2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis is how many Superdelegates Clinton had before a single vote was cast.
400 promised votes before any debate.
400 promised votes before any person voted.
I just thought I would mention it.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)This was more selected.
Alex4Martinez
(2,201 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)How dare they rig the process so the candidate with the most votes wins!
It's an outrage!
Sanders reputation is well known among his colleagues. There's a reason why they don't support him.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...telling us how hated Senator Sanders is.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I think that the Democratic Party benefits from having some delegates who have won a public office by election. I know that Bernie Sanders is a superdelegate and I think it's a good thing that our Senators have a role at our conventions. Has Sanders decided yet who he is going to support?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Tal Vez
(660 posts)If you go back far enough - to the system designed by the Founders - each state just picked (in a manner prescribed by each state) electors who then voted for president and vice-president. They didn't travel to any conventions and each elector was someone trusted by the bigwigs in that state.
We didn't begin with very democratic roots. Once parties developed, the process became more complicated. Over the long run, there has been a struggle to introduce greater democracy (many states now choose delegates by election) while preserving a role for the political leaders of that party. I think that makes sense. I don't think that the process would necessarily be improved by having every delegate selected in primaries. I'm really not sure what you wanted me to learn from the very limited history provided in that article, but I think that in general terms, the present system makes a lot of sense. Every four years, the parties tweak their systems.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)We're talking SD's which are a fairly-modern invention.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)While the word superdelegates may be new, if you go back a ways, all of the delegates were superdelegates in the sense that they were party leaders and people selected by party leaders See if you can find out when the people began playing a role in selecting delegates by primary elections. The novelty, if you will, is the delegate selected by primary rather than by a meeting of party bigwigs in the states. Primary elections, voting by regular people who don't own property (or people), voting by nonwhites and women - these are the new things. If you're looking at the history of our country, the process of selecting presidents has become (in general) more democratic over time. I assume that you understand that.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)b) nothing legitimate can come from encouraging them to "vote" before the convention.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)It's not realistic for us to think that all super delegates would remain uncommitted. Isn't Sanders a super delegate? Would the system be better if we pretended that he remains uncommitted?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Sigmund Freud can rest easy. His theory still stands.
senz
(11,945 posts)Senator Jeff Sessions Republican, Alabama Ive always respected Bernie and weve gotten along personally well.
Senator Jack Reed Democrat, Rhode Island [Hes] a gentleman, thoughtful, a leader
If you want to have a pleasant discussion on not only policy issues but just issues of the day, hes a pleasant guy.
Senator Richard Burr Republican, North Carolina [Sanders is] one whos willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product.
Senator Roger Wicker Republican, Mississippi I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment
Hes tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and hes not to be underestimated.
Senator Sherrod Brown Democrat, Ohio [Sanders] would call them tripartite amendments because wed have him and hed get a Republican, hed get a Democrat and hed pass things. Hes good at building coalitions.
Senator John Mccain Republican, Arizona [While working on the Veterans Affairs legislation], I found him to be honorable and good as his word.
Senator Chuck Schumer Democrat, New York He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans.
Senator Jack Reed Democratic, Rhode Island (again) Frankly, without him, I dont think we would have gotten [the Veterans Affairs legislation] done
It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And, yet ...none of these "got along wells" have endorsed or promised to endorse him.
senz
(11,945 posts)He doesn't have millions of dollars from big fancy Wall Street buddies, a famous spouse, and a reputation for revenge.
He doesn't have this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
You can get a whole lot of endorsements with all that crap.
And those are just a few of the many reasons I value and respect Bernie Sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and while saying nice things about him to journalists ... they just don't want him for President ... because they know him and have attempted to work with him.
Matt_R
(456 posts)dubyadiprecession
(5,740 posts)That is sad.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)We have been hearing from the Bernie crowd that the super delegates don't vote until the convention and cannot be counted before then.
So how could Hillary "have" those votes?
It's almost like the Berners want their cake and eat it too... complaining about the number of votes she had from SD's before the convention, then turning around and saying she doesn't have anything other than pledged votes.
Which is it?
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)I know they haven't voted yet.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)See Obama, 2008. Clinton was up more than 2:1 at one point. Where did they end up?
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)I want them to change.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)They've always lined up with the candidate with the most delegates from primaries and caucuses. Presumably, we'd want them to reflect the state of the race.
In Obama's case, he had won 11 straight contests and had taken over the lead in primary/caucus delegates when the shift began. As his delegate total grew, more of the undecideds committed to Obama and some who had committed to Clinton switched when it became obvious that Obama was going to be the presumptive nominee.
It's not comparable to 2016, because there's been no comparable shift in the race. Clinton has had the caucus/primary delegate lead (not counting any of the SDs) for months and she's going to end the cycle with significantly more. There's no logical or mathematical reason for them to shift en masse to Sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Stay tuned ... The argument is ever shifting.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)That's the point that never seems to get through. They've always gotten behind the person with the most delegates, and this isn't going to be any different. Hillary's been ahead in delegates for months and will finish with the most. Simple, really.
I suppose the easiest answer is too...easy?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)
A relationship with them even after having worked with them for twenty five years, why is this.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)with Bernie and everything to do with the Clinton Victory a Fund money launder for the DNC and state parties. That wasn't even a nice try effort.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Squinch
(51,094 posts)groundwork, as one should do if one wants to be President. It's a big job. It isn't something that you should do slapdash.
This is how it works. This is how it has worked for years.
At first BS was way too pure to actually work within the system that exists. Hillary was realistic and worked within the system that exists. Lately, BS really wishes he had not been so pure, and he had gone after some of those SD's.
BS's perpetual "day late and dollar short" methods of running his campaign are not Hillary's fault. BS was free to lay the groundwork as she did. He chose not to.
All he does is miss deadlines and get caught by surprise by long standing rules, and then run around complaining about the existence of deadlines and rules. It's actually very sad to watch.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,257 posts)was funneled to their campaigns.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Maybe you don't know much about the super delegates. We know Sanders is influenced by donations, don't judge others by Sanders actions.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,257 posts)Clinton's PACs - $85MILLION
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
I realize that many superdelegates are party insiders, but there are plenty who have their own campaigns to run for Congress or state offices.
livetohike
(22,172 posts)It didn't matter who else would enter the race. They believe in her.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Its like judging a talent show before watching it.
livetohike
(22,172 posts)Who ever heard of Bernie Sanders? He wasn't even a registered Democrat. He acts very surprised about how the election process works. Has he ever attended a Democratic National Convention?
What are his accomplishments that qualify him to become President?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And apparently they like what she's done.
That's just the way it is. I'm sorry that it sucks for Bernie, but politicians build coalitions for a reason.
onenote
(42,885 posts)What makes it okay for you to make an early, but not binding decision?
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Bernie has 12 months to convince these people they were wrong. He hasn't.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)I also never knew that the Superdelegates were somehow linked to debates, but that's why I just love DU. Now, I'd really like to know if all the news sites are wrong, or Bernie is just lying for financial gain... so where's your source?
Dem2
(8,168 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)...when one has nothing of substance left.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Clinton is 1000x better at this than Sanders is.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Before any debate.
so no.
randome
(34,845 posts)And since they're free to switch sides -and have done so in the past- this OP is simply more aimless lamentation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)onenote
(42,885 posts)Where did his money come from?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sanders is on the People's side while Clinton is on Goldman-Sach side.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Context in these matters are important.
What was it like in 08 before the Iowa caucus? in 2004? and in 2000? Surely this info is out there. If it's the same kind of disparity or very different it could make or break your case.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)and she still hasn't finished the deal....just shows what a WEAK candidate she truly is.
#weakwithhillary
Trajan
(19,089 posts)With the thirty three State Democratic Parties over a year ago ...
And for your obnoxious commentary, you get a gold star ...
Oh wait ... You are going away, I mean ...
Off my feed ...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Supers know, personally, and/or have worked along side of ... both, Bernie and HRC?
Shouldn't that tell you/us something?
I just thought I would mention it.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A top lobbyist at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheens firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshires Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as weve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobbied for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obamas nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the Super PAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)They would have switched to Sanders if he had won. But they aren't going to switch for the guy trailing badly in the pledge delegate count.
If it's so rigged, how did a black guy with a name like Barack Obama win? Oh yeah, he got more people to vote for him and had a valid strategy for winning the pledged delegates. Perhaps if Sanders and his team had done that, they would have won.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)They haven't voted yet, they have no obligation, 42 have come out for Bernie.
And they don't switch? Says it all.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves... l don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." -- Henry Kissinger on the US-backed coup d'etat in Chile.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,258 posts)I'm not sure I could have said what you did, without adding "as compared to certain other people in the race."
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)them to vote against the will of the people (given that is the only way Bernie could win).
Tarc
(10,478 posts)If Bernie had wound up as the pledged delegate leader in 2016 ,the supers would have flipped and voted for him, just as they flipped and voted for Obama in 2008.
There has never at anytime been anything "rigged" against Sanders.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)it would have been different, so what you are seeing is entirely situational. What this really means is that the supers were leery of Sanders' loyalty to the Democratic party. Good thing he has done nothing to alienate them.
eggman67
(837 posts)riversedge
(70,482 posts)eggman67
(837 posts)Though I'd prefer the position not exist at all.
Vinca
(50,342 posts)Look how easily he was intimidated by Bernie. Now he's back to talking about debating "Crooked Hillary" (Trump's words, not mine).
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)It can't be said loud enough.
And these 400 odd votes started to be included with the first primary returns showing a huge lead and disenfranchising untold numbers.
onenote
(42,885 posts)which raises an existential question:
If its not okay to support a candidate until the first votes are cast, how does the first vote ever get cast?
Super delegates are not under any special stricture that they can't decide which candidate they support at the same as anyone else.
And its quite strange that you seem to think that they are.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I would do away with superdelegates. I'd also do away with caucuses. There are some other changes I'd make, as well.
But even if you do away with superdelegates, influential people are going to endorse candidates. You won't ever do away with endorsements, for whatever they're worth.
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)advice to the voters
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)They're endorsements, but if the other candidate ends up with more pledged delegates, they tend to switch their support (see 2008).
Still, I would do away with superdelegates. If for no other reason than the fact that they *could* potentially help nominate someone who didn't end up with more pledged delegates (even though that's never happened).
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Duppers
(28,134 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)shifted over to him.
RandySF
(59,902 posts)I decided to vote for Hillary before a vote was cast. And she's already well ahead in the popular vote.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)We're back to bashing superdelegates again? This past few weeks, all I've been reading on here is how they're all going to switch to Bernie. I need a scorecard.
polly7
(20,582 posts)pledging such an important vote before hearing every single detail about all candidates running.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Many had expressed support for Clinton very early in 2008, only to switch their support to honor Obama's lead in pledged delegates.
polly7
(20,582 posts)taken the time to listen to and make a decision on. How are these super-delegates paid for this?
Why even bother with campaigns if the biggest votes are already decided?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I honestly don't think the superdelegate endorsements have much impact on what happens in the primaries and caucuses. If anything, they might backfire in today's anti-establishment climate.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)convention. I hope that one thing the rules committee does at the convention is get rid of the SDs. Give us democracy back.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I'm not sure what you mean.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)So sayeth Clinton, inc.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As quite a few did in 2008. Think of them as endorsements.
Technically, not even pledged delegates are bound.