Yeah, agreed. Thinking more on this, we obviously need to stop the Unicorn syndrome we have, and a good way to start is to just let Kander, Kamala, etc just potter along doing their things, and hope they do good in the future.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, agreed. Thinking more on this, we obviously need to stop the Unicorn syndrome we have, and a good way to start is to just let Kander, Kamala, etc just potter along doing their things, and hope they do good in the future.
VendettaRed07
Member
I hope he does too..We need more Governors. We simply don't have enough. Based on how Obama struggled at first, getting someone with more executive experience out of the gate would be beneficial.
Just imagine if Trump had it. He'd be President right now.
VendettaRed07
Member
But seriously instead of a primary next time we should just have a contest and give the nomination to whoever can assemble an M-16 blindfolded the fastest.
metalslimer
Member
I do think superdelegates have to go. One candidate can't come out the gate in what is going to be an extremely contentious primary with a large lead out of the gate and it can't look like democrats are putting their fingers on the scale. I'm fine if someone puts in the legwork to get a bunch of endorsements, but superdelegates can't be allowed to stay.
What worries me is not that someone insane is going to win the primary, but someone not really popular will win with like 30% of the primary votes.
What worries me is not that someone insane is going to win the primary, but someone not really popular will win with like 30% of the primary votes.
VendettaRed07
Member
Well I mean.. Sure Trump proves you don't need anything to win. But I'd like a person we have experience going forward to actually have a better chance doing the job really well out of the gate as opposed to just having the ability to "win".
Just because Trump showed experience doesn't keep you out of the white house doesn't mean it isn't something we should be looking for someone to have.
Kander running for Governor in Missouri is also too tantalizing to pass up in my opinion. He ran 16 fucking points ahead of Hillary Clinton and even did better than Chris Koster who is actually really popular here. It was because of how genuine and charismatic he is, his Joe Biden-level ability to appeal to the WWC and of course his more down to earth approach with guns. He's going to be a formidable threat to Greitens especially if he's as awful as he almost certainly will be. I mean he was a Republican and the NRA endorsed his Democratic opponent...
elvisaintdead
Member
I don't know why you're all discussing this as if Kanye isn't guaranteed to be the 2020 Democratic nominee.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The idea that Trump didn't have experience is incorrect. He did have experience - just not political experience. Regardless of your opinions on his businesses, he had experience there. To a lot of people, that is equally if not more valuable.
Don't confuse no political experience and no experience and think we can run people who have virtually no experience in anything yet.
Don't confuse no political experience and no experience and think we can run people who have virtually no experience in anything yet.
To be fair, why would Carrier's plans change now? I assume they've already laid a lot of the groundwork and until the situation changes, for better or worse, whatever reason they felt they needed to leave before still exists today.
It's a little unfair to expect nothing but the eventual presence of Donald Trump in the White House to immediately upend all previously made decisions. I assume that until we pull out of the Paris Accords people are carrying on, that NATO's still kicking and hasn't prematurely dismantled, that Japan hasn't already started building nukes, yadda, yadda.
Same with the ACA, he said several times he wanted to keep those provisions.
I hate Trump but let's not exaggerate his failures, he'll probably have enough that we don't have to mislead people.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Very true. He is in it for glory. The GOPis in it to kill the New Deal, repeal the progressive income tax, secure the House gerrymander through 2030, and install a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court. The Trump and Dump strategy would give them that.
VendettaRed07
Member
Yeah supers need to go because unless the next candidate that wins overcomes them like Obama did we'll be in the same position now where a lot of dems feel like the result was unfair or not legitimate, and depress turnout in the general.
So there is literally zero point in having them. We either beat them and people are happy or the candidate who benefits from them gets hurt by it. So why even be there.
ShironRedshift
Member
Perhaps. What worries me about that is that superdelegates exist for not only that reason but also partly to help protect minority interests and strengthen the votes of people of color. Just entirely getting rid of them unnerves me and makes me uncomfortable for that reason. Sadly though, I think it's something that's gotta happen, or rather more accurately, will end up happening whether I like it or not and this point.
Either way though, the focus on superdelegates truly fascinates me. They haven't actually done anything yet or been pivotal in any primary yet for choosing the winner, yet there's all this indignation and fury over them and it's apparently absolutely vital for them to go despite no evidence being available that they affected anything in any way. Yet the electoral college has multiple times completely defied the popular vote, but there's much less fury and indignation there and apparently it's just "part of the rule set that everyone agreed to play under since the start."
But if that's the case, then aren't superdelegates also a rule both primary candidates played under since the start and thus it's fine and there should be no problem, especially since there's no evidence they actually affected anything anyway? It's just fascinating that it's the rule-set that's done nothing that gets people furious whereas the ruleset that acutally has affected the results multiple times in huge ways that's apparently just how it is and something we shouldn't do anything about at all and should just accept instead.
People simultaneously holding the beliefs that the electoral college is fine the way it is yet superdelegates are the thing that need to go are just fascinating and quite confusing to me in that way.
The Supers exist to break ties or stop a Trump (or a scandal-ridden candidate.) They are there for a very good reason.
Obama won the majority of delegates. He did not "overcome" them. They declined to alter the result.
VendettaRed07
Member
How do they do that at all? Obama overwhelmingly got the minority vote last primary and won despite the super delegates, not because of them.
A) I think there is a difference between "FUCK WALL STREET" and "segments of the financial institution could use additional intelligent and targeted regulation to reign in its excesses and protect the middle class while leaving it as a strong, functioning institution". I expect most good politicians to understand the difference but I'm much less confidence about voters and their obsession with optics.
B) How hard would it be to get rid of the Electoral College both procedureally and doing so in a way that doesn't it make it look like is just sour grapes. Two PV vs EV elections have happened in my lifetime. I assume/hope I have at least 5 more decades in me - more of these sorts of elections are going to happen - that can't be good for the country can it? What are the pros for keeping the EC nowadays? I assume there must be some?
C) With regards to superdelegates - let's all be clear (I think we understand this but I feel like it should be loudly stated), getting rid of superdelegates is PURELY an optics thing as they aren't the reason Clinton won the nomination at all. However, since the Democratic delegate system is proportional, its very easy if there are enough candidates, for one person for "win" with less than 50% of the delegates. If you get rid off superdelegates, the regular delegate system has to change too. What do people want to change about it - make it like the Republican delegate system? This is all putting aside the fear that we could nominate a McGovern but lets at least hope/assume whoever comes out of the 2020 primary is good. Or as ShironRedshift mentioned they are good for protecting minority interests?
B) How hard would it be to get rid of the Electoral College both procedureally and doing so in a way that doesn't it make it look like is just sour grapes. Two PV vs EV elections have happened in my lifetime. I assume/hope I have at least 5 more decades in me - more of these sorts of elections are going to happen - that can't be good for the country can it? What are the pros for keeping the EC nowadays? I assume there must be some?
C) With regards to superdelegates - let's all be clear (I think we understand this but I feel like it should be loudly stated), getting rid of superdelegates is PURELY an optics thing as they aren't the reason Clinton won the nomination at all. However, since the Democratic delegate system is proportional, its very easy if there are enough candidates, for one person for "win" with less than 50% of the delegates. If you get rid off superdelegates, the regular delegate system has to change too. What do people want to change about it - make it like the Republican delegate system? This is all putting aside the fear that we could nominate a McGovern but lets at least hope/assume whoever comes out of the 2020 primary is good. Or as ShironRedshift mentioned they are good for protecting minority interests?
^
Republicans were too cowardice to use it. But using it also likely means your party loses the election with current day political rhetoric. Do you care more about your party or your country?
VendettaRed07
Member
Supers apparently don't stop a Trump because look who is in the White House now. They were far too controversial and unquestionably hurt people's opinion of the party and legitimacy of the primary. It doesn't matter what the facts show in how influential they actually were, people feel they give an unfair advantage to a candidate they possibly are not supporting.
And also, by saying that they "stop" a Trump, that is acknowledgement that they played a hand in helping Clinton beat Bernie.
Even if a Democratic Trump "won".. What right to the super delegates have to overturn the pledged delegate count and primary vote. They'd be digging their own grave as to what the outcome of the general would be anyway.
The GOP does not have Supers. They had Winner Take All for states, not proportional. There was no way for them to stop Trump once he got to the convention.
They played ZERO part in Clinton beating Bernie. Clinton beat him in delegates. They declined to overturn the result.
They have every right to overturn the delegates if they think it's the right thing to do. It's a safety valve. They know not to use it liberally.
SerAardvark
Member
The supers didn't stop Trump because the Republicans don't have superdelegates. That and the winner-take-all nature of many of their primaries were both significant factors as to why he pulled ahead despite his many critics.
I think it'd be smart to find ways to make them more palatable (not having them declare for a candidate would be good, for example), but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to get rid of them all together.
I think it'd be smart to find ways to make them more palatable (not having them declare for a candidate would be good, for example), but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to get rid of them all together.
VendettaRed07
Member
I am aware of that. And as a result GOP voters believed the primary result whether they liked it or not was legitimate.
And again I am aware they didn't directly overturn the result but they inflated how much her lead was in the primary and unquestionably the thumb was put on the scale in her favor.
The ability these parties have in being able to mitigate what people are actually voting for is one reason why Trump won. We can argue all day about what influence they play or how legitimate their existence is but its pretty clear that people aren't interested in whatever justifications the party has for saying why they don't feel like they need to trust whoever the primary voters chose.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
He's the one making wild promises.
Why do you think supers would overturn the people's vote? That would be suicide in the general elections.
Counting superdelegate votes in the primary prior to the last primaries is completely irresponsible.
They do not want to run John Edwards. It is a failsafe.
If John Edwards wins the majority of delegates in '08. Then the story about him cheating on his cancer-ridden wife comes out.
They do not want to run John Edwards. It is a failsafe.
Forgotten_Taco
Member
If Republican had super delegates in their primary system they might have.
In practice I think super delegates are pointless, if they used their votes to override a popular but danger candidate like Trump it would cause a crisis in the party.
VendettaRed07
Member
My point was not that the GOP had supers, but that we did and their existence depressed people's view of our primary and allowed for President Trump to walk into the White House.
They depressed people's view of the primary because Bernie Sanders claims he is Superman, and that the only reason he loses is because other people cheat with Kryptonite.
VendettaRed07
Member
Exactly. We are damned if we use them, damned if we don't.
And even if we used it as a protection, the person who was picked as a result of it would literally have no chance of winning a general election so we might as well just concede the white house to the opposition the moment it happens.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't understand why, from the perspective of the Republicans, their super delegates blocking Trump would have been a great thing? Trump won the presidency.
VendettaRed07
Member
Again, it doesn't really matter if thats true. People hate them and we are going to go through the same song and dance if the Party's overwhelming favorite wins the primary while they are in place. Why give people a reason to feel hosed. The explanations the party gives and people on here give just doesn't sit well with anyone. People just don't buy it.
GOP isn't a monolithic entity either. Trump winning means Tea Partiers take over to lead.
SerAardvark
Member
Sure, but the lack of enthusiasm was due to multiple factors and I don't see any particularly good reason to think the superdelegates were more important than failings of the Clinton campaign or some of the rhetoric Sanders used or the way the DNC leaks shaped how people view things (it seems like more people that are still upset about the primary are upset about the perceived bias of the DNC staff rather than superdelegates, but I could be wrong).
Again, I'm not opposed to trying out some changes (I really do not like that they announce who they are supporting so early, for example), and increased ideological inclusiveness and other reforms to the DNC will also help, but I'm not really super enthusiastic about completely removing one of the few obstacles to having a Trump-like figure win the nomination.
lol I haven't seen a graveyard like that in the year on and off I lurked here before starting posting.
Good on the mods.
Because someone spent the entire primary trying to tear the party down. Also, we're talking about a loud minority here. We do need to remember that GAF and the internet is not indicative of the world as a whole.
A) They couldn't reasonably predict he would win
B) The worst case scenario with a Trump presidency is worse than the worst case scenario with any other candidate. If they were responsible adults, country > party.
RastaMentality
Banned
If the GOP had stolen the primary from Trump, the entire party wouldve came around by November and voted for Cruz or w/e anyways!
Much like the EC. It wasn't made for today's world.
I think many people (myself included) underestimate the sheer hatred Republican politicians have for Trump. Unprecedented numbers of GOP establishment came-out for Hillary, because Trump is a know-nothing goon who is legitimately dangerous. Right until the calling of the election, the GOP thought he'd lose, and they all thought Kasich, Jeb!, Cruz had more potential to win.
Trump was as far from locked-in to win as it's possible to be, and the post election analysis from Wang and Cohn proves that. It's looking like Trump won by sheer on-the-day luck, with slightly higher Republican turnout and Dems switching in higher numbers than Republicans.
Rockefeller Republicans bolted.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
superdelegates isn't even the reason why sanders lost. i dont know why people ever tried to convince themselves of that.
they probably need to go or at least have a lot less of them, but lying to yourself about the real problems is exactly what got clinton in this predicament of losing where she shouldnt have
they probably need to go or at least have a lot less of them, but lying to yourself about the real problems is exactly what got clinton in this predicament of losing where she shouldnt have
Because men like Sanders and Corbyn believe that the silent majority agrees with them. Losses are never legitimate.
Good Job Bob
Member
Ether_Snake
VendettaRed07
Member
No one cared in 08 because Obama beat them in 08 and the supers switched.. Had Hillary won with them in her favor the whole time it would have been a completely different story.
- Status