2016 Postmortem

pampango

(24,692 posts)

65. No - unless they hand the nomination to my trailing candidate. In that case they are wise

Reply to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Tue May 3, 2016, 08:37 AM

May 2016

guardians of the future of the Democratic Party and our country.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

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