2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo, the superdelegates won't push down on the scales.
From DailyKos:
"If, in 2016, the democratic base was told that their opinion had been overridden and made irrelevant, the psychological impact would be so catastrophic on election day 2016 that we would need to make up new words to describe it.
"So, it's not going to happen because no one in the Democratic party would win if a superdelegate override of the voter nomination process was enacted and the ensuing fallout would take place.
"With that said, I will say right now that any Hillary Clinton supporter who wants to hold this prospect over the head of anyone they are debating with is being nothing more than divisive and undemocratic and should be shamed accordingly whenever spotted."
Spotted quite a few of those around DU myself...
Read it all:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/30/1416778/-No-the-superdelegates-won-t-push-down-on-the-scales
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)We were talking about this earlier. The DNC has a real quandary on their hands. Some of the super delegates switched from Hillary to Bernie in 2008 because they knew that either candidate would do the bidding for the .001% so it didn't matter who got the nomination and since Obama didn't have the baggage that Hillary did, a lot of them switched over to Obama.
Conversely, they know that Bernie is not corporate friendly and he won't play with the Big Boys. So, the DNC is in a quandary. Do they throw support to a guy that is very likely to win the popular primary vote and risk not having a malleable president in the White House or do they take a chance, "win" by super delegates and face an almost certain collapse of their own party?
It does put them in a quandary, doesn't it?
John Poet
(2,510 posts)that the superdelegates won't override the sentiments of primary voters, but I'm not entirely sure of that myself, either.
What I DO agree with 100%, is that it would be a total disaster for the party, and split it irreparably for the general election, if they did so.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The idea of the article seems to be that Clinton supporters can't use the super delegate argument to propose that Clinton has an advantage? Because? Because the "people" won't stand for the super delegates tilting the playing field? Huh?
Anyway, the super delegates make up something like 19 percent of all Democratic delegates. Most of them are pledged to Clinton so that gives Clinton a 15 percent advantage right off the starting line. Of course Clinton supporters will cite this an advantage, part of the "inevitableness" of their candidate. Why wouldn't they? It's the truth. Yes, it's undemocratic, but the Democratic Party is not a democracy.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's hard to imagine the quite "pragmatic" party elders actually deciding to risk creating the impetus to launch a stand alone Progressive Party.
The democratic party depends upon a coalition of voters on the left. Congratulating the left for a well done public primary season with a flogging would be pretty bad for the general election and even more so the future of the party.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Superdelegates are not "pledged", they can change their minds at any time.
The very use of the word "pledged" in reference to superdelegates is misleading. In this context it is merely a statement of present support, which they can change at their whim.
Delegates selected in primaries and caucuses are "pledged" to a candidate, and that candidate can have them replaced if they attempt to change their allegiance.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That is a 4% advantage.
The fact that Hillary's supporters are going down this road tells us they are scared.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)if my vote meant nothing? I really would not ever cast another vote if the superdelegates voted against the wishes of the people. I mean if they don't even need to hack the machines, then why bother?
