2016 Postmortem

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

10. That might be an option we could all live with.

Reply to Recursion (Reply #4)

Sun May 22, 2016, 08:21 PM

May 2016

What would you say about requiring the supers under that plan to remain unpledged as long as the primaries go on?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should this be the last time we have superdelegates? [View all] Ken Burch May 2016 OP

Yep. Pack 'em up, ship 'em out. eom saltpoint May 2016 #1

The current rigged system is absurd... Bernie will clean it up, no doubt. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #38

The cry against the supes is getting saltpoint May 2016 #39

Nope... nor will I miss Hillary's establishment politics. You hear her latest lie that Bernie has not had one negative ad run against him? InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #44

Yep. DWS has been on the take a long saltpoint May 2016 #45

lol, tomorrow morning would not be soon enough! DWS has become a parody of herself and a liability to the Democratic Party. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2016 #50

it was a terrible idea from the beginning Ash_F May 2016 #2

Activists are not always kind and gentle creatures. randome May 2016 #28

Interesting viewpoint when 63% of Americans support a $15 minimum wage in 4 years Ash_F May 2016 #34

Not fringe at all, I agree. But it wasn't superdelegates who prevented him from winning. randome May 2016 #35

A leader should stand out in front Ash_F May 2016 #42

PPS - I do blame superdelegates to some degree because they came out so early Ash_F May 2016 #43

No StayFrosty May 2016 #3

No it didn't. Scuba May 2016 #5

Yes it did StayFrosty May 2016 #11

You just argued both sides of the argument. And you accuse others of living in fantasy land? Exilednight May 2016 #54

None of that is close to reality. morningfog May 2016 #6

clinton had what -- 400 delegates in her pocket oldandhappy May 2016 #12

They would have happily switched StayFrosty May 2016 #13

"Democratic voters"...not "Democrat voters". Ken Burch May 2016 #59

There isn't anything hostile in what Bernie's trying to do. Ken Burch May 2016 #14

No one said there was. Superdelegates did not prevent him from winning. randome May 2016 #31

The poster I was responding to there described Bernie's campaign as a "hostile takeover attempt" Ken Burch May 2016 #53

Other than trash-talking it for the past 25 years. randome May 2016 #60

In the last 25 years, it's been mostly impossible to be a progressive within this party, Ken Burch May 2016 #61

+1000 baldguy May 2016 #36

Meh. I like the institution having an emergency brake. We should have fewer of them, though Recursion May 2016 #4

What's wrong with "a narrow-plurality candidate in a 3-way race" winning? Scuba May 2016 #7

Say Alice, Bob, and Charlie are running Recursion May 2016 #15

You're wrong about the idea behind the superdelegates, at least according to DWS. Scuba May 2016 #21

DWS didn't create them; they were from a panel Jim Hunt of NC chaired in 1982 Recursion May 2016 #23

And Clinton deserves the nomination, since she got the most votes. baldguy May 2016 #37

If she gets the most votes fairly she deserves the nomination. I've never suggested differently. Scuba May 2016 #40

I was never sympathetic to the position of the white Southerners on this Ken Burch May 2016 #22

That might be an option we could all live with. Ken Burch May 2016 #10

I definitely agree with that idea Recursion May 2016 #16

I like the way you are thinking on this. n/t. Ken Burch May 2016 #17

I think that there should be small number of seats reserved for party leaders. The input of people Tal Vez May 2016 #8

How do you get rid of them? oldandhappy May 2016 #9

Maine just voted to eliminate super delegates... grasswire May 2016 #20

tis a beginning oldandhappy May 2016 #47

Superdelegates have never been used to select our nominee. onehandle May 2016 #18

Well, since we've never come close to having anyone remotely similar to Trump as our nominee... Ken Burch May 2016 #24

No, this year proves the point of superdelegates. onehandle May 2016 #26

What matters is what you stand for. Ken Burch May 2016 #27

Repub do not have them. oldandhappy May 2016 #48

well, I heard Trump say Repubs do not have them. ha ha oldandhappy May 2016 #49

Until this year. jeff47 May 2016 #55

In 2008 Obama needed 2117 delegates to win, he had 1828 1/2 pledged delegates (majority of pledged) andym May 2016 #58

The ONLY reason for their existence is to protect the party elite from The Proles. cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #19

The 2016 campaign for POTUS has raised my awareness of the issue of super-delegates. PufPuf23 May 2016 #25

What if super delegates could not vote on the first ballot at the convention? House of Roberts May 2016 #29

You all don't get a say in the matter. LiberalFighter May 2016 #30

Yes Depaysement May 2016 #32

1972, 1976, 1980 = no superdelegates andym May 2016 #33

Came here to post this scscholar May 2016 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #41

I voted "other" Peachhead22 May 2016 #46

It should be the last time we have caucuses. nt Jitter65 May 2016 #52

OK. It's not Bernie's fault that we had them this year. Ken Burch May 2016 #57

Last time should be the last time! haikugal May 2016 #56

Let's end the conventions and directly elect the nominees Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #62

Kind of shocked anyone voted for supepdelegates. EndElectoral May 2016 #63

No! SDs did EXACTLY ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #64