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
 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
46. Interesting article, thank you.
Mon May 2, 2016, 04:33 PM
May 2016

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




I also don't support corporate media controlling the national narrative. PowerToThePeople May 2016 #1
That's the corker. That's when you know that democracy is largely a sham. bjo59 May 2016 #4
Profoundly disagree. How can any of you watch what Hortensis May 2016 #39
That's all that's left after Bill signed the reforms. nt silvershadow May 2016 #12
Agreed. GreenPartyVoter May 2016 #29
manipulation and control win over democracy oldandhappy May 2016 #2
Yeah, especially corporate lobbyist superdelegates. That just says it all. bjo59 May 2016 #5
I truly object to the idea that "insiders" should trump the expressed... grasswire May 2016 #3
Hear, hear. nt silvershadow May 2016 #13
So you oppose Bernie's present strategy? nt hack89 May 2016 #27
Chicken or egg? Unelected superdelegates or Bernie's strategy? cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #53
The Rethugs are wishing they had them because they could have stopped Trump. pnwmom May 2016 #6
Depends Urchin May 2016 #7
Yep. okasha May 2016 #8
I'm a Clinton victim. nt silvershadow May 2016 #14
Now I get it. Agschmid May 2016 #22
You should. I have written extensively about the damage the Third Way has silvershadow May 2016 #25
Me too! What a disaster! leftofcool May 2016 #30
How would today's version of super delegates stop McGovern? morningfog May 2016 #57
another key question is voting on the platform planks cloudythescribbler May 2016 #9
California held Special Delegate caucus Election meet ups today. 2banon May 2016 #17
Actually, a little over 1/3 of these Superdelegates ARE elected SFnomad May 2016 #10
I can find no election where they have gone against the will of the Democratic Party. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #11
I think that happened in 1968, Chicago. 2banon May 2016 #18
Super Delegates were not created until 1982, so they had nothing to do with 1968. Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #19
Interesting article, thank you. 2banon May 2016 #46
I will counter that there were no Super Delegates in 1968. To put them there is to create a false Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #47
Yes, you're correct. I concede the point, I misspoke. 2banon May 2016 #49
False. Agschmid May 2016 #23
With em or without em Hillary won. Whats the diff? BootinUp May 2016 #15
bernie is ok with them...long as they vote for him. vote for hillary = bad of course nt msongs May 2016 #16
He surely is ok with super delegates being one himself. For sure. Nt seabeyond May 2016 #56
well, technically most of them ARE elected TheDormouse May 2016 #20
if it prevents a 1972 trainwreck, you betcha beachbum bob May 2016 #21
But ... but ... McRALLIES! NurseJackie May 2016 #35
We the people or We the superdelegates? Hmmm, think B Calm May 2016 #24
The people have already spoken. They want Hillary leftofcool May 2016 #31
They haven't all spoken. B Calm May 2016 #33
Its just more corrupt rigging of the system by Moneyed Interests. /nt RiverLover May 2016 #26
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
It doesn't bother me, considering the alternative: brooklynite May 2016 #36
Superdelegates picked Mondale and Dukakis. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #43
No. bigwillq May 2016 #37
No. Vinca May 2016 #38
This is part of the Democratic party rules Gothmog May 2016 #40
Superdelegates defeat the purpose of Democracy. Octafish May 2016 #41
The two parties are controlled by private entities not responsible to the people. Rex May 2016 #61
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
I don't really like the idea of "superdelegates" gollygee May 2016 #45
Sort of mythology May 2016 #48
Nope. Had a problem with it in 2008 too... Chan790 May 2016 #50
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
There is an easy way to get rid of superdelegates. stone space May 2016 #54
We have been doing it for decades and I heard not a peep. seabeyond May 2016 #55
I'd prefer they are not "figured in" until after the primary ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2016 #58
Have they ever thrown the election to someone who didn't win the pledged delegate battle? Garrett78 May 2016 #59
Well people bought into corporations controlling both parties and not the public system. Rex May 2016 #60
No, they got installed to control the people's sadoldgirl May 2016 #62
As far as I know, they've never overturned the will of the voters. Garrett78 May 2016 #63
Look at the chaos going on in the GOP. baldguy May 2016 #64
No - unless they hand the nomination to my trailing candidate. In that case they are wise pampango May 2016 #65
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Do you support the existe...»Reply #46