Sanders supporters (NOT CAMPAIGN) creating Super Delegate Hit List

Status
Not open for further replies.
afreaknamedpete said:
I think about it like ideals vs reality. In reality the Democrstic Party can pick whatever rules it wants. But ideally you would think a "Democratic" party should be more... democratic. I think Supers recognize how bizarre it would be if the actual pledged winner is overwritten by superdelegates, but that begs the question if supers all vote alongside pledged delegates anyways why do supers continue to exist? And I think the answer is that the DNC wants the option of blocking off populist figures, like if Trump ran as a democrat.
Click to expand...
The main reason is to prevent a contested convention. If there are several candidates and no one reaches the majority, the supers allow the convention process to run smoothly. It allows there to be diversity in the primary process, while making sure the party is strong and unified when the time comes.
 
afreaknamedpete said:
Well You're right that I didn't read the harvard article you posted. Though my opinion remains unchanged after doing so. I do not disagree that Kennedy's attempt at taking Carter's Delegates was fucked up and undemocratic (especially if Wikipedia is right carter had like 65% of delegates). But do you think Superdelegates are the solution and are democratic? The harvard article even states thr justification as giving more power to party officials as the rationale. Wikipedia quotes an official as saying supers mainly exist to protect against grassroots populists. Supers leave the option on the table for party officials and hell even personal positions to supercede someone with more real delegates that were voted for.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Kennedy was campaigning as a grassroots populist in 1980 - his platform was basically "Carter hasn't gone far enough to promote liberalism and liberal policy" and his actions that year were basically a much less restrained prototype of what we're now seeing from the Sanders campaign in terms of delegate shenanigans and personal attacks. (Also, Kennedy didn't try as hard as he could to demonstrate "party unity" during and post-convention, and his supporters not "coming home" subsequently contributed to Reagan's victory being so huge.)

So I think they're the solution to campaigns like that (which isn't necessarily saying that Sanders will be like that), where the emphasis isn't on party-building but instead on tearing the other person down with no regard to the impact on November.

I don't think they're democratic, but they don't have to be. If more important decision-making processes in this country don't have to be - if the very thoroughly unelected SCOTUS & Cabinet-level people in the executive branch don't have to be, with the out-sized impact that those bodies have on basic rights - then I don't really see a compelling argument as to why a political party's presidential nomination process has to be 100% democratic.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Its currently 1280 to 1030

That's hardly a rout
Click to expand...
In the context of democratic primaries, it's a rout. Difference looks tiny compared to the tallies, but it's a far bigger difference than Hillary and Obama in 2008. Obama was leading by 150 or so delegates after Pennsylvania.
 
Some Sanders supporters really annoy the shit out of me, this is just disgusting. Sanders may be running a clean campaign, but that doesn't mean his supporters have to, too.
 
Matt said:
The main reason is to prevent a contested convention. If there are several candidates and no one reaches the majority, the supers allow the convention process to run smoothly. It allows there to be diversity in the primary process, while making sure the party is strong and unified when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Would not the simpler answer be to only let Supers vote if the convention was contested? Let the Pledged delegates determine the candidate and have supers break ties. I would have no problem in such a system. But as it is now I feel there's always the threat that supers could overwrite a persob with the majority of pledged delegates. I know it's unlikely, but just the fact that's possible is upsetting.
 
Frozenprince said:
No it's pretty thoroughly a rout. Being down 250 delegates at this point in time is untenable.
Click to expand...

Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
 
afreaknamedpete said:
Would not the simpler answer be to only let Supers vote if the convention was contested? Let the Pledged delegates determine the candidate and have supers break ties. I would have no problem in such a system. But as it is now I feel there's always the threat that supers could overwrite a persob with the majority of pledged delegates. I know it's unlikely, but just the fact that's possible is upsetting.
Click to expand...

They allow the primary to essentially end early and for the eventual winner to focus more on the general election.

Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble
Click to expand...

Most of the remaining states have a small number of delegates. It's not the number of states left that matters, it's the number of delegates.

Besides the point, the upcoming states favor her far more than they do Bernie. Momentum is an imagined thing that's only worth something when talking about narrative.

Bel Marduk said:
I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

I roll my eyes at this.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

You're adorable.
 
afreaknamedpete said:
Would not the simpler answer be to only let Supers vote if the convention was contested? Let the Pledged delegates determine the candidate and have supers break ties. I would have no problem in such a system. But as it is now I feel there's always the threat that supers could overwrite a persob with the majority of pledged delegates. I know it's unlikely, but just the fact that's possible is upsetting.
Click to expand...
A lot of things are possible. It's doesn't make worrying about them reasonable, nor does it turn fear-mongering or harassment into appropriate tactics.

As for only using super-delegates to break ties, that's what they do now. If employing them was a separate mechanism not used in a standard convention, that act itself would make the convention contested.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

She's in trouble? With CA, NY, PA coming up and a 250+ lead? Why do people like you choose to suspend yourselves from reality? Stop ignoring life. Just stop.

Are you even old enough to vote?
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

Stopped reading here.

Momentum means fuck all. You'd figure you'd learn that after "he had the momentum" only to get skullfucked in five states after that.

Bernie lost. He lost. Accept it. Face reality.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

Check back in on April 26 and see if Sanders has momentum. All of Sanders' recent momentum has barely cancelled out all of the gains Hillary made on March 15 alone. Before March 15, Hillary had a 239 delegate lead. On March 15, it went to 339. Now it's back to 230, with a series of delegate-rich states that favor Hillary on the horizon

teruterubozu said:
Then everyone should be cool, right?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean here? Unless you're saying 2008 was a meh win?
 
Kangi said:
I look forward to this word dying a horrific, gruesome death in regards to politics after this election.
Click to expand...

It'll keep being used if only because it's a good term when someone's trying to build a narrative and keep supporters going.
 
If Bernie had the momentum, he wouldn't be losing by over 200 delegates.

The ability to ignore reality from the Sanders camp is entertaining, at least.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...
She's not in trouble. Nothing has changed on the math side.

On the other, hand, something else has: Sanders has gone negative (after saying he wouldn't) and flipped his stance on the superdelegates. (now they should ignore the popular vote/delegate count when previously he argued they should follow it)

Why? Because back at the start, he thought he was going to win. It's not pretty, and it's the death throes of a dying campaign.
 
B-Dubs said:
They allow the primary to essentially end early and for the eventual winner to focus more on the general election.
Click to expand...

I get this idea but look at this primary. Sanders basically has very low odds, and if you look at pledged AND supers combined Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell. But his campaign is constantly saying that the supers will change their minds if he pulls ahead in pledged delegates. Pollsters usually separate out supers in their published delegate counts ad well. Since supers can flip positions at will, it's hard to treat them as locked in votes. I don't think supers really are effective at closing primaries early. Even if they were I'd still argue against their existence.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

Bernie generally wins caucuses and states that are white and rich. Hilary generally wins primaries and states that are more diverse. The only momentum that Sanders has is that the last several states were either caucuses and/or white.

That momentum will die once we get to New York and California
 
afreaknamedpete said:
I get this idea but look at this primary. Sanders basically has very low odds, and if you look at pledged AND supers combined Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell. But his campaign is constantly saying that the supers will change their minds if he pulls ahead in pledged delegates. Pollsters usually separate out supers in their published delegate counts ad well. Since supers can flip positions at will, it's hard to treat them as locked in votes. I don't think supers really are effective at closing primaries early. Even if they were I'd still argue against their existence.
Click to expand...

I think, in this case, that B-Dubs means "early" as in "at least a month before the DNC convenes in Philly". Mentioning 1980 again, but it was the last time that a Democratic convention was actually contested for a reason.

Effectively, they'll be countable after 6/14.
 
afreaknamedpete said:
I get this idea but look at this primary. Sanders basically has very low odds, and if you look at pledged AND supers combined Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell. But his campaign is constantly saying that the supers will change their minds if he pulls ahead in pledged delegates. Pollsters usually separate out supers in their published delegate counts ad well. Since supers can flip positions at will, it's hard to treat them as locked in votes. I don't think supers really are effective at closing primaries early. Even if they were I'd still argue against their existence.
Click to expand...
The Sanders campaign being desperate is not a good enough reason to change anything.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum
Click to expand...
The perception of having momentum can also hurt Sanders, as it will encourage more Hillary supporters who might otherwise stay home to come out and vote for her.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "momentum". It's cooked up by media to create narratives. Bernie had "momentum" after a Michigan upset, but Hillary had a clean sweep across the next 5 states including Ohio. But that "momentum" from Hillary didn't help her when Sanders won states in the next round.

States vote based on demographics, voter turnout, and independent vote. Larger minority populations in closed primaries favor Hillary. Low minority population in caucus states and open primaries favors Bernie. The next important states with large amount of delegates to net are New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania and California. All have sizable minorities with mix between open and closed primaries. Therefore, they naturally favor Hillary.
 
afreaknamedpete said:
I get this idea but look at this primary. Sanders basically has very low odds, and if you look at pledged AND supers combined Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell. But his campaign is constantly saying that the supers will change their minds if he pulls ahead in pledged delegates. Pollsters usually separate out supers in their published delegate counts ad well. Since supers can flip positions at will, it's hard to treat them as locked in votes. I don't think supers really are effective at closing primaries early. Even if they were I'd still argue against their existence.
Click to expand...

The point is that since the primary is proportional it's essentially impossible to come back from a deficit like the one Bernie's facing. While they would shift if he did, it would take something monumental that would likely make them shift their support anyway.

eBay Huckster said:
I think, in this case, that B-Dubs means "early" as in "at least a month before the DNC convenes in Philly". Mentioning 1980 again, but it was the last time that a Democratic convention was actually contested for a reason.

Effectively, they'll be countable after 6/14.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Once she hits the magic number with supers, expect her full focus to turn toward the general because at that point him catching up is impossible.
 
B-Dubs said:
The point is that since the primary is proportional it's essentially impossible to come back from a deficit like the one Bernie's facing. While they would shift if he did, it would take something monumental that would likely make them shift their support anyway.
Click to expand...

He needs to not only win NY and Penn and Cali, but win by 30%+.

Ain't happening.
 
afreaknamedpete said:
Would not the simpler answer be to only let Supers vote if the convention was contested? Let the Pledged delegates determine the candidate and have supers break ties. I would have no problem in such a system. But as it is now I feel there's always the threat that supers could overwrite a persob with the majority of pledged delegates. I know it's unlikely, but just the fact that's possible is upsetting.
Click to expand...

My main issue with the superdelegate system is that it immediately sets the narrative for who the party's favored candidate is. Wouldn't it be more fair if the superdelegates revealed their vote at the same time their state voted or when all the people's votes had been cast?

In an article from November, I found that 80% of superdelegates had already voiced their support for a candidate. That immediately sends a clear message of who the party heads are backing and really doesn't seem to be necessary seeing as their role is supposedly only to tie break in case of a contested convention.

Wikipedia quotes an official as saying supers mainly exist to protect against grassroots populists. Supers leave the option on the table for party officials and hell even personal positions to supercede someone with more real delegates that were voted for.
Click to expand...

That official is DWS the current head of the democratic party.
 
RustyNails said:
There is no such thing as "momentum". It's cooked up by media to create narratives. Bernie had "momentum" after a Michigan upset, but Hillary had a clean sweep across the next 5 states including Ohio. But that "momentum" from Hillary didn't help her when Sanders won states in the next round.

States vote based on demographics, voter turnout, and independent vote. Larger minority populations in closed primaries favor Hillary. Low minority population in caucus states and open primaries favors Bernie. The next important states with large amount of delegates to net are New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania and California. All have sizable minorities with mix between open and closed primaries. Therefore, they naturally favor Hillary.
Click to expand...

There's only 2 open primaries left out of the remaining states,Sanders is in trouble.
 
Bel Marduk said:
Twenty one states and territories have yet to vote and Sanders very clearly has the momentum

Clinton will still likely win but she is in trouble

I can only hope when/if she wins that she will take into account the feelings of Democratic voters while she is paying back her cronies and all the corporations she is beholden to
Click to expand...

do people really feel this way? Or are they just parroting canned responses that Bernie Sanders gives when asked about where his campaign is.
 
Shihon said:
There's only 2 open primaries left out of the remaining states,Sanders is in trouble.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's four - arguably five (IN, PR, MT, and ND, with SD "semi-open"), but I'd only favor him in two (three if counting SD).

Nils said:
seeing as their role is supposedly only to tie break in case of a contested convention.
Click to expand...

Not quite: the closest thing to a defined role for them is to prevent a contested convention from even happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Parking is getting super dumb...
41
2K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Linux Distribution "To try" list. 2025
13
1K
Melon Husk replied
  • Locked
Chernobyl concrete shield allegedly hit by Russian drone attack
Drama Event  2
93
7K
M1chl replied
Coyote vs. Acme to hit theaters as Warner Bros sells film for $50 million
26
1K
Kilau replied
Super Nintendo World (Universal Orlando) - opens 22nd May 2025
48
2K
Dacvak replied
Top Bottom