Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Do you support the existence of unelected "superdelegates" having a say in who our candidate is? [View all]2banon
(7,321 posts)46. Interesting article, thank you.
As I read this, it seems to allude to the connection.. a sort of 'reaction to the reaction' of
the events of 1968. Followed with events of 1972, followed with events of Carter's defeat, and on and on.
I would argue that it isn't inaccurate to suggest the connection, it just requires a more thorough analysis than I have time to delve into here at this time.
But I DO APPRECIATE you providing this link because I had no idea of the name of the committee the Party Elites formed as a body to enact rules governing the process of selecting their pre-approved candidates in order to prevent "insurgents" (such as McGovern) i.e. Bernie from being allowed a path to the nomination. Thank You!
The "Democratic Party reforms" that Davis refers to were those implemented by a commission led by McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald Fraser, itself a reaction to the disastrous convention of 1968. The most important provision of these reforms was one that required all delegate selection to be "open" -- selected by voters rather than by party leaders -- which effectively ushered in the era of party primaries.
By 1982, however, the sentiment was essentially that the cure (1972, "validated" by 1980) was worse than the disease (1968).
In 1984, superdelegates proved to be helpful in getting Walter Mondale past the threshold he needed to achieve an outright majority of delegates, thereby avoiding a brokered convention. However, in all probability the superdelegates did not alter the outcome of the election; Mondale had a clear plurality of pledged delegates at the time. There is an outside chance that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson could have teamed together to defeat him, but it would have required near-perfect coordination, and would arguably have usurped the public will, as Mondale had a substantive lead in the national polls. Thus, initially at least (and notwithstanding Mondale's eventual defeat), superdelegates were regarded as a helpful innovation
By 1982, however, the sentiment was essentially that the cure (1972, "validated" by 1980) was worse than the disease (1968).
In 1984, superdelegates proved to be helpful in getting Walter Mondale past the threshold he needed to achieve an outright majority of delegates, thereby avoiding a brokered convention. However, in all probability the superdelegates did not alter the outcome of the election; Mondale had a clear plurality of pledged delegates at the time. There is an outside chance that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson could have teamed together to defeat him, but it would have required near-perfect coordination, and would arguably have usurped the public will, as Mondale had a substantive lead in the national polls. Thus, initially at least (and notwithstanding Mondale's eventual defeat), superdelegates were regarded as a helpful innovation
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Do you support the existence of unelected "superdelegates" having a say in who our candidate is? [View all]
Nye Bevan
May 2016
OP
I also don't support corporate media controlling the national narrative.
PowerToThePeople
May 2016
#1
I can find no election where they have gone against the will of the Democratic Party.
Agnosticsherbet
May 2016
#11
Super Delegates were not created until 1982, so they had nothing to do with 1968.
Agnosticsherbet
May 2016
#19
I will counter that there were no Super Delegates in 1968. To put them there is to create a false
Agnosticsherbet
May 2016
#47
bernie is ok with them...long as they vote for him. vote for hillary = bad of course nt
msongs
May 2016
#16
Definitely do not like the idea that they must "save us", presumably from ourselves!
flor-de-jasmim
May 2016
#28
No, in fact it is really making consider if I want to be part of the "our" at all.
Cobalt Violet
May 2016
#32
Yes...as long as they don't do anything stupid, I don't see the problem with them
qdouble
May 2016
#34
I support these arguments during a non-election cycle when petulant bias is not the stuffing between
LanternWaste
May 2016
#42
I support following the rules and not changing them mid-stream. If you don't like the rules,
Justice
May 2016
#44
Nope. I also have a problem with the notion that superdelegates are a new phenomenon
UMTerp01
May 2016
#51
I think the Republicans would be thrilled to have Superdelegates that could stop Trump
Algernon Moncrieff
May 2016
#52
Have they ever thrown the election to someone who didn't win the pledged delegate battle?
Garrett78
May 2016
#59