Reply With Quote
but but republicans are the corrupt ones
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...cid=538twitterIf 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.
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.
but but republicans are the corrupt ones
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.
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.
Are the super delegates names public?
Democrats are hypocrytical gots
So much for repub voter suppression.
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.
I meant fiddling with the system/process (on the other side) - the equivalent of.
the ing Senate's unfair. Since when did America give a about justice and fairness?
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.
DNC reverses ban on lobbyist donations - establishment basically working as a fundraiser/PAC for Hillary now
Well...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/superdelegate2.htmYou 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
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.
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 ins ution,” 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-...on-in-the-dnc/
hmm, well, we'll see.
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.
I don't follow your comparison.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
