Superdelegates and the DNC Establishment

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you look at a Democratic delegate tracker like this one from The New York Times, you’ll find that Hillary Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders so far, despite having been walloped by Sanders in New Hampshire and only essentially having tied him in Iowa. While Sanders does have a modest 36-32 lead among elected delegates — those that are bound to the candidates based on the results of voting in primaries and caucuses — Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.

If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might think this seems profoundly unfair. And you’d be right: It’s profoundly unfair. Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders.

Here’s the consolation, however. Unlike elected delegates, superdelegates are unbound to any candidate even on the first ballot. They can switch whenever they like, and some of them probably will switch to Sanders if he extends his winning streak into more diverse states and eventually appears to have more of a mandate than Clinton among Democratic voters.

Clinton knows this all too well; it’s exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/?ex_cid=538twitter

This is a big issue moving forward. National Review and Fox are pushing it so they are getting mileage. It is by definition undemocratic.

Anyway here is Nate Silver discussing the issue. He is my favorite individual political commentator perhaps my favorite journalist period. Great article discussing the issue and what it portends.

[spurraider21]

but but republicans are the corrupt ones

[z0sa]

Basically means Hillary owns the tiebreaker and can screw up more, yet still win the nomination. It's an uphill battle for Bernie but I think a lot of the superdelegates understand the animosity that voting along establishment lines would create among registered Dems if Bernie got clearly got jewed (lol) and so there will be slightly more parity among the candidates among them than people are predicting.

[boutons_deux]

I put a big post in the Hillary thread with lots of angles covered, esp Bernie winning popular vote, winning more primaries, but Hillary taking the nomination with superdelegates. Hillary would have hard time convincing pissed-off Bernie voters to switch to her.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Are the super delegates names public?

[hater]

Democrats are hypocrytical faggots

[rmt]

So much for repub voter suppression.

[rmt]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/11/harry_reid_defends_superdelegate_system_iowa_new_h ampshire_too_white_to_decide_future_of_country.htm l

[ElNono]

I don't get it. How is this suppression? Nobody is prevented from voting.

Sure, some people might argue it's an unfair system (some people argue the electoral college is an unfair system too), but that's a different story from suppression.

[rmt]

I meant fiddling with the system/process (on the other side) - the equivalent of.

[boutons_deux]

I don't get it. How is this suppression? Nobody is prevented from voting.

Sure, some people might argue it's an unfair system (some people argue the electoral college is an unfair system too), but that's a different story from suppression.

the fucking Senate's unfair. Since when did America give a shit about justice and fairness?

[ChumpDumper]

but but republicans are the corrupt onesHow is that corrupt?

[ChumpDumper]

Are the super delegates names public?Yes.

[z0sa]

How is that corrupt?

Party "elites" having 15 percent of the delegates needed for the presidency certainly sounds like it leaves the door open for an abuse of power.

[z0sa]

DNC reverses ban on lobbyist donations - establishment basically working as a fundraiser/PAC for Hillary now :lol

[Nbadan]

Well...


You have superdelegates because … You don't want bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be" (source: CNN). Brown cites the ability of undeclared or non-Democrat voters in some states to cast a vote in Democratic primaries or caucuses. The logic follows that if enough of these nonaffiliated voters cast ballots, voters outside the Democratic Party could decide the nominee.

Adding superdelegates to the convention provides a countermeasure against such an event. Since superdelegates are all registered Democrats (and usually elected officials), it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't vote contrary to Democratic Party lines. But to some, the power superdelegates have to sway a nomination flies in the face of a democratic process. "If the superdelegates go against the popular will of the voters, whoever emerges as 'victor' will enter the presidential election shorn of democratic legitimacy and devoid of electoral credibility" warned columnist Gary Younge during the 2008 race

http://people.howstuffworks.com/superdelegate2.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZ9jxALmH0

[rmt]

Well...



http://people.howstuffworks.com/superdelegate2.htm



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZ9jxALmH0

So the establishment still holds the power over the will of the people - wonderful (sarcasm). Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton - LOL - poor Bernie fans - no chance - better pray for the FBI investigation.

[z0sa]

So the establishment still holds the power over the will of the people - wonderful (sarcasm). Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton - LOL - poor Bernie fans - no chance - better pray for the FBI investigation.

It is definitely an insane situation. But the reality is, Clinton should be able to carry the nomination on her own. If it comes down to the super delegates, something very very wrong went down for her campaign. OTOH it is an unfortunate truth of Bernie's campaign, but that's not stopping us from donating. Like I've said before, just getting the conversation going on many of these issues will probably end up paying off in the long term.

[boutons_deux]

The Bernie super delegate panic is based on lazy reporting — here is what’s really going on in the DNC

If Sanders were to arrive at the convention with a majority of bound delegates, but fewer than the 2,382 needed to secure the nomination, it’s hard to imagine the super delegates would dare to buck the will of Democratic primary voters by swinging the count to Clinton’s favor.

David Karol, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and author of The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, told me that “there is no historical evidence that super delegates have the backbone to go against a candidate who is leading the primary and caucus voting.” Karol notes that the mere suggestion this might happen became a scandal in 2008.

“As a party scholar, I am all for super delegates as an institution,” says Karol, “but it’s really unclear whether they retain the legitimacy to do much of anything.”

He notes that the only time super delegates played a meaningful role in selecting a nominee was in 1984, when they put Mondale over the top. But, he notes, Mondale “was well ahead of his rivals and that was a long time ago.”

It is no doubt true that many of them feel a sense of loyalty to the Clintons. But it doesn’t follow that they’d effectively become political suicide bombers because of that loyalty. They want to beat the Republican nominee in November, and those who hold elected office also want to be re-elected. The worst way to accomplish either goal would be to create a massive scandal within the Democratic Party just months before the election. The super delegates aren’t going to destroy the party from within just because they prefer one candidate over the other.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-bernie-super-delegate-panic-is-based-on-lazy-reporting-here-is-whats-really-going-on-in-the-dnc/

hmm, well, we'll see.

[ChumpDumper]

Party "elites" having 15 percent of the delegates needed for the presidency certainly sounds like it leaves the door open for an abuse of power.Not really. It's just establishment power consolidation. I personally disagree with it, but I don't consider it an abuse. It's not like it's secret or anything.

[Spurminator]

So much for repub voter suppression.

I don't follow your comparison.

[rmt]

The way many think the repubs are interfering with the process is similar to the way the DNC is interfering with the selection of the democrat nominee. I apologize - I was not clear.

[boutons_deux]

The way many think the repubs are interfering with the process is similar to the way the DNC is interfering with the selection of the democrat nominee. I apologize - I was not clear.

you're wrong with your false equivalence, and you're not smart.

[spurraider21]

Not really. It's just establishment power consolidation. I personally disagree with it, but I don't consider it an abuse. It's not like it's secret or anything.
does it have to be a secret to be an abuse?

[Th'Pusher]

does it have to be a secret to be an abuse?

It's a precaution. Likely unnecessary. But, as has been mentioned multiple times and demonstrated via precedence, if Bernie gets the popular vote, the super delegates aren't going to buck the system and vote Hilary. This is a bunch of am radio hype.

[spurraider21]

if you say so

[boutons_deux]

if you say so

Dem elections history sez so

[Th'Pusher]

Spurraider listens to am radio :lol

[ChumpDumper]

does it have to be a secret to be an abuse?Nope, but you'll have to explain how this is open for abuse. By your definition, the electoral college is ripe for abuse of power.

[spurraider21]

Nope, but you'll have to explain how this is open for abuse. By your definition, the electoral college is ripe for abuse of power.
what definition did i give?

[ChumpDumper]

what definition did i give?The definition that it is open for abuse of power since a small group of people can theoretically cancel out the will of regular voters. That's exactly what the electoral college can theoretically do, so you must think it is also open for abuse.

Unless you are contradicting yourself, which would be understandable.

[spurraider21]

The definition that it is open for abuse of power since a small group of people can theoretically cancel out the will of regular voters. That's exactly what the electoral college can theoretically do, so you must think it is also open for abuse.

Unless you are contradicting yourself, which would be understandable.
the superdelegates in the primary are quite different than the electors in the general election, though.

in the general election, the people vote for electors, who are then fully expected to vote a certain way (the number of "faithless" electors is incredibly small, historically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2000_to_present ). nobody votes for superdelegates

[ChumpDumper]

the superdelegates in the primary are quite different than the electors in the general election, though.

in the general election, the people vote for electors, who are then fully expected to vote a certain way (the number of "faithless" electors is incredibly small, historically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2000_to_present ). nobody votes for superdelegatesActually, hundreds of them are elected.

[spurraider21]

Actually, hundreds of them are elected.
they are elected into office as other positions. you know exactly what i meant

[ElNono]

the superdelegates in the primary are quite different than the electors in the general election, though.

in the general election, the people vote for electors, who are then fully expected to vote a certain way (the number of "faithless" electors is incredibly small, historically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2000_to_present ). nobody votes for superdelegates

While this is true, the general election is a vote for different parties, wheres primary elections are elections within a party. While that sounds obvious, it should then also be obvious that it makes complete sense (even if it's perceived as unfair) that the party has full control of the rules and the candidate selection system in the primaries. Every candidate knew from the get go what the rules are and nothing prevented them from not running through that party and system and instead going through their own independent party (cue the complaints about the overall system being rigged towards two parties, which is a fair criticism, IMO).

[spurraider21]

oh, i'm aware the parties run the show. they're allowed to help rig their elections as much as they want, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

oh, i'm aware the parties run the show. they're allowed to help rig their elections as much as they want, tbh

Actually with the superdelegates its very obvious and not openended. You sound like boutox with his fatalism.

[spurraider21]

Actually with the superdelegates its very obvious and not openended. You sound like boutox with his fatalism.
again, i never said it wasn't obvious or was a secret

[FuzzyLumpkins]

again, i never said it wasn't obvious or was a secret

I didn't say you were boutox. I said you sounded like him with your fatalism. Youre saying that some group of DNC leaders can rig the election how they want. There is nothing out in the open to support that notion.

[Spurminator]

The way many think the repubs are interfering with the process is similar to the way the DNC is interfering with the selection of the democrat nominee. I apologize - I was not clear.

I suppose they both fall under the large "shady practices interfering with the democratic process" but this is hardly as broadly impactful as gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other tactics by Republicans to suppress or manipulate voting results.

[rmt]

I suppose they both fall under the large "shady practices interfering with the democratic process" but this is hardly as broadly impactful as gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other tactics by Republicans to suppress or manipulate voting results.

I don't know what specific voter ID laws you mean, but why shouldn't I need an ID to vote? I need an ID to drive, to go to the doctor, to get a library card, to get on a plane, to sign up for community classes, to sign my kids up for soccer or swimming classes, to register my kids in school, to sign them out of school for appointments, etc. How can they be sure that people are who they say they are and aren't double or triple voting?

[Splits]

I don't know what specific voter ID laws you mean, but why shouldn't I need an ID to vote? I need an ID to drive, to go to the doctor, to get a library card, to get on a plane, to sign up for community classes, to sign my kids up for soccer or swimming classes, to register my kids in school, to sign them out of school for appointments, etc. How can they be sure that people are who they say they are and aren't double or triple voting?

There's been a recent study documenting how this harms the demographics most likely to vote Dem: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/10/voter-id-paper/

Do you think it is fair that a student ID is not an acceptable form of identification but a concealed carry permit is just fine? https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids

Ask yourself: who are students most likely to vote for and who are people packing heat most likely to vote for? This is blatant voter suppression.

In 2012, the PA republican house leader actually admitted to the purpose of voter ID laws: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/

[ElNono]

It's really unfortunate that in this day and age we still don't have a Constitutional amendment that affirmatively grants the right to vote.

That would clean up a lot of this mess.

[z0sa]

Rigging is a strong insinuation. "Making it appear as though casting your vote on any DNC party outsider is futile and frivolous" would be more aptly put. Presentation is everything in a campaign.

[rmt]

There's been a recent study documenting how this harms the demographics most likely to vote Dem: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/10/voter-id-paper/

Do you think it is fair that a student ID is not an acceptable form of identification but a concealed carry permit is just fine? https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids

Ask yourself: who are students most likely to vote for and who are people packing heat most likely to vote for? This is blatant voter suppression.

In 2012, the PA republican house leader actually admitted to the purpose of voter ID laws: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/

In order for one to get a concealed carry permit, one probably has to go through a background check or at the very least - be 18 years old. A student does not have to be 18 in order to get a student ID and all that's listed is what school you go to, your name and your grade (for high school). For college student ids, I assume there's no grade but there can be very young kids in college (15, 16 and definitely 17 year olds). There's no birthdate on either high school or college student IDs. If you have to show id to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery tickets, why wouldn't you show id to vote?

Where I am, I have to be on the voter list (in my neighborhood) and show picture ID that I'm who's on the list. That way I vote for the correct representative, council member, etc. I can't vote wherever I want - across county lines, outside my district, etc.

[rmt]

My husband's concealed weapon license has his address and birthdate on it. Student ids have neither - nothing that says one is eligible (old enough) or in the right neighborhood - I don't know if a passport is considered proper id as that also doesn't have address on it.

[rmt]

My bad, if this is with a voter's registration card that I assume did some checking that one is eligible and in the right neighborhood and not by itself. And aren't some college kids not in their neighborhood and so can't vote anyways. And Texas doesn't allow absentee ballots for students, right?

[rmt]

Are you talking about WITH a voter's registration card? That has already checked that one is a citizen, a resident of that state and in the right neighborhood? Or voting with just the photo id by itself?

[Splits]

^ I'm beginning to doubt you've ever voted before.

You register to vote. Based on your address, you are assigned a precinct. When it is time to vote, you go to your precinct, give them your name and voter registration card, and they look at the registration logs. If you're on the logs, they check your name off, you go into the booth and vote. If you're not, you cannot cast a regular ballot. There is no way for one person to vote twice/thrice.

As for the voter ID suppression Republicans are running, I urge you to watch John Oliver's show from this evening (ironically enough, I had no idea he was going to do a piece on this issue tonight and I left my computer to go watch it right after I responded to you). If you don't have HBO, I'll link the piece when it is available. I hope you watch it and form your own opinion. It is blatant voter suppression, performed and supported by only one party, without any evidence of fixing non-existent "voter fraud", and open admissions that the purpose of requiring voter ID is to win elections for Republicans.

[Splits]

rHFOwlMCdto

[rmt]

^ I'm beginning to doubt you've ever voted before.

You register to vote. Based on your address, you are assigned a precinct. When it is time to vote, you go to your precinct, give them your name and voter registration card, and they look at the registration logs. If you're on the logs, they check your name off, you go into the booth and vote. If you're not, you cannot cast a regular ballot. There is no way for one person to vote twice/thrice.

As for the voter ID suppression Republicans are running, I urge you to watch John Oliver's show from this evening (ironically enough, I had no idea he was going to do a piece on this issue tonight and I left my computer to go watch it right after I responded to you). If you don't have HBO, I'll link the piece when it is available. I hope you watch it and form your own opinion. It is blatant voter suppression, performed and supported by only one party, without any evidence of fixing non-existent "voter fraud", and open admissions that the purpose of requiring voter ID is to win elections for Republicans.

It's been around 35 years since I registered to vote so please forgive me if I can't even remember registering. :lol I've only voted in two precincts - never by absentee ballot or early voting (like at the library) so I wouldn't presume to know what it's like outside of my neighborhood or for a college kid AWAY at college. I'll try to watch your suggested show - thanks.

[ElNono]

On the flip side of this, you have what's going on in the GOP, where a guy like Trump has completely taken over the Republican brand but has little interest in the party going forward. He's made no secret of running as an independent if the party doesn't play by his rules, and basically is using the party, and abusing the fact the party was already somewhat in shambles. If he does indeed wins the nomination and loses the general, it's difficult to see what's going to happen to the GOP. It's probably going to be rock bottom and basically implosion. And so under that perspective, being mindful about the party going forward is also important.

[Nbadan]

On the flip side of this, you have what's going on in the GOP, where a guy like Trump has completely taken over the Republican brand but has little interest in the party going forward. He's made no secret of running as an independent if the party doesn't play by his rules, and basically is using the party, and abusing the fact the party was already somewhat in shambles. If he does indeed wins the nomination and loses the general, it's difficult to see what's going to happen to the GOP. It's probably going to be rock bottom and basically implosion. And so under that perspective, being mindful about the party going forward is also important.

The GOP may yet get its brokered convention...

[rmt]

The GOP may get it's brokered convention yet...

Trump, Cruz and Rubio are going at it - a bloodbath. Poor Carson is calling for peace, and no one's listening.

[Nbadan]

Trump, Cruz and Rubio are going at it - a bloodbath. Poor Carson is calling for peace, and no one's listening.

Trump polls horribly with independents....eaasy Hillary or even Sanders win in the General....the GOP establishments knows Trump can't win....but for now they are powerless to derail the Trump bandwagon...

[rasuo214]

Bernie isn't a Dem so big deal if he gets screwed by the Dem party. He only joined because that was his best route to getting elected. If it happens the Bernie supporters can whine all they want but they'll jump on the Hillary bandwagon. Ultimately though I don't see it as an issue because Hillary should dominate the south and midwest. Bernie will win the NE and maybe out west.


As far as concealed permit vs student id. One is state issued and the other isn't, unless Texas started issuing student ids?

All valid ids are either state or federally issued: a Texas driver’s license, a U.S. passport, a state-issued ID card, a state-issued election certificate, a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. military ID or a citizenship certificate with a photograph.


Not sure why it's an issue that voting would require some sort of government id.

[rasuo214]

Trump polls horribly with independents....eaasy Hillary or even Sanders win in the General....the GOP establishments knows Trump can't win....but for now they are powerless to derail the Trump bandwagon...

If there isn't significant pressure on one of Bush or Rubio to drop out then the GOP establishment deserves Trump as the nominee.

[boutons_deux]

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

“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_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_ activists/

wow

[spurraider21]

thanks Dems!

[RandomGuy]

Democrats are hypocrytical faggots

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5133/13953783092_54352f67f8_o.jpg

https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/post-8794-1403702267.gif

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/images/smilies/irony_meter.gif