primary.

[riversedge]

222. then get it changed if you do not like it.

[LAS14]

204. Thanks for this!

I'm a Hillary supporter but have been consistently impressed with Bernie Sanders. He's genuinely decent. He expresses this in every context. I sort of assumed his followers were like him. It's only recently, starting with Bill Clinton's "unscripted" remarks, and then when I joined DemocraticUnderground, that I've seen that this is so not true. I'm glad to be going over the peak of my shock to find a Sanders supporter of the kind I had imagined most of them to be.

Thanks,
LAS

[Gothmog]

210. Superdelegates are a longstanding firewall to stop outside extremists from hijacking political parti

Super delegates are party of the party's structure for a reason http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/superdelegates-exist-to-stop-outside-extremists-like-trump-and-bernie-from-hijacking-political-parties/23799/

Superdelegates were envisioned as a firewall designed to protect the party from being hijacked by an outside candidate or outside block of voters whose views are not compatible with the party. That way, even if some extremist tried to hijack the party by running in the primary and convincing non-party members to vote for him, the mainstream core of the party would have some apparatus for pulling back the reins.

Sure enough, the 2016 race sees outsider extremist candidates trying to hijack both parties. Donald Trump, who has never been a republican, is running as one and is trying to take over the party by relying on the votes of ultra-conservatives who don’t usually vote to begin with. If Trump succeeds in becoming the nominee, the party will become transformed into something that most existing republicans don’t identify with, and for obvious reasons Trump would be guaranteed to lose in a general election matchup against a mainstream democrat like Hillary Clinton. The republican party would not only lose the election, it would drift off into the tall grass for a generation....

The chief complaint against superdelegates is that they’re “insiders” or the “establishment” or that they’re in a “conspiracy” to pick one of their own kind and that no one “elected” them. But in reality, most of the superdelegates are governors and congressmen who were in fact elected by the public in popular voting. So they very much speak for the people. Still, the fact that Hillary Clinton walked away from New Hampshire with fifteen total delegates, while Bernie Sanders walked away with just thirteen delegates despite getting more votes, has rubbed some less-politically-knowledgeable people the wrong way. This will end up not mattering.

The antiestablishment demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire make it far too easy for an outside extremist candidate to get off to a strong start and create the false premise of viability, thus scaring the party’s real members from voting for the candidate they prefer and sending the entire primary off track. But a look at the polls in every upcoming state in the democratic primary reveals Hillary Clinton is about to dominate in the next two months of public voting, and the demographics of those states reveal why: she does well in racially diverse places with more moderate views and more big cities.

Short of something catastrophic, Hillary Clinton will win the democratic primary in a popular voting blowout, meaning she doesn’t need the superdelegates to win. And if she were to collapse, it would be such a catastrophe by the final states that no amount of superdelegates would save her. In the mean time, they’re only in place as an early firewall, a form of course correction.

[Sheepshank]

240. too bad reasonable reading of this article will not be done ......

too bad reasonable reading of this article will not be done ......by the crowd that so badly wants an election conspiracy to exist.

[Jokerman]

221. Spin spin spin...

It is undemocratic and you know it.

[GeorgeGist]

223. Establishment ...

by definition.

[BlueMTexpat]

228. Thank you so much for

speaking out! I sincerely believe that the majority of Sanders supporters are a credit to him and I am a Hillary supporter.

But there are some - more obviously represented here on DU where Sanders supporters outnumber us by at least 6:1 - who display nothing but ignorance about Democratic party processes. I truly hope that they will heed your words.

[1StrongBlackMan]

252. I completely agree; however, I think most of the slams are ...

coming from people that have nothing invested in the Democratic Party ... They may vote Democratic (most of the time),or even have phone banked once or twice; but, have never done the work of the party.

Note: I probably won't be reading the comments because I know what to expect.