Superdelegates

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
It seems to me that superdelegates are the most undemocratic invention you could think of, and if you wanted one more reason why people despise both parties and think that the entire political system is rigged - quite apart from the gerrymandering both parties have shamelessly engineered, and quite apart from all the corporate money that has destroyed any presence at democracy - this is a classic example of the Democratic Party itself destroying every principle of democracy and every pretense at being an organization that believes in democracy. This makes it look as if the Democratic Party is nothing but another corrupt special interest-entrenched group that is interested only in self-preservation.
Why would any voter think that his or her primary vote had any meaning whatsoever? Would it be possible, outside North Korea, to dream up a system that could more effectively engender complete cynicism and hopelessness, or more effectively crush any belief that democracy might somehow have survived in America?
How could anyone cling to any belief that any part of the current American political landscape is remotely related to the concept of democracy?
Anyone have any idea why we have such a thing as superdelegates? What, pray tell, is the presumed advantage over not having such an undemocratic system?
Lois

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate It seems to me that superdelegates are the most undemocratic invention you could think of, and if you wanted one more reason why people despise both parties and think that the entire political system is rigged - quite apart from the gerrymandering both parties have shamelessly engineered, and quite apart from all the corporate money that has destroyed any presence at democracy - this is a classic example of the Democratic Party itself destroying every principle of democracy and every pretense at being an organization that believes in democracy. This makes it look as if the Democratic Party is nothing but another corrupt special interest-entrenched group that is interested only in self-preservation. Why would any voter think that his or her primary vote had any meaning whatsoever? Would it be possible, outside North Korea, to dream up a system that could more effectively engender complete cynicism and hopelessness, or more effectively crush any belief that democracy might somehow have survived in America? How could anyone cling to any belief that any part of the current American political landscape is remotely related to the concept of democracy? Anyone have any idea why we have such a thing as superdelegates? What, pray tell, is the presumed advantage over not having such an undemocratic system? Lois
I don't know why there are superdelegates, but I have a feeling the Repubs are on a path to introducing them into their primary process. I'm sure there's some high falutin' sounding reasoning but bottom line, I'll bet it was to prevent extremely people-popular but establishment-unpopular candidates from getting the nomination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate It seems to me that superdelegates are the most undemocratic invention you could think of, and if you wanted one more reason why people despise both parties and think that the entire political system is rigged - quite apart from the gerrymandering both parties have shamelessly engineered, and quite apart from all the corporate money that has destroyed any presence at democracy - this is a classic example of the Democratic Party itself destroying every principle of democracy and every pretense at being an organization that believes in democracy. This makes it look as if the Democratic Party is nothing but another corrupt special interest-entrenched group that is interested only in self-preservation. Why would any voter think that his or her primary vote had any meaning whatsoever? Would it be possible, outside North Korea, to dream up a system that could more effectively engender complete cynicism and hopelessness, or more effectively crush any belief that democracy might somehow have survived in America? How could anyone cling to any belief that any part of the current American political landscape is remotely related to the concept of democracy? Anyone have any idea why we have such a thing as superdelegates? What, pray tell, is the presumed advantage over not having such an undemocratic system? Lois
I don't know why there are superdelegates, but I have a feeling the Repubs are on a path to introducing them into their primary process. I'm sure there's some high falutin' sounding reasoning but bottom line, I'll bet it was to prevent extremely people-popular but establishment-unpopular candidates from getting the nomination. If that means Trump wouldn't get the nomination. i'm all for it. Lois

No no no.
Look at it from this point of view, TimB makes a good point:
…Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years.
This is why Hillary has all the Superdelegates(so far).
Long term relationships, loyalty, and…uh, oh yeah Super Pacs and paid Wall St. speeches.
I guess some of the folks have had enough experimenting with change for awhile.
Or talking about change really…ain’t been much change.
Clinton will make everybody feel warm and safe again.

This has been going on for so long that most people think the primary system is part of the official American electoral process. It is not. The primaries and party system are not a part of the constitution. Anyone can run for president. The individual political parties are free to choose their candidate in any fashion they desire. The method by which the primaries are run and candidates are chosen is designed by each party. If they wanted to they could change their own rules and just pick the candidate out of a hat without asking anyone.
Its not the best system but unless we change the constitution so that it outlines a method by which presidential candidates must be chosen, its what we’ve got.

There are super delegates so the parties can override the people’s choice and nominate the candidate of their own choosing.

Personally, I don’t like the superdelegate mechanism. Its power became painfully evident to me, in '08 when I was grass-roots campaigning for Obama. It was a factor that Obama had to overcome, but he did.
AND please don’t spread the false narrative that the Republicans do not, ALSO, have a similar mechanism, of uncommitted delegates. They are sneakier about it. They don’t call them SuperDelegates. But they have their version.
Trump looks like he is going to barrel through this inherent disadvantage, just as some other non-favorites of the respective Party establishments, have, in the past. It is, therefore, NOT an insurmountable controlling variable. One just has to get enough of a public constituency behind him/her to overcome the preference of the insider constituency.

RE: Republican superdelegates, (that they don’t call superdelegates)
Here is a scenario that could conceivably happen. (I don’t think it will, but just as an illustration. It is actually possible.) The Repub nomination could come down to, let’s say, Trump and Rubio, with Trump having, let’s say 1200 delegates won from the popular vote and caucuses, while Rubio has only 900 of those kind of delegates. (1237 total delegates are needed to win.) And let’s say that the also-ran candidates, had altogether accumulated a total of 162 delegates. If, at that point, all of the party insider delegates, en mass, (there are about 210 of them) decided to commit to anyone other than Trump, that would force a “brokered” convention, in which anyone could be voted for.

RE: Republican superdelegates, (that they don't call superdelegates) Here is a scenario that could conceivably happen. (I don't think it will, but just as an illustration. It is actually possible.) The Repub nomination could come down to, let's say, Trump and Rubio, with Trump having, let's say 1200 delegates won from the popular vote and caucuses, while Rubio has only 900 of those kind of delegates. (1237 total delegates are needed to win.) And let's say that the also-ran candidates, had altogether accumulated a total of 162 delegates. If, at that point, all of the party insider delegates, en mass, (there are about 210 of them) decided to commit to anyone other than Trump, that would force a "brokered" convention, in which anyone could be voted for.
Super big thank you for that post. I've been thinking if a brokered convention could stop Trump since it appearers that the electorate isn't interested in stopping him, only encouraging him. What are the consequences if a brokered convention stops Trump? Trump has really made politics fascinating for me. In actuality, I think that Trump will win the nomination outright. But if no candidate has 1237 delegates on the first vote, then, theoretically, I think that anyone who is eligible to be President could be nominated. (All of the delegates, present, essentially, become free agents, i.e., they are no longer committed to vote for the person that they were elected to vote for.) They could vote for you, or me, or Jeb!, or Mitt Romney, or Rush Limbaugh, etc. But, my guess is that there would be wheeling and dealing amongst the existing candidates who would still have a substantial number of delegates who would remain loyal to them from the race. Since Trump knows the art of the deal, he would probably still come out on top, but might be forced into taking on Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich as his VP. But that's just a guess about a hypothetical situation.
This has been going on for so long that most people think the primary system is part of the official American electoral process. It is not. The primaries and party system are not a part of the constitution. Anyone can run for president. The individual political parties are free to choose their candidate in any fashion they desire. The method by which the primaries are run and candidates are chosen is designed by each party. If they wanted to they could change their own rules and just pick the candidate out of a hat without asking anyone. Its not the best system but unless we change the constitution so that it outlines a method by which presidential candidates must be chosen, its what we've got.
You're right. When I wrote the piece I had forgotten exactly how the system works when it comes to parties. They are, in fact, more like private organizations and can put up any candidate the wish to put up. . Being outside the government and iits constitutional rules, how they choose a candidate is completely up to the party leaders. They can use a democratic process or simply name a cadidate. I should have done my homework before I wrote the post. I had forgotten the details of the system. It IS an undemocratic process, but now that I've thought it through, I realize there is no law that it must be democratic. However, actual primaries ARE part of the Constitutional process and are run by state governments. It's up to the party to decide whether to have a primary election or a caucus or some other way of deciding on a candidate. It's a caucus, not a primary, that is run outside of democratic rules. You're right, a party can just name the candidate it will support. This is what minor parties do without the fanfare and publicity that the Democratic and Republican parties get. Lois
RE: Republican superdelegates, (that they don't call superdelegates) Here is a scenario that could conceivably happen. (I don't think it will, but just as an illustration. It is actually possible.) The Repub nomination could come down to, let's say, Trump and Rubio, with Trump having, let's say 1200 delegates won from the popular vote and caucuses, while Rubio has only 900 of those kind of delegates. (1237 total delegates are needed to win.) And let's say that the also-ran candidates, had altogether accumulated a total of 162 delegates. If, at that point, all of the party insider delegates, en mass, (there are about 210 of them) decided to commit to anyone other than Trump, that would force a "brokered" convention, in which anyone could be voted for.
That's right, the parties can do as they please because they are, in effect outside of government and constitutional rules and are more like private clubs. See my response to McGyver about how I failed to take into consideration that the parties are not part of the democratic process and they don't have to be run democratically. What they do is give the impression they are run democratically, but they are under no obligation to do so. As fot the Republican party choosing someone other than Trump, even if the party membership is in favor of him, the Party leaders CAN ignore the menbership's preference. The party leaders will choose the candidate based on who they think is most likely to win in the election. It probably will be Trump, but the Party could decide that he is unlikely to win the election because he won't get many votes from non-Republicans, which he would need to win. But he has been so overwhelmingly popular amomg the party membership that there would be a revolt of epic proportions if the party leaders should go against the will of the members. Lois
RE: Republican superdelegates, (that they don't call superdelegates) Here is a scenario that could conceivably happen. (I don't think it will, but just as an illustration. It is actually possible.) The Repub nomination could come down to, let's say, Trump and Rubio, with Trump having, let's say 1200 delegates won from the popular vote and caucuses, while Rubio has only 900 of those kind of delegates. (1237 total delegates are needed to win.) And let's say that the also-ran candidates, had altogether accumulated a total of 162 delegates. If, at that point, all of the party insider delegates, en mass, (there are about 210 of them) decided to commit to anyone other than Trump, that would force a "brokered" convention, in which anyone could be voted for.
That's right, the parties can do as they please because they are, in effect outside of government and constitutional rules and are more like private clubs. See my response to McGyver about how I failed to take into consideration that the parties are not part of the democratic process and they don't have to be run democratically. What they do is give the impression they are run democratically, but they are under no obligation to do so. As fot the Republican party choosing someone other than Trump, even if the party membership is in favor of him, the Party leaders CAN ignore the menbership's preference. The party leaders will choose the candidate based on who they think is most likely to win in the election. It probably will be Trump, but the Party could decide that he is unlikely to win the election because he won't get many votes from non-Republicans, which he would need to win. But he has been so overwhelmingly popular amomg the party membership that there would be a revolt of epic proportions if the party leaders should go against the will of the members. Lois It is pretty clear to me that the Repubs WILL NOT be able to stop Trump from becoming their nominee, even if they absolutely believe that Rubio would be their best bet in the general election (and I think they know that). Trump is overwhelming them with his breadth of popular support. Obama did the same in '08, and eventually got superdelegates to come to his side. It IS NOT an insurmountable obstacle. It is a mechanism to provide an element of control against a takeover of the respective parties by an individual who is completely out of line with the respective parties' agendas. It IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE FIREWALL. It can be trumped by the democratic elements of the systems. It IS, as we speak, BEING TRUMPED, BY TRUMP in the Repub Party. It was trumped by Obama in the Democratic Party in '08.

That’s right Tim. And lest anyone forget, Trump doesn’t need to be sanctioned by any party.
He can run for President, it’s a free country. Heh heh heh.
Has anyone been paying attention to the arenas this guy fills? At the drop of a hat?
10,000-20,000 people. Anywhere he goes.
Cruz or Rubio get 300-500 people if their lucky.

That's right Tim. And lest anyone forget, Trump doesn't need to be sanctioned by any party. He can run for President, it's a free country. Heh heh heh. Has anyone been paying attention to the arenas this guy fills? At the drop of a hat? 10,000-20,000 people. Anywhere he goes. Cruz or Rubio get 300-500 people if their lucky.
Now you're just campaigning for Trump. You can relax. Trump will be the Repub nominee.
Now you're just campaigning for Trump.
Not really. It wouldn't make sense to do that here. Plus I don't need to campaign for Trump. I need to support Bernie Sanders. I'm just reacting to the presses and the pundits furtive, incredulous, scenario analysis. "This can't be happening!" "If it narrowed down to just Trump and Rubio, or Trump and Cruz....maybe that's the way?" No. How many votes would Trump pick up? Without Bernie running, how many Democrats is Trump going to pick up? oooohhh....uh ohh! A whole new crop of Reagan Democrats sprouting up.
Now you're just campaigning for Trump.
Not really. It wouldn't make sense to do that here. Plus I don't need to campaign for Trump. I need to support Bernie Sanders. I'm just reacting to the presses and the pundits furtive, incredulous, scenario analysis. "This can't be happening!" "If it narrowed down to just Trump and Rubio, or Trump and Cruz....maybe that's the way?" No. How many votes would Trump pick up? Without Bernie running, how many Democrats is Trump going to pick up? oooohhh....uh ohh! A whole new crop of Reagan Democrats sprouting up. So is your thinking and preference that Bernie doing well equals Trump becoming President?
So is your thinking and preference that Bernie doing well equals Trump becoming President?
How do you come up with that? My thinking is a Trump v. Bernie race is a win-win for me. But more importantly, myself and others feel Bernie would have a much better chance of beating Trump than Clinton. I believe the preliminary polls bear this out too. It's all about getting those independents. And the dissaffected Dems that I try to explain to you all the time Tim. You know, the ones who are not receiving the Dems narrative... Lot's more voters who want anti-establishment choice would throw it towards Bernie rather than Trump. But if it's Clinton v. Trump.....oh I don't know. There's other factors too.
So is your thinking and preference that Bernie doing well equals Trump becoming President?
How do you come up with that? My thinking is a Trump v. Bernie race is a win-win for me. But more importantly, myself and others feel Bernie would have a much better chance of beating Trump than Clinton. I believe the preliminary polls bear this out too. It's all about getting those independents. And the dissaffected Dems that I try to explain to you all the time Tim. You know, the ones who are not receiving the Dems narrative... Lot's more voters who want anti-establishment choice would throw it towards Bernie rather than Trump. But if it's Clinton v. Trump.....oh I don't know. There's other factors too. Okay, thanks for clarifying. I'll just reiterate, should you have some underlying disdain for the concept of "narrative". It's ALL about narrative. Brenie's narrative. Trump's narrative. Repubs' narrative. Dem's narrative. etc''s narrative. It's up to us to distinguish which narrative is the truest and best for our country.
I'll just reiterate, should you have some underlying disdain for the concept of "narrative". It's ALL about narrative. Brenie's narrative. Trump's narrative. Repubs' narrative. Dem's narrative. etc''s narrative. It's up to us to distinguish which narrative is the truest and best for our country.
Yes. "us" are doing that. Trump has several platforms that I find very appealing. For lot's of "us". Bernie would be like a dream come true. For lot's of "us".