Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Picked Obama over Hillary even though Hillary won the popular vote.
Nice "fact" there, but if you dig deep, you'll realize you are incorrect.
1. Obama's vote total in Michigan was zero. Clinton had 328309 votes. Obama withdrew from Michigan because Michigan broke with DNC rules and moved its primary up in the schedule.
2. Florida, similarly to Michigan, also moved up its primary and broke with DNC rules. In support of the DNC, Obama did not campaign in Florida. Clinton did. She picked up approximately 300,000 votes over Obama in Florida. Who is to say how many of those votes she received because she campaigned and Obama didn't. It is definitely greater than 0.
3. The vote totals do not count caucuses: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Wyoming. All of which Obama won. Collectively, Obama won 293 delegates to Clinton's 160. That's roughly 66% of the delegates.
So when you claim Clinton won the 2008 nomination popular vote by 300k, you are ignoring the 328k votes from Michigan where Obama withdrew from the ballot and the other 300k votes she gained in Florida in another state where Obama did not campaign since he refused to go against the agreed-upon rules. Oh, and on top of that, you want to ignore the fact that Obama won 66% of the delegates via caucuses which do not report popular vote. Yet, those are indeed votes.
Now that you are educated on the matter, you can stop repeating misleading information.
Not exactly. I admit part of my thinking it emotional.
But the superdelegate positions were created to break a deadlocked or a rogue convention when the 1968 convention came very close to chaos.
The idea was good at the time, but after the crisis passed, the position, which allowed the superdelegates a first vote in the nomination process, became a group of insiders who could vote any way they wanted, paying no heed to the votes that came from the caucuses.
It seldom happened, but it did favor those who had an interest in keeping the status quo intact. And most often, those who wanted to keep the status quo undisturbed were the same ones who had a lot to lose personally if it was shaken up.
That created a lot of Hillary's confidence in 2016. She had the DNC in the bag by 2014, and had the superdelegates in her pocket 2 years later. That made it next to impossible for any challenger to overcome that much advantage. It also gave Hillary a lot of false confidence that led to a party mutiny.
A mutiny is Republican business. The Democratic mutiny should have never had reason to form.
My perception may have been incorrect, but it was sure shared very widely by millions of other voters. I worked hard in 2014 and watched the national party ignore my home state because it didn't count enough to fight over in that election, so I was a very early mutineer. 2016 presented me the bitterest choice I was ever given on election day by my party.
But a few days ago, the convention rules were changed. The superdelegates can still be insiders, those with political influence and importance, but they can't vote on the first ballot any more. They have to wait until the second convention ballot to cast their superdelegate votes.
That restores the position back to its original intent without denying any delegate a vote. A proper resolution that satisfies me, logical or not.
I hope the current DNC will tackle the other big problem; the caucuses. The process drags on for far too long, and it needs some overhaul to speed things up.
Not exactly. I admit part of my thinking it emotional.
But the superdelegate positions were created to break a deadlocked or a rogue convention when the 1968 convention came very close to chaos.
The idea was good at the time, but after the crisis passed, the position, which allowed the superdelegates a first vote in the nomination process, became a group of insiders who could vote any way they wanted, paying no heed to the votes that came from the caucuses.
It seldom happened, but it did favor those who had an interest in keeping the status quo intact. And most often, those who wanted to keep the status quo undisturbed were the same ones who had a lot to lose personally if it was shaken up.
That created a lot of Hillary's confidence in 2016. She had the DNC in the bag by 2014, and had the superdelegates in her pocket 2 years later. That made it next to impossible for any challenger to overcome that much advantage. It also gave Hillary a lot of false confidence that led to a party mutiny.
A mutiny is Republican business. The Democratic mutiny should have never had reason to form.
My perception may have been incorrect, but it was sure shared very widely by millions of other voters. I worked hard in 2014 and watched the national party ignore my home state because it didn't count enough to fight over in that election, so I was a very early mutineer. 2016 presented me the bitterest choice I was ever given on election day by my party.
But a few days ago, the convention rules were changed. The superdelegates can still be insiders, those with political influence and importance, but they can't vote on the first ballot any more. They have to wait until the second convention ballot to cast their superdelegate votes.
That restores the position back to its original intent without denying any delegate a vote. A proper resolution that satisfies me, logical or not.
I hope the current DNC will tackle the other big problem; the caucuses. The process drags on for far too long, and it needs some overhaul to speed things up.
1) Superdelegates cast their votes when everyone else does, and not sooner. Yes, they often reveal who they’re going to vote for before the convention. But then everyone knows which candidate a state’s delegation is going to vote for before the convention as well. Now you could make a case that everyone should keep their mouths shut before the convention, and I wouldn’t disagree with the principle, but I’m sure you can figure out why that’ll never happen. Anyway, why would it matter who votes first? Each person has exactly one vote to cast - no more, no less. And you still haven’t answered my previous question - how can approximately 800 people outvote approximately 3000 people?
2) Each state party is its own organization. And each state has its own laws regarding primary vs caucus. My state is peculiar in that the state holds a regular primary, but the D party accepts the result of a caucus. So while Clinton won the ballot primary, Sanders won the state’s nomination via caucusing. If you stop to think about what kind of people are likely to not want to participate in a day-long caucus process, this makes sense.
3) No one in the DNC can do a thing about the fact that a small state has less electoral influence than a larger one. Now you know why the Senate and the EC exist. Now you could vote in reverse size order at the convention, but I fail to see how that would make a difference.
So what will Joe Biden think about all of this, I wonder?
He’ll shrug and say “OK, them’s the rules”. If a majority of Ds want him as their candidate, he’ll win the nomination. If they don’t, he won’t. That was true before the rule change, and it’ll be true now.
He’ll shrug and say “OK, them’s the rules”. If a majority of Ds want him as their candidate, he’ll win the nomination. If they don’t, he won’t. That was true before the rule change, and it’ll be true now.
Biden would have had a CLEAR advantage with the old superdelegate rules in effect. Now that is gone.
I am going to call it based on this decision by the DNC on superdelegates. Joe Biden will not run for president in 2020.
Please explain to me, in detail, step by step, how 800 superdelegates can outvote 3000 other delegates. Thank you.
I'm going to jump in and answer this, even though it was directed at another poster.
Obviously, 3000 > 800. So, it isn't like superdelegates can simply "pick" the winner outright. But! Keep in mind that all Democratic delegates awarded in primaries are proportionally allocated. Let's take the 2016 Democratic Primary as an example.
Let's start with how in 2016 there are 4051 pledged delegates (awarded by primary/caucus). There are about 712 superdelegates. Clinton led Sanders in the primary vote 56.1% to 43.8%. By the time all the primaries/caucuses were done, Clinton led 2205-1846 in pledged delegates. I'd like to note that in a very democratic way, the delegate allocation is very close to the popular vote margin: 54.5% to 45.5%.
Possible shenanigans aside (since this is but an example!), it is clear the people chose Clinton by nearly 10 points. However, she only had a margin of 359 pledge delegates heading into the convention.
712 superdelegates could have overruled that margin of 359 pledged delegates and handed Sanders the nomination. Now, in this example, that might sound crazy. But, what if the tables were turned and a Democratic Socialist who technically wasn't a member of the party entered the convention with a 100 pledged delegate lead? Would the superdelegates overturn the will of the people? And therein lies a big part of the problem.
In 2016, it would be possible for Clinton to enter the convention with a lead of 2381-1670 (which would probably correspond to a popular vote lead of 58.8% to 41.2%) and still have the superdelegates overturn the will of the people.
However, in my opinion, another problem superdelegates cause is what I'd call "candidate inevitability." When delegate totals are reported, they show pledged and superdelegates combined. So, if a candidate manages to get endorsements from 150 or so superdelegates before the first primary vote is cast, they have an inflated lead of 150 from the start. It may take all the way until Super Tuesday for that lead to disappear. But prior to that, the average citizen might see "candidate inevitability" and start throwing their votes behind what they feel is going to be eventual winner because they are ahead by so many delegates already.
This was overcome in 2008. Clinton had a huge superdelegate lead over Obama. And up until Super Tuesday, even though Obama won all the primaries except 1, Clinton had a sizeable lead. To the layperson, Clinton was "winning" even though she was "losing." In that case, the voters overturned the initial will of the superdelegates. However, that isn't always the case. It is not uncommon for superdelegates (both the DNC and RNC equivalent) to weigh in early and those candidates win the nomination. However, sometimes that is simply due to that candidate winning for reasons other than superdelegates.
But in your scenarios you seem to agree that superdelegates have more weight than other delegates. An early lead that is composed of mostly superdelegates is not artificially inflated. It’s simply an early lead. Anyone knows that early leads, whether in a baseball game, a poker game, a horse race, or politics can reverse.
I’ve thought the real problem is the name. If they were called what in fact they are, uncommitted delegates, no one would ever have blinked. There’s nothing special about this bloc of delegates as opposed to any other bloc of delegates. Other than the fact that they are party leaders, who would obviously have more influence than Jill Schmill from Indy, no matter what they are called. That’s just people, and I can assure you that the same dynamic exists in the R party and in any other organization you care to name. Regardless of the name you give them.
I’m sorry Sanders didn’t win the nomination, but neither did Kucinich and quite a few other candidates I’ve supported in the past. But I’ve absolutely never blamed it on the DNC or the rules. Because I’ve always known that I’m in the minority, and I am really not astounded by the fact that if the minority can’t garner enough support to become the majority, guess what - it remains the minority. I’ve no doubt that the DNC didn’t really like the idea of nominating a person who only joined the party in order to run on the party ticket rather than as an independent, but that dislike did not translate into untoward delegate vote manipulation. And had Sanders won the nomination, the DNC would have done exactly what the RNC did - said OK, in spite of what we wanted, that’s what our members want, and thrown its resources behind him. A political party that ignored the majority of its members would have a pretty short shelf life.
And thanks very much for your thoughtful response!
I was OK with the old rules, and I’m good with the new ones, even though I think they won’t really change any results. Because either way, the majority will win. As it should. Just means that those of us who want to push the party more progressive have to keep plugging away. There’s nothing new or unfair about that either.
Last edited by jacqueg; 08-28-2018 at 09:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
