• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

User 463088

Banned
The double edged sword with Warren being on the short list is if she doesn't pick her. That has the potential to piss some people off. No one is going to care if Kaine or Castro is passed over.

Ed Rendell is a fucking mess.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
I'm pretty curious if the DNC research on Bernie will leak.

I don't think Bernie fans will be quite as happy with the dirt that document might have as they are with Hillary's leaks.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
As Clinton has repeatedly said in interviews, her top consideration is someone who would be able to step into the presidency should anything happen to her. And, by extension, someone who Republicans could not credibly cast as ill-prepared
Click to expand...


This is the correct thought process.. But fuck.. Means we are getting Tim Kaine, aren't we.. :/
 
T

thestopsign

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Reddit is having a field day, meanwhile the real world realizes there's nothing particularly weird about the DNC writing up a list of weaknesses of Hillary, along with nothing actually illegal being mentioned, nor really anything new that hasn't already been beaten to death for the last year.

Fox New's article on it is pretty low key, which tells you about how much this will matter
Click to expand...

This is Reddit splashing around in a kiddie pool thinking they are making big waves.

GAF doesn't have a thread about it and there is no visible article on CNN's front page.
 
I

itschris

Member
Politico: Sanders' anti-superdelegate push gains steam in Senate

Politico interviewed nearly 20 of Sanders’ colleagues over the past week and found a surprisingly strong appetite for change, including among influential members of the party establishment such as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a top prospect for vice president. More than half the senators surveyed support at least lowering the number of superdelegates, and all but two said the party should take up the matter at next month’s convention in Philadelphia, despite the potential for a high-profile intraparty feud at a critical moment in the campaign.

The findings point to growing momentum among Democrats for changing a system that’s been criticized for giving party bigwigs undue sway over the nominee at the expense of the grass roots. But powerful Democratic Party constituencies, including the Congressional Black Caucus, are firmly opposed. And lawmakers who are open to reform disagree over how far-reaching it should be.

“It’s not useful to anyone to be in a position where you could potentially overturn the will of the electorate. I mean nobody likes this, and it undermines public confidence,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who has spoken privately to a dozen other Democratic senators about the matter. His support for scrapping superdelegates isn’t shared by a majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus, but it could be a starting point for negotiations.

...

“I’m fine with the superdelegates,” Schumer said in an interview. “Caucuses harness the energy of individual people, they’re legitimate. Superdelegates harness those who worked in the party a long time. I’m for having a nice mixture.”

Given the resistance of Schumer and other longtime senators like Bill Nelson of Florida, proponents of eliminating the superdelegate system altogether may just be making an initial bid ahead of the talks in Philadelphia. Several supporters of reform said it’s more realistic to get rid of some superdelegates but not scuttle the system altogether.

Some Democrats argued that Republicans might have been well served by having superdelegates this year.

“They might have been able to prevent Trump. So I think that superdelegates play a big role,” said Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, who supports eliminating half the party’s superdelegates. “If Trump ends up being a disaster, [Republicans] are going to try to figure out … ‘How do we prevent this from happening [again]?’ And my guess is the way they will do it is come up with something like a superdelegate model.”
Click to expand...

It definitely sounds like a reduction in the number of superdelegates could happen, but eliminating them entirely seems unlikely.
 
T

Teggy

Member
If you reduce superdelegates do you reduce the number of delegates needed to win and overall delegates? It's not really a change then.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
itschris said:
Politico: Sanders' anti-superdelegate push gains steam in Senate



It definitely sounds like a reduction in the number of superdelegates could happen, but eliminating them entirely seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Pointless and not much reason to worry about now. I doubt it is something that is going to be voted on anytime soon. Plus, I doubt it'll pass as Obama would mostly likely veto it or Hillary will. The convention will most likely not provide any changes as Hillary has such a big lead in it.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Tim Kaine seems to perpetually have this look on his face

19526408_BG1.jpg


And it weirds me out.

Pls, pls do not pick him ughf. He's a Gore/Kerry all over again. What will it take for Dems to learn they cannot win throwing pieces of dry wood up in a general and expect to win. We need to keep putting our more charismatic, interesting people towards the top
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Lowering them would really have no impact. If you don't have the ability to build relationships well you will still not be getting them. Elminating super delegates also serves no purpose besides to preventing a potential awful candidate from being chosen.

What Bernie really should be pushing for is keeping the superdelegates, but now allowing them to announce their choice until after the primaries have finished.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Maybe just keep Senators and some choice officials like the president and former presidents as Supers and drop the House Supers entirely.
Click to expand...

No, I think elected Democrats (even those in the House) should be kept as super delegates. If we want to cut some, we should cut some from the DNC. Maybe let the Chairperson of each state's Democratic party get a vote, but cut that group down from 437.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
Tim Kaine seems to perpetually have this look on his face

19526408_BG1.jpg


And it weirds me out.

Pls, pls do not pick him ughf. He's a Gore/Kerry all over again. What will it take for Dems to learn they cannot win throwing pieces of dry wood up in a general and expect to win. We need to keep putting our more charismatic, interesting people towards the top
Click to expand...
I hope he loses that tie. He looks like my burger king store manager.
 
M

Maledict

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Maybe just keep Senators and some choice officials like the president and former presidents as Supers and drop the House Supers entirely.
Click to expand...

Never happening in a million years. The black caucus has been very clear that such a move would result in massive disenfranchisement and isn't acceptable to them.

At best, they'll set up a commission with a few rules changes - possibly the removal of non-elected super delegates.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
Superdelegates haven't overturned any primary result and likely won't except in the worst of scenarios (see Trump - a superdelegate system would be preferable to whatever shenanigans or rules-changes the GOP would have to employ to oust Trump), are needed if you have a proportional system since its very easy in a 3+ competitive man race to end with everybody under 50.01% of all the delegates and are good means to encourage coalition building. Superdelegates didn't cost Sanders the nomination and the number of people across the country who were going to vote for Sanders but abstained because they saw Clinton's superdelegate lead can be counted on all my extremities. There is no argument for getting rid of supers that I've seen that isn't spite or optics and those are a terrible reason to change a functioning policy. That this nothingburger seems to be a big issue to Sanders just proves how borked his priorities are.
 
N

nature boy

Member
Cuban: Give Trump credit for getting 'stupider'



“You know what? It’s rare that you see someone get stupider before your eyes, but he’s really working at it… You have to give him credit. It’s a difficult thing to do but he’s accomplished it,” the billionaire entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner said in an interview with Extra.

Earlier on Tuesday, Cuban tweeted saying Trump “doesn’t have the cash” to fund his own campaign, following a Federal Election Commission report showing his campaign had $1.3 million compared to Hillary Clinton’s $42 million at the beginning of June.

Cuban also told "Extra" on the set of ABC's "Shark Tank" that the presumptive nominee had to “start learning and understanding the issues.”

“Donald has been at this a year but you don’t look at him and say, ‘Wow, he’s gotten so much smarter on this topic or that topic.' In fact, you look at him and say, ‘What the hell are you talking about?',” he added.

Trump, he remarked, would "get kicked out of 'Shark Tank' so fast, it would make your head spin.”
Click to expand...
 
D

DataStream

Member
An explanation of those "Draper Sterling" expenses...

The only other apparent public mention of Draper Sterling effectively accuses it of being a scam that helps perpetrate legally questionable activity.
It comes from an FEC complaint against an entity called “Patriots For America,” a federal super PAC seeking to influence the Missouri governor’s race. The complaint, filed on May 12 by an economics professor named Aaron Hedlund, alleges that Patriots For America listed no receipts or disbursements on its FEC filings, yet sent out direct mail.
It also highlights an unusual debt of $56,234 to “Draper Sterling LLC” for “business consulting.” Hedlund describes the debt as “mysterious,” “highly unusual” and a potential violation of the law.
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I'm ok with getting rid of superdelegates. People keep bringing up Trump as an example, but the way I see it, if we nominate an idiot like Trump we deserve whatever comes our way in November and I have much more faith in the Democratic base to not go completely nuts.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
I'm ok with getting rid of superdelegates. People keep bringing up Trump as an example, but the way I see it, if we nominate an idiot like Trump we deserve whatever comes our way in November and I have much more faith in the Democratic base to not go completely nuts.
Click to expand...

I take another approach to Superdelegates outside "OMG NO TRUMPS"

If we limit them to elected Democratic officials, it requires our candidates to, you know, build relationships with the people who are integral into setting their policy in motion. What good is a President who has zero support among the elected members of the party? You'd have a White House that was (potentially) fighting the Congress on everything.

That's why I loved Hillary's listening tours. She knows she doesn't know everything, and she knows she can't be spoon fed everything either. While it's important to listen to voters, I think it's important to listen to regional elected officials as well. Superdelegates can help make that a requirement for each candidate.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Bleh. Throwing out superdelegates is just reacting to a non-existent problem and caving to people who don't understand the process at all.
 
T

theprodigy

Member
adam387 said:
I take another approach to Superdelegates outside "OMG NO TRUMPS"

If we limit them to elected Democratic officials, it requires our candidates to, you know, build relationships with the people who are integral into setting their policy in motion. What good is a President who has zero support among the elected members of the party? You'd have a White House that was (potentially) fighting the Congress on everything.

That's why I loved Hillary's listening tours. She knows she doesn't know everything, and she knows she can't be spoon fed everything either. While it's important to listen to voters, I think it's important to listen to regional elected officials as well. Superdelegates can help make that a requirement for each candidate.
Click to expand...

You say this, but...does it? We've never had a scenario where superdelegates overturned the pledged delegate count anyway, and if that did happen it would guarantee a loss in the general election.

Superdelegates are quite frankly a paper tiger that would only really matter if there were 3+ candidates to the very end, so that nobody got a majority.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
theprodigy said:
You say this, but...does it? We've never had a scenario where superdelegates overturned the pledged delegate count anyway, and if that did happen it would guarantee a loss in the general election.

Superdelegates are quite frankly a paper tiger that would only really matter if there were 3+ candidates to the very end, so that nobody got a majority.
Click to expand...

I agree that they wouldn't over turn the will of the voters, except for a very, very specific set of circumstances. (Edwards 08, or if someone like Trump ran, or if our nominee was indicted for armed robbery the day before the election).

I still stand by them having latent benefits. If nothing else, it's an incentive to work for an endorsement. Plus, if you're having to run state level campaigns, having a person on the ground who has contacts is a great thing. It also helps out the down ballot person as well.
 
B

BotoxAgent

Member
Dan said:
Bleh. Throwing out superdelegates is just reacting to a non-existent problem and caving to people who don't understand the process at all.
Click to expand...

it's also to create an illusion that Bernie didn't really lose and Hillary won under fraudulent metrics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2
98
7K
digdug2 replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom