If the GOP had superdelegates, we might not be in this Trump mess

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
Another view of superdelegates.

"A belief in direct democracy, apparently, is behind the attack by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other Democratic “progressives” on the institution of “superdelegates” — elected officials and other insiders who get automatic votes at the Democratic Party’s convention, much to their fellow insider Hillary Clinton’s advantage, the critics allege. “Rigged system!” Sanders cries. It’s hard to separate Sanders’s proclaimed principles from self-interest and sour grapes, especially because when he’s not denouncing the existence of superdelegates, he’s desperately trying to get their votes...

Parties are entitled to think about continuity and electability, without which, obviously, they can never achieve their policy goals. Hence, they’re entitled to favor loyalists, like the superdelegates, and known quantities, like Clinton — for all her flaws — over interlopers, like Sanders...

If only the Republicans had such a circuit breaker! Instead, they were left at the mercy of an untameable intruder, Donald Trump, and the large but motivated minority of primary voters he inflamed by attacking the GOP and its leaders — as well as by vilifying various minority groups and repeatedly violating basic behavioral norms."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0234f0-2d8e-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html
 
Smoke%2BFilled%2BRoom.jpg


In Praise of the Smoke Filled Room
http://www.dividist.com/2016/03/in-praise-of-smoke-filled-room-or-how-i.html
 
If the superdelegates went against a candidate with as much backing as Trump it would cause a riot. That's the same reason the unbound delegates aren't going to do his chances in either.
 
If the superdelegates went against a candidate with as much backing as Trump it would cause a riot. That's the same reason the unbound delegates aren't going to do his chances in either.

That's an interesting point. Superdelegates exist in the D party to avoid a Trump, in theory (and I have no problem with superdelegates), but in practice, could they really stop a kamikazee candidate who had won the popular vote and the pledged delegates, without destroying the party anyway?
 
That's an interesting point. Superdelegates exist in the D party to avoid a Trump, in theory (and I have no problem with superdelegates), but in practice, could they really stop a kamikazee candidate who had won the popular vote and the pledged delegates, without destroying the party anyway?

I thought they were there to avoid a Bernie......
 
I thought they were there to avoid a Bernie......
they are. the Party always wants what's best for the continuation of the Party,which may or may not be in the interest of the people.
If it is fine, if not..too bad.

Sanders doesn't give a damn a bout "unity"..oh he might be interested in stopping Trump-sure-
but he holds the hacks in utter disregard. He represents the people's interests.
 
Another view of superdelegates.

"A belief in direct democracy, apparently, is behind the attack by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other Democratic “progressives” on the institution of “superdelegates” — elected officials and other insiders who get automatic votes at the Democratic Party’s convention, much to their fellow insider Hillary Clinton’s advantage, the critics allege. “Rigged system!” Sanders cries. It’s hard to separate Sanders’s proclaimed principles from self-interest and sour grapes, especially because when he’s not denouncing the existence of superdelegates, he’s desperately trying to get their votes...

Parties are entitled to think about continuity and electability, without which, obviously, they can never achieve their policy goals. Hence, they’re entitled to favor loyalists, like the superdelegates, and known quantities, like Clinton — for all her flaws — over interlopers, like Sanders...

If only the Republicans had such a circuit breaker! Instead, they were left at the mercy of an untameable intruder, Donald Trump, and the large but motivated minority of primary voters he inflamed by attacking the GOP and its leaders — as well as by vilifying various minority groups and repeatedly violating basic behavioral norms."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0234f0-2d8e-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

You don't support the concept of WE THE PEOPLE ?....
You think is just fine that a bunch of fat cats ignore the desires of THE PEOPLE and anoint whoever THEY want as OUR leader ?....
Thats not democracy sweetie.....

They make it just about impossible for a Joe Sixpack to run for office let alone president, then they pick your candidates for you
from their clones that will follow, not lead....wtf good are elections then, other than a joke.

Thats like letting you pick your rapist from a their hand chosen gang.....you're a bigger fool than I thought.

Its because of people that think like you that have caused WE THE PEOPLE to lose control of our government.....
 
they are. the Party always wants what's best for the continuation of the Party,which may or may not be in the interest of the people.
If it is fine, if not..too bad.

Sanders doesn't give a damn a bout "unity"..oh he might be interested in stopping Trump-sure-
but he holds the hacks in utter disregard. He represents the people's interests.

Promoting a billionaire narcissist's public exposure is in the people's interest?
 

This is how the GOP should do business. No more TR revolts. No more Windell Wilkies, no more Goldwaters, no more Dubya's, and no more Douchebag Donalds. Imagine if we had run William Scranton in 1964 and John McCain in 2000. We probably would have lost in '64, but at least we would have done the right thing. A McCain presidency would have prevented so much damage from the neocons, and may have also prevented Obama.
 
Promoting a billionaire narcissist's public exposure is in the people's interest?

people are sovereign..as ong as this distorted "us and them" 2 party system stays around, the base gets more extreme.
It doesn't have to be that way -methinks its a cyclical reinforcement by the politicians, bought by the public (etc.)

One thing is clear. You get establishment or populists ( and populists may or may not be good).
Or you cam use superdelegate which further distort the will of the people.
 
This is how the GOP should do business. No more TR revolts. No more Windell Wilkies, no more Goldwaters, no more Dubya's, and no more Douchebag Donalds. Imagine if we had run William Scranton in 1964 and John McCain in 2000. We probably would have lost in '64, but at least we would have done the right thing. A McCain presidency would have prevented so much damage from the neocons, and may have also prevented Obama.
McCain was every bit the neocon. what would you gain?
You support the party, I support the people's choice (simplification). In the end "people get the kind of government they deserve"
 
they are. the Party always wants what's best for the continuation of the Party,which may or may not be in the interest of the people.
If it is fine, if not..too bad.

Sanders doesn't give a damn a bout "unity"..oh he might be interested in stopping Trump-sure-
but he holds the hacks in utter disregard. He represents the people's interests.

gosh, one might almost think he felt he was an Independent......
 
Back
Top