More on those pesky Superdelgegates

[Le Taz Hot]

who could tip the advantage to Hillary despite the popular vote as they make up 20% of the delegate count.

<snip>

"These superdelegates are Democratic members of Congress, high-ranking members of the Democratic Party, state governors and former presidents and vice presidents [source: NPR].

Superdelegates are simply "unpledged voters." Their vote represents their own choice, rather than the wishes of the voters, and these unpledged delegates can pledge their votes as they see fit.

Superdelegates have to consider how to use their votes carefully. They may:
•Vote in step with how the voters in the majority of states voted
•Vote in line with Democratic voters nationwide
•Vote in favor of the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if it is just a slim majority.

A superdelegate can also choose to vote his or her "conscience." This is one way of saying that a superdelegate may not vote the way the majority of voters do, but on the candidate he or she feels is best. "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience and supposed to vote for [the] person they think would make the best candidate and the best president."

<more>

http://people.howstuffworks.com/superdelegate1.htm

This is an older article about Clinton in 2008 but the principles/als remain the same.

[djean111]

1. "who could tip the advantage to Hillary despite the popular vote."

Seriously, if this happens, I am out.

[Catherina]

4. And so are MANY people. And there goes the GE

but I don't think the corporate powers backing Clinton even care because either way, they win.

[frylock]

5. It's a surefire way to suppress voter turnout

[Zorra]

8. If Bernie doesn't get the nom,

I'm already gone.

No way on what's left of goddess's green earth is this lifelong loyal Democrat going to put up with getting ratfucked by the Third Way ever again.

[PowerToThePeople]

76. I think I am in that same boat.

I will register socialist and will continue to fight the systemic fascism in this nation. I will not vote third way.

[hifiguy]

14. At which point I will take a powder.

Absolute bullshit on stilts and steroids.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. I suggest the Super Delegates and DNC

tread very, very carefully here or they are going to have a mass exodus from the party like nothing they've ever witnessed before. Do they see the hundreds of thousands of millennials at Bernie's rallies/volunteering/working on his campaign? They will be gone from the party forever. They won't be bamboozled again. Same goes for this lifelong Democrat. That will be the final slap-in-the-face from the Third Way. They can have their Third Way party. I want no part of it.

[arcane1]

2. Thanks! I had no idea how all this worked and this cleared a few things up :)

[BooScout]

3. by all means do away with them...

And then we can have McGovern deja vu all over again.

I suspect if Bernie had any endorsements of substance or number then the BS supporters would be happy as clams with the way the system is now.

[kenfrequed]

25. Uhm...

I think maybe you might want to look at history on this one.

McGovern lost because the old guard of the party, particularly those remants that had not been fond of the new deal in the first place, were bitter and angry that McGovern won and sat on their hands or even occasionally sabotaged the party. There were large numbers of Democrats that openly supported Nixon out of spite for McGovern's supporters. (which is a hell of a lot worse than those few naieve democrats that are talking about staying home over Hillary)

McGovern also lost because he was up against possibly the last centuries dirtiest dirty trickster in Richard Nixon.

Somehow blaming the loss on McGovern is historically myopic.

[Chathamization]

83. I've asked a number of people if they thought Muskie would have defeated Nixon. Never got a response

Bringing up McGovern seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of many, but I've yet to see anyone who's put much thought into it.

Also funny that people think superdelegates would prevent a colossal Republican victory. The first presidential election where the Democratic primary used superdelegates? 1984.

[kenfrequed]

90. Excellent points.

I agree, and compliment you on your knowledge of history in these matters; knowledge that is greatly needed these days.

[rhett o rick]

54. Sen Sanders has the people behind him and that's what Democracy should be about.

Funny how non-progressives love the corrupt system when it works in their favor. They kinda like Citizens United now that it may buy the WH for Clinton.

[daleanime]

59. I'm sure you do....

Have a great night.

[Zorra]

6. I imagine each one of them must have cost a small fortune. nt

[hifiguy]

16. No doubt about that.

[SonderWoman]

9. Log off.

[hrmjustin]

10. Looks like a troll just outed himself.

[OriginalGeek]

11. I voted to leave it.

I saw it as venting frustration and I understand the frustration.

[hrmjustin]

12. I am glad it was hidden.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Yes, looks like a troll especially since DU is trying to elect Democrats.

[hifiguy]

17. As long as they wear the label and irrespective of their actual

POLICIES.

[hrmjustin]

20. And if you or I posted something like that we would be called puma.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Poster had all the markings of a troll.

Nice to see back, missed you.

[hrmjustin]

50. Missed you too.

[kath]

48. Yes, because HRC supporters are so, so persecuted.

[hrmjustin]

52. Oh please spare me!

[OriginalGeek]

22. And I do not begrudge you that right

I think the party should be more liberal and I don't believe Hillary is as liberal as Bernie. I see people saying that the best thing Bernie can do is drag the party lefter. I assume that means Hillary doesn't drag us lefter. Why don't we just go there with Bernie?

I wouldn't vote for trump out of anger with the Democratic party but I understand someone being angry enough to say that as a way of letting off steam.

If Bernie doesn't win the primary I will vote for the Democratic candidate who does.

I don't think the post was hide-worthy but what's done is done.

[hrmjustin]

27. And one can make those arguments without breaking the tos like this poster did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Why not write in Bernie?

Why not vote for the Socialist Party candidate?

Why not write in Bernie?

The fact a member of this board would vote for someone who was endorsed by David Duke is deeply disturbing.

[OriginalGeek]

33. You'll have to ask him that

oh wait - you can't. His post was hidden so now he can't reply and possibly explain himself. Maybe even to you your satisfaction or maybe not. But the important thing is now we can make up stuff regarding what we think he meant. Including myself there too - I'm making up that maybe he was just letting off steam. That's how I saw it, that's how I voted. I don't think he broke the TOS but I'm generally pretty liberal and like to discuss things. Might could have found out he fully intended to disrupt and troll. Or maybe not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. The poster said he or she would vote for Trump if he or she was unhappy with the Democratic party.

The poster said he or she would vote for Trump if he or she was unhappy with the Democratic party. There are a panoply of choices other than the Democratic and Republican candidate as well as write in choices. It is interesting the poster chose the candidate endorsed by David Duke.

[OriginalGeek]

38. You keep saying that david duke thing

You seem to be implying the poster picked Trump because of Duke's endorsement. I didn't know Duke endorsed Trump - maybe I did read it somewhere but I didn't remember it while reading the posts in order to vote on the jury. How do you know if this poster knew that?

It's too bad he was just hidden instead of being engaged in conversation. You might have been able to tell him about the Duke endorsement and he could have said "Aww shit! I didn't know that! Thanks for telling me! Sorry guys, I was just venting - I'll pick some other way to register my disappointment."

If you told him and he still said Trump uber alles then you'd have some pretty solid evidence.

Guess we'll never know.

[Go Vols]

18. as did I,#1

On Fri Aug 28, 2015, 05:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=553653

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

no...we NEVER advocate for a Republican in Office

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 28, 2015, 05:30 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He didn't say to vote R
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Oh hell no. Not here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't feel it's right to hide posts made in frustration about the Democratic Party not being liberal enough. I don't agree with the action but I understand the frustration. Instead of hiding posts, make the party liberaler. If there is ever a DU Name change day I think I might change my username to Liberaler. Unless there already is one.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I was willing to see this as just venting by use of hyperbole. The poster never advocated others to vote for Trump and did base it all using a pretty extreme hypothetical.

But I think the site is better off, and free speech not insufferably infringed upon, if we leave such hypothetical ultimatums to our party as the exclusive province of long standing members, with a high degree of participation at DU.

I vote to hide it.

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

[OriginalGeek]

28. yeah I don;t think saying he would

is the same thing as advocating we do. Maybe he did mean it that way but I didn't get that from his post.

[MohRokTah]

29. Besides the need for a poster making such a claim deserving a ban...

anybody on that jury who voted not to hide it should also be banned, IMO.

[Go Vols]

31. lol

[OriginalGeek]

34. no thanks.

[MohRokTah]

60. He advocated voting Republican

He and any who support that are on the wrong site.

[OriginalGeek]

64. I don't support voting republican

I do support free and open discussion. I guess I'm glad you aren't in charge of the ban hammer.

[MohRokTah]

65. It's a direct violation of the TOS. eom

[OriginalGeek]

66. Perhaps

It's not officially election season yet so I think a guy could still spout off about being mad about a candidate. We could have discussed it with him. Now we can't.

[hrmjustin]

32. Good hide.

[kath]

58. Didn't you say that once already?

Is this how some of yinz get such a high post count, posting so many very insightful things, and repeating them multiple times?

[hrmjustin]

61. Following me again Kath? Your posts are so insightful and your concern for me is..

...oh so touching.

[kath]

67. Mahalo, Justin.

[hrmjustin]

69. Lol.

[Puglover]

62. I think the saccharine approach

has been retired.

[George II]

36. So you'd vote for Trump too if the candidate of your choice isn't nominated?

[OriginalGeek]

41. Read george

I wouldn't vote for trump out of anger with the Democratic party but I understand someone being angry enough to say that as a way of letting off steam.

If Bernie doesn't win the primary I will vote for the Democratic candidate who does.

My own words right from the post. Thankfully, I have not been hidden in this thread so we are able to engage in conversation and I can point out how wrong you are.

Edit to add - I see you replied to a different post - perhaps you hadn't seen the quoted post yet. I apologize for assuming you had seen and ignored it.

[CincyDem]

56. Voting for Trump....lololololololol

Nobody in their right mind would vote for Trump even if he were running for dog catcher against Michael Vick.

He's window dressing to keep the MSM busy so there's no pre-convention buzz about the Koch's real candidate. Not sure if that's going to be Mario or Scott but someone other than Trump will be on the ballot in November 2016. And we won't need an etch-a-sketch as he walks back from all his primary rhetoric because the world will be so focused on Donald in the primaries they won't remember anyone else.

[moobu2]

40. They said they were voting for a Republican

if their candidate wasn't the nominee. That's not venting. They should have been tomb stoned. I absolutely can not stand to even look at Bernie Sanders but I would NEVER vote for a Republican if he were the Democratic nominee, instead of the nominee of his own party. I would just hold my nose and vote for him.

[OriginalGeek]

46. You are probably right

I didn't see it that way when I read the posts while on the jury. But still, I would have rather discussed it more with the poster and found that out for sure.

[MohRokTah]

57. Besides holding my nose, I'd need a shower after...

but I would still do it.

[BainsBane]

45. It's amazing how many seem to be certain that the "will of the people"

can only be expressed by the 22 percent minority that supports their chosen candidate, and that if the people dare to vote in ways that don't conform to their demands, it isn't valid. The more posts I see with people insisting they will vote Republican or allow the GOP to win if they don't get their way, the more I'm convinced that what we are seeing is the politics of privilege and narcissism. They insist the only Americans fit to participate in democracy are those who think exactly like them, and polls show they are a rarefied minority, overwhelmingly white and a plurality of whom make $80k a year. Yet any outcome other than their chosen one is unacceptable because they are the only Americans who matter. My views are quite different. I would actually prefer to see every single American vote and not get my chosen candidate than to see fewer Americans vote and have an election go my way. But then I have this crazy believe in democracy.

[hrmjustin]

47. The holier than thou attitude of some Sanders supporters here is growing tiresome.

I like Hillary but i can admit she is a politician and flawed. I have even protested her vote vote on the iraq vote.

I may not like to give an inch to the Sanders supporters here but I know she has her faults.

[OriginalGeek]

49. I actually agree with all of that

I tell my co-workers all the time "VOTE" ...I'd prefer you vote D but jeebus, people, take part in the process!

I am white but not rich like that. I'll vote for Hillary if she wins. But I'm pulling for Bernie.

[BainsBane]

55. I respect that

I respect whatever choice people want to make for the nomination. It's this proclamations that they are done or will vote Republican if they don't get their way that bother me. Of course it's their right to do whatever they want, but I don't buy that it's because they are so leftist. I simply do not believe it.

[OriginalGeek]

63. *fist bump*

I think we are all on the same page. I would have liked to discuss it more with the poster that got hidden but I think you guys are all probably right. (lol, Well, except for Moh who wants to kick me off DU but that's OK. We don't all have to be on every same page)

I just really, really hate to hide stuff that can be discussed. The discussion may very well have revealed the poster was no lefty at all. and that could have been dealt with accordingly. Or we could have changed his mind. Or we could have found out he just said something for shock value out of frustration. I know I've done that before - more in real life than on here but I've done it.

[BainsBane]

68. You might note

The poster who received the hide is not the only one in this thread who said they wouldn't vote Democrat if they don't get their choice for nominee. Look upthread a bit.

[OriginalGeek]

70. Fair points

I'm not going to try to put words in their mouths. I don't agree with what I see about not voting at all if Bernie doesn't win. I don't know what's in their heads but, unlike the hidden poster, they have been around here a good long time and have been liberal supporters haven't they? Maybe they mean if this super-delegate thing does something fishy then they'd be out. It's worth discussing. But I reckon we better do it prior to official election season lol.

[BainsBane]

74. No, the person has said the same thing many times before

in other contexts. It isn't about Super Delegates.

[Babel_17]

13. Given that we have some "winner take all" primaries ...

Given that we have some "winner take all" primaries there's a possibility that we could have a primary season where the votes are split among several candidates and there could have been wins that were by narrow margins.

So the most popular, and electable, candidate overall might actually be in only second place. In that kind of situation the superdelegates could serve a useful purpose. But in recent history they've been more of a distraction.

Edit: I'm referring to a scenario where nobody is close to having a majority. Pretty sticky situation if someone is very close to having a majority, and with a strong lead, if the superdelegates prefer the person in second. In that case it might be preferable to poll the party as a whole and use that to decide.

[George II]

37. How might that scenario play out? I don't see it.

[Babel_17]

42. Hypothetically, if we had, say, four decently strong candidates

Hypothetically, if we had, say, four decently strong candidates, they could all manage to accumulate some delegates. One could take California, another Florida, another Texas, etc.

They split the winner take all states, and they all grab some of the delegates in the other states.

[Jim Lane]

73. Democratic Party rules prohibit "winner take all" primaries

Or at least they did in 2008, and I'm pretty sure I would've heard if that had been changed.

Delegate selection rules vary by state. Generally, you could say that a candidate winning a majority of the votes will get a majority of the delegates, that a candidate winning a plurality of the votes will get a plurality of the delegates, and that delegate allocation won't be exactly proportional to the votes, because the overall winner and other candidates who do well will get more than their share and candidates who do badly will get less than their share, often none at all.

[Babel_17]

75. You're right, I misremembered, must have had 1972 on my mind

Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Though Florida has a different way of calculating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008

the state had 185 delegates up for grabs that were to be awarded in the following way: 121 delegates were to be awarded based on the winner in each of Florida's 25 congressional districts while an additional 64 delegates were to be awarded to the statewide winner. Twenty-five unpledged delegates, known as superdelegates, were initially able to cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1972

McGovern won all of California's delegates with less than half of the vote.

I'm glad we have a more representational system, though it could be even better, and allow for having a second choice when there are more than two candidates. Too complicated for us, sadly.

Edit: For those, like me, in need of a refresher, I found a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/

Interesting how the Republicans are still different. In the past, McCain was able to dominate the field by squeaking out some wins that earned him a disproportionate amount of delegates. Florida, for example, was winner take all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Hmmmm

"...I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat..."


ram2008

I have no doubt you would.

[MohRokTah]

26. That should be a bannable post. eom

[Le Taz Hot]

71. Um, no, I'm pretty sure nothing would make me vote for Trump.

I only vote for progressive candidates and Trump doesn't come anywhere near my end of the political spectrum. Neither does Hillary but that's another post.

[Cali_Democrat]

72. Yikes!

Talk about cutting off your nose.....

[MohRokTah]

21. "who could tip the advantage to Hillary despite the popular vote"

Same bullshit was spouted in 2008 and it didn't come down that way.

[Bucky]

43. Thank you. I'm hearing lots of repeats from 2008 around here.

I'm comfortable sleeping thru the primaries this time. They're all acceptable to me so long as they end their names with a capital D in parentheses.

[askew]

88. You forget your history.

Hillary tried to have the Super Delegates flip the race to her. Nancy Pelosi had to come out publicly and say all Supers should abide by state results and prominent AA politicians had to sit down with Hillary after she lost and before she conceded to explain reality to her. She also tried to get FL/MI delegates added back in for her.

Luckily, we had Howard Dean in place to make sure the process stayed neutral. The party is suffering this cycle because we have a DNC head who is trying to push through her candidate even though it is hurting the party.

[MohRokTah]

89. So like I said, same bullshit spouted but didn't come down that way. eom

[Motown_Johnny]

23. Lets count chickens a year before they hatch!

The superdelegates votes are so far off as to be meaningless. The idea that anyone is counting on them now is beyond ridiculous. Once Hillary falls well behind Bernie the SDs will vote for the clear winner. Thinking that they will tip the balance and give the nomination to someone that their constituents didn't vote for is exactly what the Clinton campaign tried in '08. We all know how that worked out.

[Thinkingabout]

39. Obama will not be running in 2016. Super delegates are from Congress, governors, etc.

To date 121 current members of congress has endorsed Hillary, these are people who have worked with Bernie and Hillary, their presence in the convention will be heard. The candidate with enough delegates will win the nomination. Delegates are acquired through caucuses and voting. Some states are winner take all and some are not. I very much doubt Bernie will get enough delegates.

[Motown_Johnny]

77. and just because they pledged now, does not mean they will vote that way

when the convention comes around.

Those chickens are still eggs. Counting them now is a mistake.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Now honestly, if these were endorsements for Bernie you would not be saying this.

[Motown_Johnny]

86. an endorsement is different

but you go ahead and print out a list of those superdelegates that Hillary thinks are all locked up.

If she isn't ahead in elected delegates, you just see which way the wind blows with the SDs.

[Thinkingabout]

87. In post #77 you was talking about endorsements. I understand quiet well how the delegates are

gathered, in fact here is a link in which you can see there are 4483 delegates possible ergo requiring 2242 to win.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

It would also be any candidate who is not ahead in delegates will not win.

[totodeinhere]

53. If Bernie should win a string of primaries and caucuses I don't think that the superdelegates

would dare take it away from us. But if it's close and there are no definitive results after the primaries and caucuses have played out then yes I think the supers could play a big role.

[Thinkingabout]

79. If Hillary wins a string of primaries and caucuses then you are saying this would entitle her to the

superdelegates. I know you would not want to take it away from Hillary.

[totodeinhere]

84. Of course whoever wins the most delegates from the primaries and caucuses should get

the nomination including Clinton. That's my whole point. The superdelegates should go with the will of the Democratic voters, not what the party's establishment wants.

The reason why I mentioned Bernie is because I haven't seen any concern about the possibility of the nomination getting taken away from Hillary if it's rightly hers. But there is concern that Clinton's huge advantage in superdelegates could possibly tip the nomination to Clinton even if someone else wins the most delegates from the primaries and caucuses. And that would be wrong and it would cause a huge uproar.

[Le Taz Hot]

81. It is not only likely, it is probable.

It's no coincidence that the Clinton camp lined up over 100 super delegates BEFORE the DNC gathering yesterday. That was her flexing her muscles saying, "See? I've already got the Party Faithful super delegates sewed up." But you are right. WHEN they pull this (and they will), the Democratic Party is officially dead. It's almost there now by them backing Hillary before even the first ballot has been cast. Remember when they used to wait until votes were actually cast and the electorate decided who the candidate would be? Well, they've finally found a way around what the pesky people want and that is through massive amounts of corporate money and . . . super delegates. It's why the Sanders campaign MUST win overwhelmingly in the states.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. I don't.

Remember, the state delegates are obligated to vote as per what the group(s) they represent vote and I don't see a lot of support outside of the Blind Partisans within the Democratic Party. I think Bernie has a great chance at those delegates. But if the delegate count is say, Bernie 50% and Hillary 40% of the state party delegates the super delegate vote will put her over the top despite what voters want. Remember, these are party insiders and they're backing her because promises have been made -- promises of cabinet positions, favors for them personally or for their district. She can promise that because she's getting fat checks from her fat-cat-sponsored PACs and private donors.

Vote manipulation really isn't new to politics but, as they say, forewarned is forearmed and as long as we know the chips are stacked against us before the first vote is cast, we know we must win with an OVERWHELMING majority of delegate votes.