2016 Postmortem

thesquanderer

(12,030 posts)

18. Tad Devine suggested revisiting the SD system years ago, long before the current campaign.

Tue May 31, 2016, 09:05 AM

May 2016

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html

Based on the date of that interview, his desire to take another look at the delegate system had nothing to do with the prospect of a Sanders campaign. Sometimes people see something a little differently 25 years later, after they see how their ideas have been working out..

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Super delegates exist to help PREVENT someone under threat of indictment from getting nominated. [View all] thesquanderer May 2016 OP

the several hundred that are STILL endorsing Hillary apparently don't think that's happening bigtree May 2016 #1

The Supers don't count til the convention. kpola12 May 2016 #3

Exactly, AG Lynch could announce... scscholar May 2016 #8

Or she could announce charges nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #13

The Super-Delegates supported Clinton before the race began because they are chosen rhett o rick May 2016 #5

You can't throw them out. You have to elect alternatives. LuvLoogie May 2016 #37

Along with newspaper editors. Garrett78 May 2016 #15

Oh the irony of it all. n/t 99th_Monkey May 2016 #2

Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath Gothmog May 2016 #4

Expecting NO indictment? k8conant May 2016 #6

The Indictment fairy is not going to grant your wish Gothmog May 2016 #11

Princess Weathervane's Ostrich Army to the rescue! Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #34

Clinton most likely won't be indicted because the Establishment takes care of their own. rhett o rick May 2016 #7

Why not ask Tad Devine... quickesst May 2016 #9

Tad Devine suggested revisiting the SD system years ago, long before the current campaign. thesquanderer May 2016 #18

Like, for example.... quickesst May 2016 #38

I don't get your point thesquanderer May 2016 #44

The point I was making... quickesst May 2016 #48

If you actually care about TD's thoughts about the supers... thesquanderer Jun 2016 #58

Pretty sad MFM008 May 2016 #10

There are Republicans equally unhappy with Trump. thesquanderer May 2016 #17

Republicans and Berners united in faith to the Indictment Fairy workinclasszero May 2016 #56

Superdelegates exist to essentially rubber-stamp the will of the people Tarc May 2016 #12

I don't agree with the rubber stamp premise, but regardless... thesquanderer May 2016 #16

Things have changed and the FBI hasn't rejected it. morningfog May 2016 #20

Foolish. Anyone with the tiniest shred of critical thinking ability knows that this is not true. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #32

That is the role that they have performed in every primary since their inception Tarc May 2016 #33

Sanders' only chance at the nomination KingFlorez May 2016 #14

Can't win fairly so you all will take anything. seabeyond May 2016 #19

As I said above... thesquanderer May 2016 #22

Sanders fans hoping for indictment so they can steal nomination despite losing the geek tragedy May 2016 #21

As I said above... thesquanderer May 2016 #23

that's fair enough, nt geek tragedy May 2016 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #25

OK Dem2 May 2016 #26

Super delegates exist to prevent liberals who are not beholden to lobbyists from being nominated. merrily May 2016 #27

Those supers are not stupid people. They understand what is happening. Bernie can forget getting 'em tonyt53 May 2016 #28

Silly silly. riversedge May 2016 #29

To be clear an indictment would come due to her money laundering Skink May 2016 #30

No, that's not why they were created. And no, she's not under any credible threat of indictment. Lil Missy May 2016 #31

They were created to help block any candidate who they consider a liability or otherwise undesirable thesquanderer May 2016 #35

What I see gollygee May 2016 #36

IG and FBI are participating in CS's? JesterCS May 2016 #39

You mean someone under the threat of indictment who doesn't have the common decency to pdsimdars May 2016 #40

No Demsrule86 May 2016 #41

McGovern was accused of stealing the nomination? thesquanderer May 2016 #45

So, the supers must believe that there is no credible threat of an indictment. anotherproletariat May 2016 #42

I agree... they don't see the issue as that serious, and are not withdrawing their support. thesquanderer May 2016 #47

Not really. Superdelegates exist to give the Democratic Party establishment a degree of control over onenote May 2016 #43

You say "not really" but you basically agree, when you say they are... thesquanderer May 2016 #46

Superdelegates exist to protect the lobbyists in control from grassroots Democrats. The lobbyists Attorney in Texas May 2016 #49

That's 715 people you allege to be part of a conspiracy. Right? randome May 2016 #50

No, a conspiracy is hidden. This is out in the open. Here is how DWS described the role of the super Attorney in Texas May 2016 #52

It's clear what she meant, though: "spurious grassroots activists". randome May 2016 #53

It is clear that DWS meant the party elites need protection from the grassroots Democratic voters Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #57

It's a private party. Why not just make a rule that says if you're under threat of indictment, valerief May 2016 #51

I disagree - let the pledged delegates break rank on the first vote. If they don't, it's over. reformist2 May 2016 #54

That's not a disagreement. thesquanderer May 2016 #55