Revitalizing The Democratic Party

unsung said:

Alyssa Milano says the Russians are to blame for the Dems defeat in Ohio.

This is just an embarrassing reveal about where you get your news.  

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Alyssa Milano says the Russians are to blame for the Dems defeat in Ohio.

Who is Alyssa Milano?

Wayne McBean's girlfriend 

...

brianlux said:

benjs said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton

This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this? 

I have to learn more about this, but somehow the idea of "super delegates" just doesn't sound right.  Any thoughts as to the pros and cons?

It allowed party insiders to manipulate results and avoid a "brokered" convention, which could make the party look bad at it's convention on national tv

In 2016, about 10-15% of all delegates were superdelegates, and most were for the establishment Candidate HRC and against Bernie. They usually are comprised of retired politicians and up and coming state and local politicians, eager to support the "insider."

The DNC just passed a rule prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first ballot,which might not have that much impact.

Let's say after all the primaries  Bernie is winning the delegate count 45 - 44%. He still does not have   over 50% needed to win. 

Under the old system, it was possible for HRC to get the majority of super delegates to hand her the nomination on the first ballot. This is still possible, but would need to occur on the second ballot with the new rules.

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton

This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this? 

I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?

my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton

This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this? 

I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?

my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed. 

Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton

This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this? 

I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?

my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed. 

Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?

the will of the people. 

So the dictionary definition. I gathered that benjs posed that question as though populism is a negative, not a positive, which is why I don't get why getting rid of superdelegates would lead to it in that context. If populism in reality were simply "the will of the people" we certainly wouldn't all be so concerned about it. It's a whole lot more sinister than that in practice.

brianlux said:

Why don't we just vote and count up the votes?  Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?

Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.

As the superdelegates (elected people, former leaders etc.) will still endorse their favoured candidate during primaries they will have the same level of influence just not in a mathematical tie-breaking way at the end - right?