Should super delegates be abolished?

[bballrox4717]

If it gets to the point that superdelegates need to clinch it for Hillary, Democrats won't be winning the general election anyways. Might as well burn this awful caucus system down '68 style while we blow it.

[Bull Moose Base]

Haven't people explained enough times what's wrong with this argument?

You can "explain" it all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The only reason Bernie even has the 1% chance at the nomination he has is because two lily white states (one of which was in his own backyard) were the first to vote. Case in point: life isn't fair.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Hillary did not beat Obama in the popular vote. Nor would she beat Sanders now without Obama's support. She did try to take the nomination from Obama via the superdelegates but the party recognized the disaster that would have been. It would also be a disaster if she did it this time and she would be very unlikely to beat even Trump or Cruz.

[Holmes]

Sounds like Sanders supporters are already acting like Sanders has lost the nomination.

[Maxwell]

The beauty of super delegates is that they can be swayed by the facts of the situation. If Bernie continues to win some more primaries I bet there were will be super delegates swayed by that fact. I don't understand why some Bernie supporters are so eager to call the election rigged and get angry about it. Just let the process do its thing.

[Figueira]

Haven't people explained enough times what's wrong with this argument?

You can "explain" it all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The only reason Bernie even has the 1% chance at the nomination he has is because two lily white states (one of which was in his own backyard) were the first to vote. Case in point: life isn't fair.

I wasn't trying to make a point about Bernie; I was just saying that Hillary only "won" the popular vote in 2008 because the caucuses weren't included and Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

[SillyAmerican]

It probably won't ever be necessary in practice, but it might be a good idea to make it an official rule that superdelegates only get a vote if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates.

Yes. I also agree that if Sanders were to somehow garner the largest support state by state but is still denied the nomination, it would be an awful commentary of just how rigged the system is...

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Remember when Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 despite winning the popular vote?  Didn't the super delegates play a part in that?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Remember when Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 despite winning the popular vote?  Didn't the super delegates play a part in that?

No.

[psychprofessor]

If the superdelegates rig the election for Hillary while she loses the popular vote which I could see happening that would severely hurt the party in the general election. You might also see the Democratic convention looking like Chicago in 68.

Hillary won the popular vote in 2008 and the super delegates gave the primary to Obama. Now, Obama had more pledged delegates than Hillary, but neither had a majority. Further, due to the proportional system of delegate allocation, even though Hillary won major states such as New York, California, Texas, Florida, etc...Obama still broke even or trailed only slightly in those states.

The ironic thing is that in 2008 Hillary supporters spoke out about this, but since the allocation process favored their candidate, it fell on deaf ears. Now, what do you know, all those progressives who supported Obama and now consider him a failure and support Sanders are crying about the delegate system. They know that Hillary has the advantage and they don't like the rules now...oh well.

[psychprofessor]

Haven't people explained enough times what's wrong with this argument?

You can "explain" it all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The only reason Bernie even has the 1% chance at the nomination he has is because two lily white states (one of which was in his own backyard) were the first to vote. Case in point: life isn't fair.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Hillary did not beat Obama in the popular vote. Nor would she beat Sanders now without Obama's support. She did try to take the nomination from Obama via the superdelegates but the party recognized the disaster that would have been. It would also be a disaster if she did it this time and she would be very unlikely to beat even Trump or Cruz.

Yes she did - in primary votes, she beat him. I don't count caucus votes because those aren't popular votes, as we saw in Iowa.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ITT: Hillary hacks trying to rewrite history.

[psychprofessor]

Haven't people explained enough times what's wrong with this argument?

You can "explain" it all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The only reason Bernie even has the 1% chance at the nomination he has is because two lily white states (one of which was in his own backyard) were the first to vote. Case in point: life isn't fair.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Hillary did not beat Obama in the popular vote. Nor would she beat Sanders now without Obama's support. She did try to take the nomination from Obama via the superdelegates but the party recognized the disaster that would have been. It would also be a disaster if she did it this time and she would be very unlikely to beat even Trump or Cruz.

Well, if Sanders had his way, Obama would have been primaried and defeated in 2012.

[psychprofessor]

ITT: Hillary hacks trying to rewrite history.

I'm sorry that you don't think facts matter...perhaps you're a Republican where math and science doesn't exist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ITT: Hillary hacks trying to rewrite history.

I'm sorry that you don't think facts matter...perhaps you're a Republican where math and science doesn't exist.

Well, you're the one who supports a Wall Street-funded admirer of Goldwater and Kissinger.

[defe07]

Super delegates should go with the way their state or Congressional District voted.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Super-delegates and caucuses should go.

[MM876]

The point of superdelegates is to recognise democracy's not a good thing if it leads to candidates like Sanders. There's a reason they were brought in after the '72 disaster.

You mean the election where the nomination was bitter and contested, and McGovern's acceptance speech was given at 3AM?

You mean the election where McGovern got something like his 5th choice for VP and then that guy turned out to have had electroshock? The ONLY election ever where a candidate had to replace his VP choice midway through the campaign?

You mean the election where McGovern was running against a popular incumbent who just ended a war?

You mean the election where Nixon started using the Southern Strategy?

You mean the election where Nixon wiretapped the DNC headquarters to find out their campaign strategy? You know, that whole "Watergate" thing?

A lot more happened during the 1972 election than just "Hurr durr liberals can't win elections!" To simplify it that much is a fundamental misunderstanding of history. I'm not saying McGovern would have won if those circumstances weren't there, but just looking at that singular issue is incredibly narrow minded and idiotic.

Superdelegates are the most undemocratic part of the DEMOCRATIC party. It's intense hypocrisy based on bullsh**t reasons to give party officials power as a compromise with the pre-1972 system. Bernie might not win, but to dismiss him based on an erroneous interpretation of a 40 year old election is just flat out stupid.