• Democrats vote to strip power from Super delegates
    25 replies, posted
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/democrats-vote-dnc-superdelegates-caucuses Democrats voted Saturday to drastically scale back the controversial superdelegate system that gives elected officials and party insiders an outsize say in the party’s presidential nominating process, delivering a significant victory for Bernie Sanders and his supporters ahead of 2020. The vote, held at the Democratic National Committee’s annual summer meeting here in Chicago, brings a laborious two-year process to its conclusion, with party members agreeing on a set of sweeping changes to superdelegates, caucuses, primaries, and other rules. Under the new system for choosing a Democratic nominee, in the first round of voting at the national convention, superdelegates will no longer be entitled to their own delegate to award to the candidate of their choosing. Around 700 people had superdelegate status in 2016. In the case of a contested convention and second round of voting — a historically unlikely possibility — superdelegates would again be allowed to cast a delegate vote. Superdelegates make up about 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to clinch the party’s nomination. They include 450 DNC members, Democratic elected officials, and "distinguished" party leaders like former presidents and vice presidents. Superdelegates were a major point of contention during the 2016 primary — with Sanders supporters arguing that the system unfairly favored Hillary Clinton. Second to the superdelegate measure, the biggest change made on Saturday was a set of measures to make caucuses more fair and transparent: States that hold caucuses over primaries will be asked to offer same-day registration, publicly report the results of caucus voting, create a mechanism for absentee voting, and ensure that every caucus site is accessible to people with disabilities and English-language limitations.
We could have a different president right now if these rules had been in effect before 2016.
This is awesome, this is exactly what the Democrats need to show that they're a party of the people and not one of insiders.
The superdelegate system was created after more power was given to primary voters after the 1968 DNC convention, where Hubert Humphrey won despite not being in any primary. They wanted the party to get more power after many defeats in the 70s and 80s. Now they're removing them after yet more defeats, ironic.
Alternate headline: "DNC astounds everyone by not fucking up"
Hilary would've still won the primary.
On the flip side, if the RNC had superdelegates, Trump likely wouldn't have been their primary.
I don’t know why people are rating you disagree. Hillary had substantially more votes than Bernie, and I really doubt that Bernie supports wouldn’t have bothered to vote for Bernie just because he was losing in the overall delegate (and vote) count at the time. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/226043/4fb5a674-ab2c-432a-923a-31a75aedda41/image.png
I “don’t know”, but maybe something do with controversial ex-DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “Left-wing” media and most of all Democrat politicians are have clear favoritism to HRC before election starts like leaving few candidates including Bernie himself slience them by make least six debates instead typical ten or twelve debates before 2016. And resulted less name recognition of why more voters voted her than Bernie and other fewer candidates who didn’t get converge much.
Hillary would have still won the primary even if the rule change for superdelegates was enacted before the 2016 primary started, which is what this thread is about and what Thomas45 was saying. Those things you mention about the DNC chair and number of debates are a completely separate matter, and even if their were a different chair or more debates, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Sanders would have won. Try to read things better yourself before you start throwing around ‘bad reading’ ratings.
That doesn't have anything to do with superdelegates though
Well it’s already does just before Bernie enter primary race, Most of politicans already endorsed her.
We better hope progressive activists are right that changes to the primary process are all that's needed to push them over the victory line, cus I haven't really seen any other suggestions from them. It bothers me that the people who give Clinton a ton of shit for shirking responsibility for her loss are the same people who blame Sanders' loss entirely on her and the DNC. I just haven't really seen any reflection on how Sanders could have run a better campaign or attracted more voters. Changing the system is great, superdelegates are useless anyway, but I worry that real lessons from Sanders' loss are being missed. For instance, attracting black voters was a huge problem for Sanders, and this is seemingly still an issue for progressive candidates this year. I dunno what the answer is, but they need to work out a way to fix this or else they're in big trouble again. I want to see a progressive nominee in 2020 and I legit hope that changes to the primary process and the national environment are sufficient to ensure victory, but I'd love to see more energy also go towards figuring out what went wrong in the campaign and how to get it right next time.
I despite Trump as much as anyone, but I'm nonetheless glad he was the Republican Party's nominee. Trump is exactly the president the Republican electorate wanted. He revealed the cancer that was hiding under the skin of our body politic for years; any other candidate would've been just another corporate face on an increasingly corrupt political system. In a strange way, Trump is the exception that proves the rule: If there had been more democracy in 2016 (i.e. if the Democrats hadn't tried to deprive voters of their voice and Republicans were powerless to stop Trump) then the outcome might have been different.
eh hate to break it to you but if the gop had a superdelegate system trump wouldn't have won.
Trump was always going to win, that's become clear in the months since his victory. The election was rigged by not just Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, but by Russian interference as well.
I will argue that in the greater context of things, the media (famously CNN) wouldnt mention that many of the total votes for a democratic candidate were super delegates, and would always present the current pollings in a way that showed bernie as very far behind, even though once you remove the super delegates, they were close in the beginning. however, they kept doing this, and among many other unfair things they did to Bernie, made a lot of people lose hope in him. It was possible he could have won if everything was truthful and people realized they actually did have a chance to change the system.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109677/f65d2f97-1f10-4fe4-b780-339eabf6dad8/image.png "bernie getting btfo how will he ever recover" When in reality it was more like this https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109677/37c097ce-1a21-4dde-b483-2c95263921bc/image.png
they absolutely needed to reevaluate the way superdelegates were able to announce their vote choice months ahead of any primary but bernie was actually far behind when he lost the south and no fake momentum of clinton's could make up for the fact that he failed to get the minority vote in the south
The way the Democrats handled their primaries really pissed off a sizable portion of their voter base. I think the resulting lack of enthusiasm was what really sunk Clinton's campaign.
Did that voter alleged fraud thing ever pan out? All those people complaining that they were purged from voter rolls? Was that real or did it end up being part of the psyops?
That or there a lot videos throughout Internet about her past controversial issues before becoming politician begin surface up before election and the infamous email leaks that didn't help her favorability. (She used have around 50s percent to 30s percent with 29-28 percents as rarely during and after Democratic Primaries happen)
The superdelegate system was created to stop unelectable candidates winninng primaries, and now they've been shuttered for the same reason.
if a candidate can actually win a primary they can't be that unelectable
Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carter resulting in landslide defeats.[16] Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle. Further soul-searching took place among party leaders, who argued that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making, with one May 1981 California white paper declaring that the Democratic Party had "lost its leadership, collective vision and ties with the past," resulting in the nomination of unelectable candidates. A new 70-member commission headed by Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt was appointed to further refine the Democratic Party's nomination process, attempting to balance the wishes of rank-and-file Democrats with the collective wisdom of party leaders and to thereby avoid the nomination of insurgent candidates exemplified by the liberal McGovern or the anti-Washington conservative Carter and lessening the potential influence of single-issue politics in the selection process.
Oh hell yeah! Its time for McGovern/Shriver 2020, Come Home America Part 2!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.