DNC votes to limit role of Superdelegates moving forward

[the cac mamba]

You picked out a statement that said "you're right, it will it would be nice to vote in the dem primary without knowing i'll be overrode by some party whore who got the most donations"

and said this never happens in response. Note in the bold, it's an individual speaking about his vote, not the entire electorate (which is why I was careful in my initial reply to limit super delegate impacts to state level regardless of the overall winner or loser). I can see how that miscommunication can happen when you're more focused on justifying Bernie's loss than the actual discussion on what role Super Delegates play or how a voting base may feel their votes have been marginalized. We're on two different wavelengths here...



I didn't jump into this discussion focusing on why Bernie lost, as a matter of fact I DISTANCED myself from that stance in my initial post when I said "whether he won or not." My stance isn't a "Bernie would have won" one, it's a "superdelegates are not necessary and can cause disillusionment in a voting base as exemplified by @the cac mamba and his comment." We seem to be mostly in agreement there with superdelegates being unnecessary. If you don't think it can make voters feel their selections have been marginalized, that's a point of disagreement. I'd say that when an election ends with delegates being handed out proportionally and then the gap is closed by Super Delegates some of whom apear to have made their selections before the primary happened...that's going to impact the electorate in that area.

i have no issue acknowledging that bernie lost fair and square, because it's a fact

another fact is that the superdelegates existed to protect hillary's investment. another fact is that no other dems threw their hat in the ring because the DNC let them know hillary had already purchased the nomination, which is why we only had lincoln chafee "oppose" hillary compared to the 10 prominent repubs who ran

i dont see why we cant acknowledge that this happened i didnt even know that was a controversial point until this dude started debating it he's fukkin clowning falling all over himself to act like the DNC didnt stack the deck when everyone in the country knows it happened

 

[storyteller]

i have no issue acknowledging that bernie lost fair and square, because it's a fact

another fact is that the superdelegates existed to protect hillary's investment. another fact is that no other dems threw their hat in the ring because the DNC let them know hillary had already purchased the nomination, which is why we only had lincoln chafee "oppose" hillary compared to the 10 prominent repubs who ran

i dont see why we cant acknowledge that this happened i didnt even know that was a controversial point until this dude started debating it he's fukkin clowning falling all over himself to act like the DNC didnt stack the deck when everyone in the country knows it happened

A lot heads seem to forget that the initial "rigging" comments came from Martin O'Malley and if I'm not mistaken he even clapped at Bernie for being too complacent about it.

 

[StatUS]

Hillary bought the party and had almost all the super dels on her side before the first vote was taken. Bernie closed a 50 point gap and raised more money of individual donations but he fell flat during the super Ohio/Illinois primary.

Can we stop relitigating this and look forward to the primaries where party elities will have less say in process?

 

[Pressure]

You picked out a statement that said "you're right, it will it would be nice to vote in the dem primary without knowing i'll be overrode by some party whore who got the most donations"

and said this never happens in response. Note in the bold, it's an individual speaking about his vote, not the entire electorate (which is why I was careful in my initial reply to limit super delegate impacts to state level regardless of the overall winner or loser). I can see how that miscommunication can happen when you're more focused on justifying Bernie's loss than the actual discussion on what role Super Delegates play or how a voting base may feel their votes have been marginalized. We're on two different wavelengths here...

1.) He said he didn't vote.
2.) Co has 78 Delegates,

• of which 12 are unpledged (Super delegates)
  • 3 of those were unused
  • 9 of those went to clinton
• of the remaining 66
  • 25 went to Clinton
  • 41 went to Sanders

How was his vote (that he didn't make) overridden by the Super Delegates?

He can feel that way, but it didn't happen. What we can be certain of is that by not voting his concerns seem a bit dishonest.

You picked out a statement that said "you're right, it will it would be nice to vote in the dem primary without knowing i'll be overrode by some party whore who got the most donations"

I didn't jump into this discussion focusing on why Bernie lost, as a matter of fact I DISTANCED myself from that stance in my initial post when I said "whether he won or not." My stance isn't a "Bernie would have won" one, it's a "superdelegates are not necessary and can cause disillusionment in a voting base as exemplified by @the cac mamba and his comment." We seem to be mostly in agreement there with superdelegates being unnecessary. If you don't think it can make voters feel their selections have been marginalized, that's a point of disagreement. I'd say that when an election ends with delegates being handed out proportionally and then the gap is closed by Super Delegates some of whom apear to have made their selections before the primary happened...that's going to impact the electorate in that area.

Superdelegates aren't necessary because those who are superdelegates are entitled to vote like every other citizen. I think we agree there.

While we agree that Super delegates can make people feel disillusioned, the stated real world impact by people claiming it was rigged, etc seems to come from naivety on how many vote super delegates actually receive, that they've never flipped the election the other way based on their pledged delegates, and they didn't determine the outcome of the last primary (which seems to be the focus in these discussions).

There's a vast gap between Superdelegates make voters feel disillusioned and we should avoid that and @the cac mamba saying, "Clinton already had the nomination locked up because of super delegates. "

 

[the cac mamba]

There's a vast gap between Superdelegates make voters feel disillusioned and we should avoid that and @the cac mamba saying, "Clinton already had the nomination locked up because of super delegates. "

im sorry you didnt like my wording i didnt know anyone existed who defends superdelegates besides napoleon, i didnt really think twice about it

im not naive, politics is a dirty game and money talks. hillarys political machine cut backroom deals to lock up the nomination, fine just dont patronize me and act like that wasnt the case

 

[Pressure]

im sorry you didnt like my wording i didnt know anyone existed who defends superdelegates besides napoleon, i didnt really think twice about it

im not naive, politics is a dirty game and money talks. hillarys political machine cut backroom deals to lock up the nomination, fine just dont patronize me and act like that wasnt the case

Campaigns raise money. Sanders raised a lot of money as well. But many of these delegates are colleagues. Maybe they just liked her more or felt she was qualified or their views were more in sync or just wanted to see a woman POTUS

 

[the cac mamba]

Campaigns raise money. Sanders raised a lot of money as well. But many of these delegates are colleagues. Maybe they just liked her more or felt she was qualified or their views were more in sync or just wanted to see a woman POTUS

or maybe she had the most money and influence, and they lined up to kiss her ass because career politicians are terrible people. the world will never know

 

[Pressure]

or maybe she had the most money and influence, and they lined up to kiss her ass because career politicians are terrible people. the world will never know

She had the most money because she's good at fundraising. That isn't a bad thing for campaigns.
If she had more influence than sanders among their peers I'm not sure what to tell you. But that's on them.
That said, between the two, Sanders would be considered more of a career politician.

But I really don't care, Trump is a terrible president and I don't want to hear anyone saying they want a businessman running the country ever again.

 

[storyteller]

1.) He said he didn't vote.
2.) Co has 78 Delegates,

• of which 12 are unpledged (Super delegates)
  • 3 of those were unused
  • 9 of those went to clinton
• of the remaining 66
  • 25 went to Clinton
  • 41 went to Sanders

How was his vote (that he didn't make) overridden by the Super Delegates?

He can feel that way, but it didn't happen. What we can be certain of is that by not voting his concerns seem a bit dishonest.


Superdelegates aren't necessary because those who are superdelegates are entitled to vote like every other citizen. I think we agree there.

While we agree that Super delegates can make people feel disillusioned, the stated real world impact by people claiming it was rigged, etc seems to come from naivety on how many vote super delegates actually receive, that they've never flipped the election the other way based on their pledged delegates, and they didn't determine the outcome of the last primary (which seems to be the focus in these discussions).

There's a vast gap between Superdelegates make voters feel disillusioned and we should avoid that and @the cac mamba saying, "Clinton already had the nomination locked up because of super delegates. "

I think a big aspect of the "rigging" points is poor wording. Did the Super Delegates impact views on the election which could have negatively impacted turnout for Bernie? I think that's true. I think an excerpt from this article lays it out well,
NPR Choice page

But these numbers mean Clinton has already gotten 15 percent of the delegates needed — two months before any voting has begun. In other words, Clinton starts with a 15 percentage point head start over Sanders.

What's more, superdelegates have a greater importance than raw numbers. That's because the way they lean, political scientists have found, is one of the best predictors of who will become the nominee.

"What's highly correlated with who becomes the nominee is the number of party elite endorsements a candidate has in the year before the election," UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck told NPR's Sam Sanders in a story last month. "The idea is not that anybody hears that someone has endorsed you and then that sways their vote. The idea is that party elites have a sense of who is viable and electable as a candidate. They have unique insider knowledge about this."

It's remarkable that this many would come forward — on the record — this early. In most cycles, many of the leaders wait until results in their states.

Did the super delegates literally decide the election? Of course not. But did they potentially sway voters? I'd say absolutely. And then if someone feels like I do that the decisions were premature, THAT is why this super delegate issue becomes a bigger deal. Again, I don't think they were the deciding factor but I think they were a clear variable. I wouldn't call that rigging. But coupled with the DNC games (debate scheduling for example), I can see how the impression becomes "it was rigged." Now I can't speak on @the cac mamba personal experience or perspective, but the view he expressed is one that I've seen and discussed with plenty of Bernie supporters. And it's more nuanced than just the pure numbers and that poor choice of word "rigged." I think "influenced" is fair and tracks well with the concept that we agree on, that super delegates can create disillusionment in voters whether based in reality or perception.

 

[the cac mamba]

She had the most money because she's good at fundraising. That isn't a bad thing for campaigns.
If she had more influence than sanders among their peers I'm not sure what to tell you. But that's on them.
That said, between the two, Sanders would be considered more of a career politician.

But I really don't care, Trump is a terrible president and I don't want to hear anyone saying they want a businessman running the country ever again.

im not opposed to a different businessman just because this one's a piece of shyt doesnt disqualify everyone else

i know that you all hate to admit it, but nothing has changed badly economically for the vast majority of the country. the tax cuts for the rich blew a hole in the deficit yeah, but i didnt give a fukk about the debt under obama and im not gonna pretend to with trump

this trade war though :hovtrump: i wont speak too soon

 

[Pressure]

im not opposed to a different businessman just because this one's a piece of shyt doesnt disqualify everyone else

i know that you all hate to admit it, but nothing has changed badly economically for the vast majority of the country. the tax cuts for the rich blew a hole in the deficit yeah, but i didnt give a fukk about the debt under obama and im not gonna pretend to with trump

this trade war though :hovtrump: i wont speak too soon

The economy is on the same trajectory as it was before.

The problem here is socially the country is taking a dive. There's more to life than the bottom life. If it was all about money I'd vote republican

 

[Pressure]

I think a big aspect of the "rigging" points is poor wording. Did the Super Delegates impact views on the election which could have negatively impacted turnout for Bernie? I think that's true. I think an excerpt from this article lays it out well,
NPR Choice page



Did the super delegates literally decide the election? Of course not. But did they potentially sway voters? I'd say absolutely. And then if someone feels like I do that the decisions were premature, THAT is why this super delegate issue becomes a bigger deal. Again, I don't think they were the deciding factor but I think they were a clear variable. I wouldn't call that rigging. But coupled with the DNC games (debate scheduling for example), I can see how the impression becomes "it was rigged." Now I can't speak on @the cac mamba personal experience or perspective, but the view he expressed is one that I've seen and discussed with plenty of Bernie supporters. And it's more nuanced than just the pure numbers and that poor choice of word "rigged." I think "influenced" is fair and tracks well with the concept that we agree on, that super delegates can create disillusionment in voters whether based in reality or perception.

I think we're in agreement. I just don't like the use of some of the terms and it takes away from the meaningful dialogue and allows things to spitball

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any normal citizen who thinks getting rid of the super delegates is a bad thing. This should be a free dap + rep thread.

 

[the cac mamba]

The economy is on the same trajectory as it was before.

The problem here is socially the country is taking a dive. There's more to life than the bottom life. If it was all about money I'd vote republican

well i have no argument with that. frankly you're a better man than me for making 6 figs and still voting democrat

 

[storyteller]

I think we're in agreement. I just don't like the use of some of the terms and it takes away from the meaningful dialogue and allows things to spitball

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any normal citizen who thinks getting rid of the super delegates is a bad thing. This should be a free dap + rep thread.

Legit a meaningful dialogue without falling into insults and strawmanning...we need more of this before 2020!

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

​