Have superdelegates helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:51:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Have superdelegates helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Have superdelegates, on net, helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign?
#1
Helped - they helped cement Clinton's frontunner status, giving her bandwagon voters
 
#2
Hurt - they've given ammunition to Sander's claims the contest is rigged, and given him a rationale to stay in
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 53

Author Topic: Have superdelegates helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign?  (Read 626 times)
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


« on: June 07, 2016, 08:31:26 PM »

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Agreed; nothing says "fairness" like stacking the deck and shrugging it off after doing so.
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2016, 03:36:49 AM »

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Agreed; nothing says "fairness" like stacking the deck and shrugging it off after doing so.

It should be noted that "superdelegates" were implemented to (A) give extra power to states which provide actual Democratic officeholders, and (B) prevent the Democratic Party from nominating a candidate so far from the Democratic mainstream as to cause McGovern III (Mondale was McGovern II).  The Democratic Party lost 49 states twice in 12 years and it wasn't THAT long ago.  They have never gotten over the McGovern and Mondale debacles, and have done everything to prevent them.

In that respect, the "superdelegates" were an attempt to ensure that the Democratic nominee for President was representative of the party as a whole, and not just its leftist base groups that disproportionately vote in primaries.  The Democrats are not the "big tent" they once were, but the superdelegates do put a check on a process that isn't always reflective of "the will of the people".  Hillary did win more votes, more states, etc.  As much as I dislike her, she deserves the Democratic nomination for President.  There is no basis on which one can say otherwise.

Yes. I think that Clinton actually believes she's above the rules that exist for us underlings, and can do no wrong. That said, you're absolutely right: she has won more votes, more states, and deserves the nomination of her party (despite her not earning my support/vote).

My big objection to "superdelegates" has to do with what Bernie Sanders was saying: very little justification can be made for having such delegates committed to a candidate prior to any primary or caucus having taken place. I understand the reasoning behind having the mechanism itself (and actually don't disagree with said reasoning), it's just that I would hope the party would be sensitive to voter's feeling disempowered by such tinkerings. Hopefully, tweaks can be made so that future contests don't have such an "insiders know best" feel to them.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 15 queries.