Elections BREAKING: Democrats strip superdelegates of power and reform caucuses!

On one hand, I get it... people who put their time, sweat, money, effort, into a party might deserve some extra say.

But on the other hand, it was just a bad look. It came off as the party saying it couldn’t trust its voters. And it shows up at the worst time because the only time the voters WOULD elect a real outsider candidate is if they were really unhappy with the party hierarchy.

Glad they are scaling it down.
 
I think the superdelegates are one way of sending that message to the masses.

I'm not saying I have an objective measure here but my view is the popular vote wasn't materially affected by this, especially in the sense of the masses knowing who the establishment candidate was. Everyone knew that.
 
On one hand, I get it... people who put their time, sweat, money, effort, into a party might deserve some extra say.

But on the other hand, it was just a bad look. It came off as the party saying it couldn’t trust its voters.

It's only once been a factor, and it was good that it was in that case--actually brought the selection in line with voters (because of the Michigan situation). It's good having a check on a kind of disorganized process, but the whining about it was wildly disproportionate to its impact so dropping it was probably wise.
 
Just a bit of ribbing. I recall how strongly you defended the super delegate system and the democratic caucus rules during the 2016 campaign.

I don't think that's right.

My position on it has been the same--it's mostly irrelevant, probably good but not worth fighting for.
 
2016-03-02-1456909045-2765405-160302020826supertuesdaymarch1scorecardstateslistedoverlaytease-thumb.jpg

Reality = 587 to 397 at the time


"Well fuck this since Bernie doesn't stand a chance."
 
Excellent news. It means there are some Dems that do actually want to sweep the midterms.

The one caveat is there are still stubborn dinosaurs who prefer the old corrupt system.
 
I don't think that's right.

My position on it has been the same--it's mostly irrelevant, probably good but not worth fighting for.
Just like you were never against Bernie. You're a full of shit revisionist hack.
 
Excellent news. It means there are some Dems that do actually want to sweep the midterms.

The one caveat is there are still stubborn dinosaurs who prefer the old corrupt system.

This doesn't affect the midterm at all
 
If it makes people feel better, go for it. The system was set up against the sort of corruption that people blame on superdelegates (nobody knows history lol), but it's a timely change that will give voters an illusion of greater choice.

But on the other hand, this is also a reflection of populist and tribalist stirring. Consider that political parties are critically weak and that "going public" has its own drawbacks, like a lack of continuity in party ideology, and the danger of crises of leadership, with power struggles akin to what we saw with the Tea Party. I don't think this bodes well for the people, I think we're mostly full of shit and stupid.
 
This doesn't affect the midterm at all
It's a huge change in attitude at the elite Dem level. Major improvement in confidence to on-the-fence voters as well who, like me, have held out hope that the DNC actually gives a shit.
 
This doesn't affect the midterm at all
I think it must affect it a little, indirectly. There is a non-zero number of voters who refuse to participate for the Democrats because of superdelegates. But it shouldn't affect things too much, and in the short term (until the midterms at least) there shouldn't be any negative effects.
 
If it makes people feel better, go for it. The system was set up against the sort of corruption that people blame on superdelegates (nobody knows history lol), but it's a timely change that will give voters an illusion of greater choice.

But one the other hand, this is also a reflection of populist and tribalist stirring. Consider that political parties are critically weak and that "going public" has its own drawbacks, like a lack of continuity in party ideology, and the danger of crises of leadership, with power struggles akin to what we saw with the Tea Party. I don't think this bodes well for the people, I think we're mostly full of shit and stupid.

so basically you prefer aristocracy
 
On one hand, I get it... people who put their time, sweat, money, effort, into a party might deserve some extra say.

But on the other hand, it was just a bad look. It came off as the party saying it couldn’t trust its voters. And it shows up at the worst time because the only time the voters WOULD elect a real outsider candidate is if they were really unhappy with the party hierarchy.

Glad they are scaling it down.

Its just another anti-democratic apparatus used to protect the status quo. How can anyone support that?
 
<{jackyeah}>
The super delegates system was the mechanism that prevented the Democratic Party primary from becoming a really vicious, fought out battle for each delegate.

With the super delegates power scaled-back, The 2020 primary is going to be the first real fight for the Democratic party's soul in several generations.

This has both good and bad implications for someone with my political disposition:

The good:
The Republicans had a similar occurrence in the 2012 primary. The 2020 primary will likely cause the Democratic party to find new direction despite who wins. The costly and likely vicious fight for the nomination will exhaust the Democratic parties funds to face President Trump. This makes it far easier for President Trump to win reelection.

The bad:
Former Congressman Ron Paul didn't win the Presidential nomination in 2012. However, in defeat he planted the seeds of a new movement. President Trump and Congressman Paul have likely never met, and probably don't have a lot in common, but it was the seeds Congressman Paul planted that grew into the #MAGA movement.

I suspect a similar phenomenon is going to happen in the next few years with the left and the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. The "Bernie Sanders" candidate, whoever they are, will likely not win the Democratic nomination. In defeat, that movement will bring the rise of a far more charismatic character. I suspect in 2024, you're going to see varying flavors of #NeverTrumper's on the inauguration stage as teary-eyed as Jesse Jackson for the inauguration of "Socialist Trump".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top