• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activists"

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Here's the CNN interview with her Majesty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Well, there you go, right out of the horse's mouth:

CNN Anchor:

"Clinton lost to Sanders by 22% points, the largest percentage point victory in a contested Democratic primary since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving [New Hampshire] with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's 'superdelegates,' these Party insiders. What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]delegates exist, really, to make sure that Party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"​


Translation, "I will reinforce to them that, yes, I am trying to rig this." As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Establishment is earning and working towards a serious collapse in their authority and power. #TimCanova2016 #FeeltheBern



PS: I cleaned up her language, because she was so obfuscatory during the interview discussion, I think so people would stop listening to the unconscionable, anti-democratic horse**** that was spewing out of her mouth.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

One American Citizen One vote.
Not rocket science.

Of course then voting would be completely by the will of the people and what kind of world would that be?
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

if Sanders runs away with the primary, the superdelegates will go with him just as they did with Obama in 2008. otherwise, the party splits. not going to happen, even during Wasserman-Shultz's inept tenure.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Welcome to establishment politics... seriously, did anyone out there question the point of superdelegates and unbound delegates?
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

"Clinton lost to Sanders by 22% points, the largest percentage point victory in a contested Democratic primary since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving [New Hampshire] with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's 'superdelegates,' these Party insiders.[/B] What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do. If Sanders and his supporters stop trying to play the victim all the time, maybe they will make a run at it(the election), but any one who knows anything about the process knows that what I quoted above is bull****, and playing the victim is not going to help his cause.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do. If Sanders and his supporters stop trying to play the victim all the time, maybe they will make a run at it(the election), but any one who knows anything about the process knows that what I quoted above is bull****, and playing the victim is not going to help his cause.


"Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]delegates exist, really, to make sure that Party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"


So Shultz doesn't know what she's talking about? Just a clueless amature, is she?
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

"Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]delegates exist, really, to make sure that Party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"


So Shultz doesn't know what she's talking about? Just a clueless amature, is she?

Does that havbe anything to do with what I quoted and responded to? Hint: it doesn't. That is why Reading Is Fundamental, it will save you making silly mistakes/
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Does that havbe anything to do with what I quoted and responded to? Hint: it doesn't. That is why Reading Is Fundamental, it will save you making silly mistakes/

"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Here's the CNN interview with her Majesty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Well, there you go, right out of the horse's mouth:

CNN Anchor:

"Clinton lost to Sanders by 22% points, the largest percentage point victory in a contested Democratic primary since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving [New Hampshire] with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's 'superdelegates,' these Party insiders. What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]delegates exist, really, to make sure that Party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"​


Translation, "I will reinforce to them that, yes, I am trying to rig this." As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Establishment is earning and working towards a serious collapse in their authority and power. #TimCanova2016 #FeeltheBern



PS: I cleaned up her language, because she was so obfuscatory during the interview discussion, I think so people would stop listening to the unconscionable, anti-democratic horse**** that was spewing out of her mouth.

When I was a delegate to the 72 Democratic Convention in Miami, I had to run for a McGovern spot based on how many delegates he had in my congressional district. If the local Congressman from the district wanted to be a delegate, or any other office holder or party official, he or she would have to run against me to get that spot.

There were NO super delegates at that time and the primary results determined the voting make-up of the delegation on the first ballot. You had to be elected as a committed delegate.

That is the way it should be now.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

if Sanders runs away with the primary, the superdelegates will go with him just as they did with Obama in 2008. otherwise, the party splits. not going to happen, even during Wasserman-Shultz's inept tenure.

I think you're underestimating how dirty Clinton's machine is and how depraved DWS is.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do. If Sanders and his supporters stop trying to play the victim all the time, maybe they will make a run at it(the election), but any one who knows anything about the process knows that what I quoted above is bull****, and playing the victim is not going to help his cause.

Very true. What kind of person plays the victim just because an election is rigged against him? Mr Sanders is just a sore loser who is resentful of the wise authority of his party's leaders and who rambles on in a victimish sort of way about 'votes', as though they are supposed to matter.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.

I would tell voters that "of course it's rigged". How naive are you to just now figure that out?
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

I think you're underestimating how dirty Clinton's machine is and how depraved DWS is.

no way that the superdelegates ignore a decisive Sanders victory. if Clinton plays dirty, it will happen before that. as for DWS, if the Democrats win, it will be in spite of her DNC, not because of it.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.

If people think it is rigged, that is their own ignorance.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Very true. What kind of person plays the victim just because an election is rigged against him? Mr Sanders is just a sore loser who is resentful of the wise authority of his party's leaders and who rambles on in a victimish sort of way about 'votes', as though they are supposed to matter.

Except it is not rigged against him. Right now Sanders has a delegate lead. You cannot count superdelegates until the convention, because that is when they vote, and they can vote for whomever they please, no matter who they supported when their state voted.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

I would tell voters that "of course it's rigged". How naive are you to just now figure that out?

Ya see, all this super-delegate talk I'd would have bet this was a PUB elite thread. (super-delegates to block a Trump win)

I see the super delegates not as sinister folk but more like guys and gals getting VIP passes to Super Bowl week. Get the big shrimp cups and better seats than regular delegates. Far from a party strong arm shook troop they are more like tourists on the upgraded package.

I've been on this planet a few decades- can't recall a convention where the super delegates went enbloc against the the state's vote.

Perhaps someone who believes they will this time can find a precedent for it?

I think we'd all like to know... :peace
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"

Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.

Just tell them to stay home, as they did in 2010 and 2014, giving the GOPs both the House and Senate.
Unless HRC takes BS on her ticket, as RWR did with "voodoo" GHWB.

And why no fretting over the GOPs doing the same thing?
Though they call their unpledged PLEOs "party and bonus" delegates .
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

Why would Democrats care if their vote is wasted?
 
Last edited:
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

IIRC, superdelegates were added in 1984 to reduce the possibility that an election disaster (McGovern) or a governing disaster (Carter) would get the nomination. As in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

no way that the superdelegates ignore a decisive Sanders victory. if Clinton plays dirty, it will happen before that.

If Hillary plays dirty? Either you actually believe that Hillary didn't tell DWS that there would be 6 debates (back when her calculus was that this would be good for her), that DWS didn't pull Sanders voting registry for a day as a (very unsuccessful) smear campaign, and so forth, or you're a little late to the game with that conditional. But I think it's pretty blatantly clear to everyone that DWS is just an extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign.

as for DWS, if the Democrats win, it will be in spite of her DNC, not because of it.

Agreed. Same was true in 2014, only there they simply just didn't win. DWS needs to be removed many reasons unrelated to 2016, but the least of which is helping lose the 2014 midterms and bankrupting the DNC.

Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do.

This is true, but it pretty well misses the entire point. I'm not questioning what they will do --however, you'd be wildly naive if you thought that Hillary will not have a larger support from superdelegates than Sanders no matter what the outcome of the popular election. She will, I don't think anyone serious questions this, but she will Rather the question is "Should anyone be confused that this is anti-democratic and anti-liberal?"


Again, people thought about the superdelegates did so for an explicity reason in the 70's, and Wasserman-Schultz said why. They aren't going to turn a massively popular candidate around, but they are an extra leg up for the Establishment candidates.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

The Democratic Party is anti-democratic. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed American politics for any length of time.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

If Hillary plays dirty? Either you actually believe that Hillary didn't tell DWS that there would be 6 debates (back when her calculus was that this would be good for her), that DWS didn't pull Sanders voting registry for a day as a (very unsuccessful) smear campaign, and so forth, or you're a little late to the game with that conditional. But I think it's pretty blatantly clear to everyone that DWS is just an extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign.

the Democratic nomination process was intentionally stacked in her favor. however, the superdelegates won't overturn the race. her campaign and the DNC will act well before that if the voters don't waffle and toss out Sanders as "unelectable." either way, the superdelegates won't defy a decisive Sanders victory any more than they defied Obama's. we can revisit this after it doesn't happen, and if they do pull off a coup, i'll admit being wrong with my prediction.
 
Re: "Superdelegates make sure Party leaders aren't running against grassroots activis

the Democratic nomination process was intentionally stacked in her favor. however, the superdelegates won't overturn the race. her campaign and the DNC will act well before that if the voters don't waffle and toss out Sanders as "unelectable." either way, the superdelegates won't defy a decisive Sanders victory any more than they defied Obama's. we can revisit this after it doesn't happen, and if they do pull off a coup, i'll admit being wrong with my prediction.

A decisive Sanders win? I agree, they won't overturn that. But if Sanders wins within a certain margin, they can and will overrule the people and go with who they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom