DNC votes to limit role of superdelegates in presidential nominations

WuWei · 2018-08-26T19:25:21.726Z

lulubee:

That is not the same thing as choosing the nominees who will run in the general election.

What’s different about it?

WuWei · 2018-08-26T19:26:28.487Z

LucyLou:

See, this attitude is wrong too. Who do you think these “party insiders” are? They are just people who win elections and who are active in local politics. We want citizens to be involved at the local level and run for various offices, but by your metric these people automatically become this stereotype of cigar smoking men in a closed back room. And that’s just not true.

Yes it is. Because they want the money.

LucyLou · 2018-08-26T19:33:41.224Z

Thanks for the link.

LucyLou · 2018-08-26T19:35:46.777Z

WuWei:

Yes it is. Because they want the money.

Um. Ok?

Do you want citizens involved in politics and running for office? Do they become “party insiders” once they do that? What’s the alternative?

WuWei · 2018-08-26T19:38:13.022Z

LucyLou:

Um. Ok?

Do you want citizens involved in politics and running for office? Do they become “party insiders” once they do that? What’s the alternative?

Yes.

Term limits.

LucyLou · 2018-08-26T19:41:50.219Z

Is that in the Constitution?

WuWei · 2018-08-26T19:42:56.218Z

LucyLou:

Is that in the Constitution?

It’s not prohibited.

lulubee · 2018-08-26T20:16:15.948Z

WuWei:

lulubee:

That is not the same thing as choosing the nominees who will run in the general election.

What’s different about it?

One picks who will run for an office. The other is for who will actually be the people’s representatives.

Impenitent · 2018-08-26T20:48:46.410Z

I thought all delegates in the democratic party were super delegates… there must be a solution to democratic delegate envy…

DougBH · 2018-08-26T23:13:34.433Z

I can see why they did this because they don’t want to run another Hillary (or even the same one) based on the elite of the DNC. Since 57% of Dems look favorably on socialism, they are likely to go the other way and nominate an extremist who still cant win…even against Trump.

Drawz · 2018-08-26T23:19:38.748Z

Given the fact that the superdelegates have never once changed the outcome of a nomination by overturning the primary results of the states, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. But I do understand why the party wanted the the opportunity to do so when they set up this system.

Toll_Collector · 2018-08-26T23:35:47.324Z

lulubee:

Primary voters and super delegates.

I think Hillary was a great candidate and eminently qualified to be President.

Sanders should not have been allowed to run against her in the primaries since he is nor even a Democrat.

You think she was a great candidate, but many people thought she was an awful candidate, including some Democrats. I’m in a union, I work right next to them. They basically ran the last primary just like you wanted, where did it get the Democrats? Besides that, there wasn’t a single candidate on the GOP slate that would have beaten Hillary besides Trump. No way do they take Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

WuWei · 2018-08-26T23:36:44.599Z

lulubee:

One picks who will run for an office. The other is for who will actually be the people’s representatives.

Senators were supposed to represent states.

lulubee · 2018-08-26T23:55:59.141Z

Toll_Collector:

lulubee:

Primary voters and super delegates.

I think Hillary was a great candidate and eminently qualified to be President.

Sanders should not have been allowed to run against her in the primaries since he is nor even a Democrat.

You think she was a great candidate, but many people thought she was an awful candidate, including some Democrats. I’m in a union, I work right next to them. They basically ran the last primary just like you wanted, where did it get the Democrats? Besides that, there wasn’t a single candidate on the GOP slate that would have beaten Hillary besides Trump. No way do they take Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

More people - almost 3 million in fact - thought Hillary was the better candidate.

“In the final count, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non -partisan Cook Political Report , Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.”

Time

Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 Million in Final Popular Vote Count

Nearly 66 million Americans voted for the Democrat

WuWei · 2018-08-27T00:00:03.474Z

In California.

lulubee · 2018-08-27T00:07:15.980Z

I don’t care where the votes came from. More people voted for Hillary than Trump and she won the popular vote.

That’s a fact.

WuWei · 2018-08-27T00:08:57.731Z

In California.

It doesn’t matter. The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote. Your vote doesn’t matter.

lulubee · 2018-08-27T00:11:11.185Z

WuWei:

In California.

It doesn’t matter. The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote. Your vote doesn’t matter.

I never said it was.

But believing she was a worst candidate than Trump is absurd. If he was the better candidate more people woukd have voted for him than her. But he wasn’t and they didn’t.

WuWei · 2018-08-27T00:15:31.854Z

lulubee:

I never said it was.

But believing she was a worst candidate than Trump is absurd. If he was the better candidate more people woukd have voted for him than her. But he wasn’t and they didn’t.

That’s absurd.

lulubee · 2018-08-27T00:20:12.744Z

WuWei:

lulubee:

I never said it was.

But believing she was a worst candidate than Trump is absurd. If he was the better candidate more people woukd have voted for him than her. But he wasn’t and they didn’t.

That’s absurd.

Your opinion.