DNC votes to limit role of superdelegates in presidential nominations

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.

bullseyelqcs · 2018-08-27T01:05:29.570Z

If you want to nitpick the issue, it becomes a case for proportional representation.

Had the election been decided that way, Hillary would have won.

Before you say it, I am well aware that that isn’t how it works. I’m making the case that its how it SHOULD work. It would prevent officials from avoiding states they don’t think they can win outright, instead making them work for votes everywhere, as a couple of votes here or there could indeed make the difference.

As to what you wrote, though…if the majority of the populace lives in one place, why should they not have more say than a less populated area? Honest question.

Chris · 2018-08-27T04:37:41.164Z

Toll_Collector:

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.

I agree that Trump was the only GOP Candidate who could have won Michigan and Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin. While Trump won the Michigan and Pennsylvania primaries, he didn’t win the Wisconsin primary. While Trump won Wisconsin in the general election by .76%, GOP Senator Johnson won his reelection bid there by 3.36%. Also, Wisconsin’s voter turnout was low in 2016 compared to turnout in 2012. This was mainly due to Hillary not campaigning in Wisconsin along with there being a strict voter ID law that went into effect during the 2016 election there.

BigBear · 2018-08-27T04:56:49.863Z

Terrible decision. Parties exist to choose candidates, not to be standers-by.

Toll_Collector · 2018-08-27T10:06:14.186Z

lulubee:

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.

Not necessarily. California and NYC are two of the most populated Democratic strongholds in this country. Trump was a dividing figure so it stands as no surprise that Cali. and NYC would overwhelmingly vote against him. So the final count shouldn’t surprise anyone. What should is him winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Just because more Democrats from states that already hate republicans voted for the Democrat is meaningless.

Toll_Collector · 2018-08-27T10:11:44.372Z

Chris:

I agree that Trump was the only GOP Candidate who could have won Michigan and Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin. While Trump won the Michigan and Pennsylvania primaries, he didn’t win the Wisconsin primary. While Trump won Wisconsin in the general election by .76%, GOP Senator Johnson won his reelection bid there by 3.36%. Also, Wisconsin’s voter turnout was low in 2016 compared to turnout in 2012. This was mainly due to Hillary not campaigning in Wisconsin along with there being a strict voter ID law that went into effect during the 2016 election there.

You could be right. You seemingly know more about Wisconsin than I do. But when was the last time they voted GOP, 1984? The other two I believe was 1988? I tend to believe it had something to do with Trump not being the typical republican candidate, and Hillary not being a particularly good candidate for the Democrats. I think a combination of both was required to close that gap. Heck, Trump almost won Minnesota.