Do you support the Dem's super delegate system the way it is?

[°Leprechaun]

Moot if Clinton gets to 2026 pledged delegates, of course. It could be changed for the future.

[Figueira]

No.

And honestly I don't get why Clinton hacks sometimes support it. I mean, what if the 2024 primary is between Andrew Cuomo and Joe Sestak?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mean, what if the 2024 primary is between Andrew Cuomo and Joe Sestak?

What does that mean?

[Xing]

Even though Clinton is pretty much guaranteed to get more pledged delegates anyway (so it's a moot point this time), superdelegates are, by definition, undemocratic. I think we could do without them, since our party isn't about to nominate someone like Donald Trump.

[Figueira]

I mean, what if the 2024 primary is between Andrew Cuomo and Joe Sestak?

What does that mean?

Basically, what if you end up supporting the anti-establishment candidate next time?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

[BuckeyeNut]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Chicken, even?

As others have said, it's irrelevant this cycle because Clinton will get the necessary number of pledged delegates. That said, superdelegates are good for the health of the parties. Without them, candidates like George McGovern (and/or Bernie Sanders) and Barry Goldwater (and/or Donald Trump) get nominated.

The way in which they are allocated is probably in need of reform. As Leader Pelosi has pointed out.

Not that superdelegates have ever actually decided a primary.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Chicken, even?

As others have said, it's irrelevant this cycle because Clinton will get the necessary number of pledged delegates. That said, superdelegates are good for the health of the parties. Without them, candidates like George McGovern (and/or Bernie Sanders) and Barry Goldwater (and/or Donald Trump) get nominated.

The way in which they are allocated is probably in need of reform. As Leader Pelosi has pointed out.

Not that superdelegates have ever actually decided a primary.

Uhhh, McGovern got nominated in a system that contained Supers.

<<Insert fight here where Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton any day and you too suffer from the blindness that is destroying the Democratic party>>

[BuckeyeNut]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Chicken, even?

As others have said, it's irrelevant this cycle because Clinton will get the necessary number of pledged delegates. That said, superdelegates are good for the health of the parties. Without them, candidates like George McGovern (and/or Bernie Sanders) and Barry Goldwater (and/or Donald Trump) get nominated.

The way in which they are allocated is probably in need of reform. As Leader Pelosi has pointed out.

Not that superdelegates have ever actually decided a primary.

Uhhh, McGovern got nominated in a system that contained Supers.

<<Insert fight here where Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton any day and you too suffer from the blindness that is destroying the Democratic party>>

lol

I always think the McGovern-Fraser Commission was created after McGovern's run to keep people like him from getting power. My bad. (Why I do, I can't say.) That said, the general point stands. Superdelegates exist to keep the fringe elements of parties from keeping the nomination.

The second coming of Howard Dean is not what we need. Nor is it what the majority of people want, as is evidenced by the primary itself. (Even if the margin is narrowing between the two candidates.) Though this is a subject for a different thread/PMs.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There's actually some logic to superdelegates, though probably not what those who established the system originally intended: they're useful in preventing a "Zombie Candidacy" scenario, in which a candidate is fatally damaged but still has a majority of pledged delegates: imagine, for example, if Edwards had picked up steam in the 2008 cycle and had won the most pledged delegates, and then his affair came to light after that point. It would have been highly embarrassing, but the superdelegates could have voted for someone else on the first ballot, thrown the convention open, and then nominated another candidate.

[°Leprechaun]

I wouldn't have a problem if they were bound to vote for the candidate who had a majority of pledged delegates; if a candidate has a plurality that is different, then they could be useful.
I don't believe that a candidate who has a plurality is entitled to be the nominee.

[°Leprechaun]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

The conservative wing of the Democratic party is more interested in winning than in fighting for principles. This problem has existed for a long time.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

The conservative wing of the Democratic party is more interested in winning than in fighting for principles. This problem has existed for a long time.

True. But that doesn't mean it's unfixable.

[BuckeyeNut]

Winning is fighting for your principles.

Clinton's a little bit to the right of me on some things (I still agree with her on 92% of issues), while Sanders' is more in line (~95%). Republicans, meanwhile are entirely disagreeable.

[SteveRogers]

I don't have a huge problem with it.

A political party by definition consists not only of its supporters in the electorate (the voters), but also the party's elected officials in government (as well as the party as an organization). I don't think its fundamentally wrong for that other aspect of the party to have a say in the presidential nominating process. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Winning is fighting for your principles.

Clinton's a little bit to the right of me on some things (I still agree with her on 92% of issues), while Sanders' is more in line (~95%). Republicans, meanwhile are entirely disagreeable.

Let's not turn this into a Sanders Hack/Clinton Hack thread, but like...

Principles, Clinton... Gotcha.

Whitepapers aren't appointments, policy on the trail isn't policy in office, or even on the negotiating table, and I'd much prefer to use the past 20 years to judge Clinton's policy than what she says now, even if it does sound nice to the ears.   

[Kingpoleon]

No, just like I oppose most of McGovern's policies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (likes democracy)

[Thunderbird is the word]

No (likes democracy)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sanders hack who likes superdels reporting in.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Chicken, even?

As others have said, it's irrelevant this cycle because Clinton will get the necessary number of pledged delegates. That said, superdelegates are good for the health of the parties. Without them, candidates like George McGovern (and/or Bernie Sanders) and Barry Goldwater (and/or Donald Trump) get nominated.

The way in which they are allocated is probably in need of reform. As Leader Pelosi has pointed out.

Not that superdelegates have ever actually decided a primary.

Uhhh, McGovern got nominated in a system that contained Supers.

Wrong, superdelegates were not introduced until after 1980 (see the Hunt Commission).

[Orser67]

I think it's ok that there are superdelegates, but there are way too many. They represent about 15% of the delegates, so in a reasonably close race it's too hard for a candidate too win a majority of delegates via pledged delegate wins alone. I'd reduce the number from about 700 to about 250. In a three-way race, these delegates could still play a decisive role in selecting a "good" nominee.

[ElectionsGuy]

No (likes democracy)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Either have a universal primaries or go back to the "smoke-filled room" days. What we have today is a pathetic hybrid.

[Leinad]

Superdelegates are pretty bad. I'm with Kal--either be honest that it's chosen by the party, or make it much more democratic.

What we really need is a better electoral system to keep these major parties accountable, in addition to representing those pesky grassroots "unelectable" wackos.

I think letting the elected officials have a say in the ticket they're going to have to run under is fine.

We've just got a set of cowardly and myopic elected officials right now.

Wait, you basically said "the system's okay, it's just that we have inadequete people running it. But in the future we'll have good people running it!"

You have WAY too much faith in authority.

Winning is fighting for your principles.

Clinton's a little bit to the right of me on some things (I still agree with her on 92% of issues), while Sanders' is more in line (~95%). Republicans, meanwhile are entirely disagreeable.

Bernie's actually doing significantly better than Hillary in General Election polls. So...

"But Leinad, GE polls this far out are trash!"

Exactly. General Election polls, at this point, are mostly about name ID. Polls in general are, frankly. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for over two decades, Bernie Sanders has been unknown to most people since a year ago.

"But Leinad, they'll hammer Bernie for being a 'socialist!'"

And? They hammered Obama for being a socialist, AND a Muslim, AND a Kenyan, AND a reincarnation of Saul Freaking Alinsky. Besides, conservative media will have much more fun with Clinton's baggage than Sanders's.

[windjammer]

No, the best would be:
-ged rid of the caucus and the superdelegates
-closed primaries everywhere