Gaining traction?

[Nebe]

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Nebe

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to see the actual vote from Iowa but I suspect Hillary wasn't all that popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As long as the herd votes for the candidate preferred by the super-delegates. When the majority have a different idea than the super-delegates, we are witnessing what happens. Yet those same Democratic insiders claim to be opposed to "crony capitalism". Unbelievable. You cannot make this up.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Nebe

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

But what is the logic behind it? Why i sth enomination process more democratic with the super-delegates?

And there was a lot of controversy in 2008, when it came down to the wire between Hilary and Weird Harold. She won the popular vote, he had the super delegates. Then, there was this weird situation where the DNC "punished" some states for having their primaries too early, by reducing the number of regular (non-super)delegates those states represented. I doin't remember who won those states or if it turned out to matter.

But I cannot imagine what the point of them is, except to undermine the democratic process, in the admittedly unlikely event that a non-establishment candidate wins a majority of the regular delegates. The king-makers want to make sure they approve of who the herd nominates. What other possible explanation is there?

I don't think it exists on the GOP side, and for good reason. As horrified as I am at the prospect of a Trump nomination, if he wins enough states, he has earned the right to be the nominee.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what hapened in their state's primary.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what happened in their state's primary.

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

They don't vote on the GOP side, I think they are just symbolic.

According to this MSNBC article, at the time it was written (2007), the Democratic superdelegates were 40% of the total. And many are not elected officials (like former Presidents), and therefore they are not accountable to the public, and therefore they have no business determining who will represent us. Maybe it's different now? Amazing to me.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18277678/n...per-delegates/