2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVermont Democrats Oust SuperDelegates
May 22, 2016
The article has more info...
http://bernthepress.com/2016/05/22/vermont-democrats-oust-superdelegates/
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Oops
cali
(114,904 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)less influence in 2020.haha.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Without DNC approval, they will likely have their future delegates halved, or stripped entirely.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)which is somewhat aligned with the dems. Btw, on Sunday the VT Democratic Party endorsed Bernie for the Presidency.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Republicans are becoming scarce in New England, except for the occasional governorship.
cali
(114,904 posts)Its like people want to prove they're bipartisan.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Like Craig Benson, oily little snake. I met him when he ran Cabletron ages ago.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Good luck with that
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)currently know it.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)That does not mean that VT will win at the national level. It likely does mean that this UNANIMOUSLY adopted resolution will probably be heard at the national level. Note that it is for future elections and has nothing to do with 2016 or the platform.
I went to the convention and this VT digger article covers what happened there well.
https://vtdigger.org/2016/05/22/states-democratic-convention-is-almost-all-bernie-all-the-time/
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)The movement to get rid of SuperD's is gaining momentum.
This will be part of the national convention agenda.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Since she will have more pledged delegates than Bernie.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)It will make sure the democratic party is actually democratic verses strong armed by the establishment elite. When one SuperD = 10,000 (or more) individuals, that is not democracy. When the SuperD's pledged their candidate and the primaries had not even started, is a problem.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)no thanks
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....the Democratic candidate. Make sense?
reddread
(6,896 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)
I am just saying that if such a rule were in place during this election cycle then Hillary would be the nominee.
Bernie, in fact, has been focussing on getting the Super D's to cross over to his side in large enough numbers to overcome the pledged delegate gap.
This is, in fact, the only way that he can win the nomination.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)and yes, we have two aspects to the SuperD issue.
1) Abolishing them for the future and having an actual democratic primary process.
2) That in this current Primary the SuperD's would actually represent how the State(s) voted.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If the Super D's actually represent how the states voted, it would still mean that Clinton would win, since she has a higher number of pledged delegates.
The way that Bernie can win would be if the Super D's go against the will of the majority and choose Bernie over Hillary even though Hillary will have more pledged delegates.
Bernie currently seems to be making a case for this to happen, as he emphasizes that he is more likely to beat trump than Hillary.
It seems antithetical to the principle of the Super D's reflecting the will of the people, though, if they decide to go against the pledged delegate winner for the reason Bernie's campaign is suggesting (i.e. that he can beat Trump and she can't).
George II
(67,782 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,084 posts)Clinton would have 384 to Sanders 173 if it was winner take all for automatic delegates.
George II
(67,782 posts)...superdelegate schemes the Sanders campaign have come up with, Clinton still gets the majority of superdelegates.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)counts should be the nominee.
There never was any possibility of the superdelegates choosing a loser of the pledged delegates over HRC - not in 2016 or 2008. That is why Obama's superdelegates - notably John Kerry - quickly said that the superdelegates were not likely to over turn the will of the voters as expressed in superdelegates. The reason he could take this position is that the HRC people were pushing the idea that if they felt someone who narrowly lost, but won the "popular vote" which really does not exist in the nomination race, could win with more than half the superdelegates. NO ONE suggested that this would be done for Obama.
It is even less likely with Bernie - so the argument I suggested would allow them to take the high ground with no real down side.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That would have been a strong, principled stand to take.
lostnfound
(16,190 posts)A lot of us would be certainly be inc to vote in the GE for her if she wins honestly.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)They is a national party thing. Vermont can express its opinion, but that's all. In any case, nothing will change for this year's election. The 2020 election is the first time any changes in how the super delegates figure into the nomination can happen.
Vermont's super delegates will still vote based on their own decisions.
cali
(114,904 posts)Superdelegates are gone.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)The thing is that some people seem to think that Vermont can force its super delegates to vote in a certain way this year. That's patently untrue, but is not being mentioned in most of the posts about it.
The whole unpledged delegate thing is up to the national party, not any individual state. Will enough states and their DNC members decide to dump unpledged delegates in 2020? Good question. I think not, actually.
Those super delegates could be very useful in a primary race with more than two viable candidates. So far, such a situation has not occurred since unpledged delegates were added to the mix. It could, though.
A more important question, really, is whether open primaries will still be part of the next primary in 2020. Caucuses will also be under consideration in the decision-making for 2020. Minnesota's dumping its caucuses. Will that be a trend?
I don't care about 2020 yet. We still have a nominee to elect for 2016. The rest is way down the road, as far as I'm concerned.
Vermont has a very small delegation and any national convention. It has an equally small influence on national party decisions. And there it is, really, in a nutshell.
LiberalFighter
(51,084 posts)But there will also be a history lesson given to all of the members as to how it all came about. That should also include how both pledged and unpledged delegates are determined. Based on all of the components used to determine it all imo it should remain the same. The only modification that I could see as a possibility would be to reduce delegates for states using caucuses or open primaries.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I went to the convention and the resolution had nothing to do with 2016. The resolution, which passed unanimously, was for 2020 and obviously was intended for the VT DNC representatives to advocate for this.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)It's a shame when material written by such people gets posted here without question. Fortunately, there are DUers who do read and who will correct things.
I suppose it's sometimes just misunderstanding the facts, but it's also sometimes deliberate.
onecaliberal
(32,894 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)not stripping the current superdelegates of their votes. Needless to say, it is a resolution that the VT delegates push the national DNC to eliminate super delegates. Obviously, there are many vested interests in the DNC that will completely reject this, so they also included rules that changed things within the VT delegation.
Here is the Vermont Digger article on what really happened -
Besides electing national delegates, the convention voters unanimously passed a resolution calling for national party rule changes that would force superdelegates to follow the will of the primary voters in future elections.
Should the national party not adopt Vermonts proposed rule, the Vermont Democratic Party pledged to amend its own rules in 2020, promising to allocate their own delegates so as to attempt to match the primary results.
A separate resolution also unanimously passed, making official the delegations endorsement of Sanders for president.
https://vtdigger.org/2016/05/22/states-democratic-convention-is-almost-all-bernie-all-the-time/
It was a cool experience and the 3 candidates for Governor and 3 candidates for Lt governor all addressed the audience. Bill McKibben was a great speaker. He was an early supporter of Bernie's and a top advocate on climate change. He had an interesting comment on Bernie's national appeal:
We did not know whether he was going to turn out to be Ben & Jerrys Cookie Dough ice cream, that everyone could understand and appreciate, or whether he was going to be a maple creemee you know, beloved at home but unknown beyond the border, said environmentalist Bill McKibben, a vocal supporter and early surrogate of Sanders.
For those interested, no one attacked HRC in any speech -- and all 100 plus people running to be voted to get 11 of the pledged delegate slots in Philadelphia gave 30 second speeches. Most of those running for office spoke of Bernie having brought Vermont values to the country.