snip* Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.
TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.
Tapper was clearly in a time crunch (the entire live interview lasted only five minutes) and had other subjects to cover. Wasserman Schultz was saved by the bell.
Her answer had almost nothing to do with the question, which was about the very reasonable concern that millions of voters could have their primary and caucus ballots vetoed by a few hundred party insiders. Instead, Wasserman Schultz launched into a tangent about how the party makes sure that regular folks have a chance to fulfill the ceremonial roles of convention delegates.
Unfair as it might seem, there is a coherent argument for the superdelegate system. For one thing, it has worked this way for a long time; it isn't something the party invented to benefit Clinton. Sanders has known all along that winning the nomination is a whole lot easier with the backing of superdelegates, and he could have started lobbying for their support long ago, as Clinton did.
For another thing, superdelegates could serve as a kind of safety valve in the event that a leading candidate is suddenly beset by scandal before the convention. They could potentially thwart the nomination of a candidate who won primaries and caucuses before the scandal broke and give the party a more viable alternative ahead of the general election.
But if Wasserman Schultz and the DNC believe in the superdelegate system, they should have to defend it publicly. That means the media need to press party officials on this subject.
Tapper ran out of time Thursday, but he and others should revisit the issue soon and not let Wasserman Schultz off so easily.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/
= new reply since forum marked as read
