Superdelegates

[Thomas II]

Can someone explain what is their purpose, and how do they affect elections? Are they an issue in this presidential election?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Can someone explain what is their purpose, and how do they affect elections? Are they an issue in this presidential election?

In the Democratic party

Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.

“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_...ont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow that is shockingly open. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's answer makes me feel even worse about the process.

 

[repoman]

Bernie or bust!

Seriously, if Bernie doesn't win I will vote Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wow that is shockingly open. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's answer makes me feel even worse about the process.

The republican and democratic parties are and always have been similar to exclusive clubs. They are designed to choose the proven candidate with the most votes. They don't like outsiders with limited grass root support or history taking the party over. They don't want flashes in the pan.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow that is shockingly open. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's answer makes me feel even worse about the process.

The republican and democratic parties are and always have been similar to exclusive clubs. They are designed to choose the proven candidate with the most votes. They don't like outsiders with limited grass root support or history taking the party over. They don't want flashes in the pan.

Creating artificial barriers is not the way to let people prove themselves, it's the way to keep control of the masses [grassroots].

 

[Harry Bosch]

The republican and democratic parties are and always have been similar to exclusive clubs. They are designed to choose the proven candidate with the most votes. They don't like outsiders with limited grass root support or history taking the party over. They don't want flashes in the pan.

Creating artificial barriers is not the way to let people prove themselves, it's the way to keep control of the masses [grassroots].

The democratic party establishment wants to elect democrats. Not fly by night politicians who run as a democrat when the timing is convenient.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As noted by others, the Superdelegates haven't influenced anything yet. Clinton and Sanders are near tied in "elected" delegates. But that is going to change soon come Super Tuesday. If we get later into the game and Sanders is winning more primaries than Clinton and the Super Delegates control who gets the nominee, then there is a discussion to be had. But right now, Sanders has serious issues with the hashtag issue. He did decently with Latinos in Nevada (looks like he didn't actually win them, but was competitive), but until some blacks realize that policy and history is more important than hashtags... they won't even consider Sanders.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Creating artificial barriers is not the way to let people prove themselves, it's the way to keep control of the masses [grassroots].

The democratic party establishment wants to elect democrats. Not fly by night politicians who run as a democrat when the timing is convenient.

The Democratic Party is the members of the Democratic Party, i.e. the people who join it, not people who call themselves leaders making authoritarian decisions to create barriers to the members.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As noted by others, the Superdelegates haven't influenced anything yet. Clinton and Sanders are near tied in "elected" delegates. But that is going to change soon come Super Tuesday. If we get later into the game and Sanders is winning more primaries than Clinton and the Super Delegates control who gets the nominee, then there is a discussion to be had. But right now, Sanders has serious issues with the hashtag issue. He did decently with Latinos in Nevada (looks like he didn't actually win them, but was competitive), but until some blacks realize that policy and history is more important than hashtags... they won't even consider Sanders.

NPR article after the New Hampshire primary:

There were 24 delegates to be allocated out of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, based on the vote statewide and by congressional district. Sanders, obviously, won more of those, 15 to her 9.

And yet ...

Add in the "superdelegates" who have already committed to a candidate, and Clinton moves into the delegate lead. Six of the state's eight superdelegates have publicly said they will vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in July. (Two are uncommitted.)

That brings the delegate total out of Tuesday night to a 15 to 15 tie.

This is what makes Clinton so powerful in the Democratic race — even while she and Sanders battle it out among rank-and-file voters, she has a massive lead among superdelegates. Altogether, she already has 394 delegates and superdelegates to Sanders' 44 — a nearly ninefold lead.

And as NPR reported last year, a Democratic candidate needs 2,382 total delegates (super or not) to win the nomination. Of those, 712 are superdelegates.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/46628...ually-winning-in-n-h-even-though-she-lost-big

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Creating artificial barriers is not the way to let people prove themselves, it's the way to keep control of the masses [grassroots].

The democratic party establishment wants to elect democrats. Not fly by night politicians who run as a democrat when the timing is convenient.

The Democratic Party is the members of the Democratic Party, i.e. the people who join it, not people who call themselves leaders making authoritarian decisions to create barriers to the members.

Only if you think democracy is important to a party that calls itself democratic. On if the party of the people actually gives a rat's ass about the people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NPR article after the New Hampshire primary:

There were 24 delegates to be allocated out of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, based on the vote statewide and by congressional district. Sanders, obviously, won more of those, 15 to her 9.

And yet ...

Add in the "superdelegates" who have already committed to a candidate, and Clinton moves into the delegate lead. Six of the state's eight superdelegates have publicly said they will vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in July. (Two are uncommitted.)

That brings the delegate total out of Tuesday night to a 15 to 15 tie.

This is what makes Clinton so powerful in the Democratic race — even while she and Sanders battle it out among rank-and-file voters, she has a massive lead among superdelegates. Altogether, she already has 394 delegates and superdelegates to Sanders' 44 — a nearly ninefold lead.

And as NPR reported last year, a Democratic candidate needs 2,382 total delegates (super or not) to win the nomination. Of those, 712 are superdelegates.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/46628...ually-winning-in-n-h-even-though-she-lost-big

As I noted, the elected total is abut the same. The complete total, Clinton is ahead by a lot, but we've been here and done that in '08. Clinton had a very large lead over Obama. But she is running for President in '16, so that tells you the Super Delegates aren't exactly the end all here.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is more or less my take on the Superdelegates.

The political parties are just that, parties. They're clubs for all practical purposes, and their over riding goal is to serve the party interests. Not the country and not the people in general. We're so used to them being part of the democratic process for us, we tend to think of them as a requirement. Like they're set up in the constitution or something similar. Many of the founding fathers disliked party factions, but they started forming while Washington was still president.

While any party wants to serve it's own best interests, sometimes being at odds with the people that make up said party (Republican or Democrat) could be quite detrimental to your health as a functioning group. The Democrats have to decide if they really want to piss off almost every possible future democrat just to push Hillary over Bernie. While Bernie has historically been an Independent, his views align with the Democrats pretty well. They know this.

 

[dismal]

NPR article after the New Hampshire primary:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/46628...ually-winning-in-n-h-even-though-she-lost-big

As I noted, the elected total is abut the same. The complete total, Clinton is ahead by a lot, but we've been here and done that in '08. Clinton had a very large lead over Obama. But she is running for President in '16, so that tells you the Super Delegates aren't exactly the end all here.

Just because last time the party elders found the guy who won the voting acceptable does not mean next time they will.

The problem you superdelegate deniers must deal with is that if superdelegates were always going to be meaningless there would be no reason to create superdelegates. The stated purpose of superdelegates is to create a firewall against voters.

 

[Sarpedon]

Many people question Wasserman-Schultz's basic competence to do her job.

There are better ways that could have been put. For example: "A poor candidate can harm other members of the party on the ballot. Therefore, we give some voice to those officials, so that marginal and harmful candidates can be excluded." And then go on to remark on how the republican party seems bent on nominating Trump, and the superdelegates would probably prevent that.

 

[dismal]

Many people question Wasserman-Schultz's basic competence to do her job.

Yeah, she'll never make it as a politician telling the truth.

 

[Sarpedon]

The point is to tell the truth in the way that furthers your cause. What I said is also the truth. We live in a world obsessed with words, and fails to see the reality behind them. In such a world, the need to state things carefully is very important.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Bernie or bust!

Seriously, if Bernie doesn't win I will vote Trump.

I totally understand that sentiment. Were I living in the US and had a vote in this, I think I would do the same. Bernie and Trump are the only outsiders that are not so firmly entrenched in the political establishment and owned by special intetest lobbies. Trump would probably be a disaster for 4 years, but would shake things up dramatically and may snap your political landscape to the point that the next election cycle could have more outsiders running. Bernie would be great, and way better than Trump or anybody else, but I would vote Trump if Bernie wasn't an option.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is more or less my take on the Superdelegates.

The political parties are just that, parties. They're clubs for all practical purposes, and their over riding goal is to serve the party interests. Not the country and not the people in general. We're so used to them being part of the democratic process for us, we tend to think of them as a requirement. Like they're set up in the constitution or something similar. Many of the founding fathers disliked party factions, but they started forming while Washington was still president.

While any party wants to serve it's own best interests, sometimes being at odds with the people that make up said party (Republican or Democrat) could be quite detrimental to your health as a functioning group. The Democrats have to decide if they really want to piss off almost every possible future democrat just to push Hillary over Bernie. While Bernie has historically been an Independent, his views align with the Democrats pretty well. They know this.

I have always found the concept of political parties, and especially the "party whip" to be starkly anti-democratic. It still amazes me that they are allowed to exist as strongly and explicitly as they do, in my country as well as yours.

 

[Sarpedon]

Compromise is essential to democracy. Party establishments exist to enforce the agreed upon platform. If you don't like your party's platform, you can leave the party. It is harmful to the party to have people remain inside the party, but work to undermine it. Parties break down when large numbers of members start defying the platform. It is natural and even desirable for this to happen occasionally. However, it is also natural for parties to resist this from happening. If a party breaks apart, it is because the coalition of voters that sustained it could no longer agree on a platform. If a party puts down an insurrection, it is because the voters decide that the benefits of the party platform compromise is greater than the disadvanteges. In our present situation, we have the republican coalition breaking down, and the platform being rewritten before our eyes. The democratic party is also being challenged, but shows no sign of breaking down. Polls indicate that the majority of Sanders supporters, like myself, will accept and support Clinton if she wins. In the republican party, however, large numbers of people say they would support Trump if he ran as a 3rd party candidate, and other large numbers say they wouldn't vote for him, even if he is the nominee.

I used to think that the US's two party system was a bad one, but then I started following Israel's multi-party system, and found much to recommend ours. Both systems, and other systems of course, have their own advantages and disadvantages. You must choose which advantages and disadvantages you prefer.