Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

iguanaman said:

So it is a vast conspiracy and Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama are all in on it, Right? That is not any more credible than if you said Hillary killed the ambassador. LOL I will leave you to your bizarre fantasy world, You don't need TV or movies with all that excitement going on in your head.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about?

Despite having obvious misgivings about how Clinton's candidacy is financed, Bernie and Elizabeth obviously need to endorse Clinton if they want a seat at her table; that is an unfortunate albeit indelible reality of their political situation.

As for Obama, the man himself is beholden to many of the same interests Clinton is; he has no reason not to endorse her along party lines.

There is no 'vast conspiracy' in noting that politicians, according to academic research on the matter, factually and clearly respond to the strong incentives they're given to legislate in favour of donors and lobbyists in lieu of other groups (such as Joe Public), and that the term 'political insider', as it's used today, generally refers to those career politicians, and especially establishment types, who exchange political favours for campaign finance and support.

The election was proven to be RIGGED when it came out both parties had rules in place so that the rich can change the voting if they wanted too.. just by spending a lot more money on a few delegates to stop the voters..... wining and dining.. and entertaining and travel

already proven 100 % RIGGED ... the voters don't count only the bought off few delegates count

Surrealistik said:

What on earth are you talking about?

Despite having obvious misgivings about how Clinton's candidacy is financed, Bernie and Elizabeth obviously need to endorse Clinton if they want a seat at her table; that is an unfortunate albeit indelible reality of their political situation.

As for Obama, the man himself is beholden to many of the same interests Clinton is; he has no reason not to endorse her along party lines.

There is no 'vast conspiracy' in noting that politicians, according to academic research on the matter, factually and clearly respond to the strong incentives they're given to legislate in favour of donors and lobbyists in lieu of other groups (such as Joe Public), and that the term 'political insider', as it's used today, generally refers to those career politicians, and especially establishment types, who exchange political favours for campaign finance and support.

Click to expand...

It is also worth noting that the Progressive movement seeks to change those things and Hillary is a supporter of that movement. He opponent has no such agenda but wishes to double down on trickle down economics a theory that has caused nearly irreparable harm to our society. So much for "outsiders" being better, Trump would be the fox in the henhouse.

Greenbeard said:

The majority of Democrats like and support Clinton.

I'm willing to believe the majority of Republicans like and support the trainwreck that is Trump. What exactly is the problem in either party's primary system?

Click to expand...

The two major parties have offered us two lying, crooked, narcissistic, liberal jackasses and you want to know what's wrong with the system? If you think the two are worthy candidates that give Americans a decent choice, we really have nothing to say.

Patrickt said:

The two major parties have offered us two lying, crooked, narcissistic, liberal jackasses and you want to know what's wrong with the system? If you think the two are worthy candidates that give Americans a decent choice, we really have nothing to say.

Click to expand...

The previous poster's assertion that the majority of Reps/Dems like Trump/Clinton is, well, naive, but it's not quite as you put it, either. The parties didn't give us these two, presuming you mean 'give' when you say 'offered'. There were other more legit choices available in the primaries and these two are the ones chosen.

radcen said:

Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant, since the Democratic Party is a lockstep organization. Those who agree with the party, in the end, will be squashed. Look how Bernie got screwed.

radcen said:

The previous poster's assertion that the majority of Reps/Dems like Trump/Clinton is, well, naive, but it's not quite as you put it, either. The parties didn't give us these two, presuming you mean 'give' when you say 'offered'. There were other more legit choices available in the primaries and these two are the ones chosen.

Click to expand...

And when they are "chosen" by flawed and rigged systems it means what?

American said:

It's irrelevant, since the Democratic Party is a lockstep organization. Those who agree with the party, in the end, will be squashed. Look how Bernie got screwed.

Click to expand...

A "lockstep" organization? Methinks you've been drinking deeply of the confirmation bias Kool-Aid. What's more, as apparently indicated by your "lockstep" accusation, I'm going with the presumption that you made a typo when you said that those who AGREE with the party will in the end be "squashed". Seems you meant "disagree".

And if my presumption is correct, then you'd be flat wrong. Why? While there are quite a few issues that we liberals almost all agree on - equality for all (incl. women, LGBT, race, religion, etc.), raise taxes on the wealthy (a position shared by many Republican voters btw), no torture, AGW, raise the minimum wage, et cetera - there's a heck of a lot of issues that we liberals strongly disagree with each other about.

For instance, some of us want to ban guns...but the great majority of us do NOT (including myself). Some of us want to ban nuclear power plants...but the majority of us (including myself) do NOT. Some of us want to slice, dice, and julienne-fry the defense budget...but the overwhelming majority of us do not, but most of us do want to get our defense spending under control. In fact, if you'll think back, if we were a "lockstep" organization, how the heck could we have considered the ACA, given that it was invented by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Romney? Especially considering that the ones who most strongly wanted single-payer (Clinton AND Obama in 2009) simply couldn't get enough support from Democratic politicians...or do you not remember what the "blue dog" Democrats were doing then?

OTOH, until relatively very recently, the GOP has in many ways very much been a "lockstep organization"...except that it wasn't your politicians who were keeping everyone marching to the same tune - it was your pundits...because any Republican politician who disagreed with your pundits like Rush or O'Reilly or Hannity or whomever suddenly found his own political career in jeopardy. What's more, it wasn't just your pundits - it was also the Religious Right who demanded that y'all toe their religious line in terms not just of faith, but of political policy. Your pundits and your preachers led your politicians around by the nose...until two factors occurred.

The first one was Romney, who was able to win your party's nomination in 2012...and so (because he was a Mormon) broke the protestant televangelists' choke-hold on your politicians. The second was Trump, who is in the process of burning your whole party's house down by exposing the deep, deep rifts between what most of your politicians support...and what most of your voters want.

In other words, in a perverse way that will be studied by political historians for generations, Trump - as unfit for the Oval Office as he surely is - has done y'all a great favor: he's rescuing the GOP from remaining the monolithic "lockstep organization" that it has been since Reagan united your party from the fractured mess it had become after Nixon and Watergate.

radcen said:

Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?

Click to expand...

This system of super delegates the Democrats use was set in place prior to the 1976 presidential election and has been used ever since. The super delegates are party leaders and Democratic elected officials or PLEO's as they are called. If you're a governor, senator or representative, you are a super delegate free to vote your own conscious regardless of how your state votes.

It has worked fine with no complaints until this year. Every candidate knew the rules prior to going into the nomination process. Having run in 2008, Hillary Clinton knew how important the super delegates were. She started courting them was back and had 30 of them locked up by 1 Jan 2013 long before Sanders even thought about running for the presidency as a Democrat. He was still an independent then

Sanders only registered as a Democrat so he could run as as Democrat and he did so in early 2016 switching from independent to Democrat. So is it any wonder why most Democratic PLEO's would support Clinton who has been a Democrat over someone who just became one. One who just became one so he could run for the presidency as a Democrat and immediately once the Democratic Convention was over, switched back to being an independent. Sanders is no longer a Democrat.

Is it fair, every candidate since 1976 thought so. That is when we entered the modern primary era of the parties selecting their nominees. I have no problem with it. It does give the party leaders a say in who is selected or nominated. 85% of the delegates are chosen by the vote, 15% are PLEO's.

I'll say this, this year I bet the Republicans wished they had the foresight to have super delegates.

Perotista said:

This system of super delegates the Democrats use was set in place prior to the 1976 presidential election and has been used ever since. The super delegates are party leaders and Democratic elected officials or PLEO's as they are called. If you're a governor, senator or representative, you are a super delegate free to vote your own conscious regardless of how your state votes.

It has worked fine with no complaints until this year. Every candidate knew the rules prior to going into the nomination process. Having run in 2008, Hillary Clinton knew how important the super delegates were. She started courting them was back and had 30 of them locked up by 1 Jan 2013 long before Sanders even thought about running for the presidency as a Democrat. He was still an independent then

Sanders only registered as a Democrat so he could run as as Democrat and he did so in early 2016 switching from independent to Democrat. So is it any wonder why most Democratic PLEO's would support Clinton who has been a Democrat over someone who just became one. One who just became one so he could run for the presidency as a Democrat and immediately once the Democratic Convention was over, switched back to being an independent. Sanders is no longer a Democrat.

Is it fair, every candidate since 1976 thought so. That is when we entered the modern primary era of the parties selecting their nominees. I have no problem with it. It does give the party leaders a say in who is selected or nominated. 85% of the delegates are chosen by the vote, 15% are PLEO's.

I'll say this, this year I bet the Republicans wished they had the foresight to have super delegates.

Click to expand...

You and several people have said or implied that, because all have worked within the system as it exists, and that they knew how the system works, that they believe said system is fair. Not necessarily so. That''s pure speculation. All it means is they worked the system as it exists. Some to their benefit, some not.

I completely agree regarding Sander's late change of parties, and is why I didn't have much sympathy for him when he was whining about it. Here's a guy who has made his name and career by purposely not being part of the establishment, then joins the establishment when it suits his purposes.

radcen said:

You and several people have said or implied that, because all have worked within the system as it exists, and that they knew how the system works, that they believe said system is fair. Not necessarily so. That''s pure speculation. All it means is they worked the system as it exists. Some to their benefit, some not.

I completely agree regarding Sander's late change of parties, and is why I didn't have much sympathy for him when he was whining about it. Here's a guy who has made his name and career by purposely not being part of the establishment, then joins the establishment when it suits his purposes.

Click to expand...

Whether its fair or not probably depends on the individual and how they look at it. Perhaps the question that needs to be answered, "Should the party leaders and elected officials have an extra say in the process?" I say extra because that is what it is since each party leader and elected official has their vote in their state like everyone else. So does their job entitle them to that extra say as a delegate not bound until they choose to be bound?

Its not like the super delegates decided who would be their nominee. Clinton won 60% of all the Democratic primary votes and won 2205 delegates to Sanders 1846 via the vote not counting any super delegates. So all the gripping is basically a dead herring. What was wrong was the whole DNC and state Democratic Party leaders working to ensure Clinton won, not the super delegates. It was a rigged primary election process. Anyone with a bit of political knowledge could see the Democratic party leaders, the DNC, Obama, etc. had determined Clinton was to be their nominee as far back as 2012. Some will say before.

Perotista said:

Whether its fair or not probably depends on the individual and how they look at it. Perhaps the question that needs to be answered, "Should the party leaders and elected officials have an extra say in the process?" I say extra because that is what it is since each party leader and elected official has their vote in their state like everyone else. So does their job entitle them to that extra say as a delegate not bound until they choose to be bound?

Its not like the super delegates decided who would be their nominee. Clinton won 60% of all the Democratic primary votes and won 2205 delegates to Sanders 1846 via the vote not counting any super delegates. So all the gripping is basically a dead herring. What was wrong was the whole DNC and state Democratic Party leaders working to ensure Clinton won, not the super delegates. It was a rigged primary election process. Anyone with a bit of political knowledge could see the Democratic party leaders, the DNC, Obama, etc. had determined Clinton was to be their nominee as far back as 2012. Some will say before.

Click to expand...

I know that I mentioned Sanders in my opening post, but the question was meant in general concept using Sanders only as a possible example. I should have clarified that.

I believe that is is less unfair to the candidates, because as many have mentioned, they all knew the rules going in and went in anyway. I do think the system of superdelegates is unfair to the voters. I believe it waters down their influence, and really it's supposed to be about all of us, not just the party apparatus.

I also agree with many who have said that the Reps probably wish they could have thwarted Trump, but to me that's kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'd love for Trump to have been thwarted, but in the long run I don't think it'd be good to institute such a system over an anomaly.

radcen said:

I know that I mentioned Sanders in my opening post, but the question was meant in general concept using Sanders only as a possible example. I should have clarified that.

I believe that is is less unfair to the candidates, because as many have mentioned, they all knew the rules going in and went in anyway. I do think the system of superdelegates is unfair to the voters. I believe it waters down their influence, and really it's supposed to be about all of us, not just the party apparatus.

I also agree with many who have said that the Reps probably wish they could have thwarted Trump, but to me that's kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'd love for Trump to have been thwarted, but in the long run I don't think it'd be good to institute such a system over an anomaly.

Click to expand...

Their system doesn't bother me. I figure it is up to each party to make their own rules. After all it is the candidates of each party going after the nomination. Then again I am old enough to remember when primaries mean nothing, they were but a testing ground without most delegates being bound by whom the voters choose. Until 1972 there were only around 15 states that had primaries. State party leaders choose the delegates to the convention prior to then for most states. I seen the system evolve into what it is today. But the voters really had little say in the nomination until 1972 when the primaries rose from 15 to 28 and since 1976 we had the system we know today.

I seen it go from when each state's party leader had full control whom their state delegates would support and vote for during the convention. When conventions were actually used to choose the nominee instead of just a scripted show for the most part. Which one is better? I don't know. In my lifetime, the old system brought us Truman, Eisenhower, JFK. The new system or modern primary system gave us Reagan and on to this year with Trump and Clinton.

Under the old system, my guess this year the GOP would probably have nominate Jeb Bush and the Democrats Hillary Clinton. But perhaps it really doesn't matter, the voters are still stuck with whomever the two parties choose regardless of how. The biggest change was under the old system around 80% of all Americans affiliated or identified with the two major parties, today less than 60% do and it is still the major parties choosing who will or won't be the nominees. Under the old system only 18% of the electorate was independents, under the modern day system, today according to Gallup 42% are independents and left out of the nomination process.

iguanaman said:

It is also worth noting that the Progressive movement seeks to change those things and Hillary is a supporter of that movement. He opponent has no such agenda but wishes to double down on trickle down economics a theory that has caused nearly irreparable harm to our society. So much for "outsiders" being better, Trump would be the fox in the henhouse.

Click to expand...

In short, I'll believe that Hillary's interested in reforming the system for the better when I see it; she has a lot to prove at this point, and I assume nothing about what she'll deliver on and her presidency other than that it would probably be better than Trump's (who is indeed an outsider, but of the worst kind unlike Bernie).

Beyond that, reversing Citizens United as she proposed is only a start; she must also deal with Buckley v Valeo and the question of private lobbying if she's actually serious about materially limiting the influence of private money on public office.

Surrealistik said:

In short, I'll believe that Hillary's interested in reforming the system for the better when I see it; she has a lot to prove at this point, and I assume nothing about what she'll deliver on and her presidency other than that it would probably be better than Trump's (who is indeed an outsider, but of the worst kind unlike Bernie).

Beyond that, reversing Citizens United as she proposed is only a start; she must also deal with Buckley v Valeo and the question of private lobbying if she's actually serious about materially limiting the influence of private money on public office.

Click to expand...

Getting legislation passed is my only concern, I have no doubt that Hillary will sign it. Is that your reservation, that she won't sign progressive legislation that comes to her desk? I find that extremely unlikely, she doesn't want to be a 1 term President does she?

iguanaman said:

Getting legislation passed is my only concern, I have no doubt that Hillary will sign it. Is that your reservation, that she won't sign progressive legislation that comes to her desk? I find that extremely unlikely, she doesn't want to be a 1 term President does she?

Click to expand...

My reservation is that:

A: She'll do more to champion the interests of her donors when crafting/signing legislation than the people who voted for her.

B: She'll pull an Obama in the event of a Republican dominated House whereby she doesn't utilize the bully pulpit or otherwise make a substantive effort to embarrass/fight against GOP intransigence, instead opting to come to 'bipartisan' agreements that her donors favour per A, citing 'compromise' as being necessary with people who don't know the meaning of the word.

C: She ultimately won't commit to anything her donors find unacceptable (meaningful campaign finance reform being foremost because that means a big loss of influence for them, but there's plenty of progressive legislation that likewise meets this criteria).

Unfortunately meaningful campaign finance reform can't be legislated; it requires a constitutional amendment; this is not something Hillary can merely 'sign', it's something she'll have to fight and flip the House for, or barring that, help organize and promote state efforts to enact such an amendment per the likes of WolfPAC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC . Will she go so far? Doubtful, particularly given that lobbying and Buckley v Valeo didn't even make her radar, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Further, I don't think the threat of being voted out come term 2 can be counted on given the GOP propensity for fielding dumpster fires. Hopefully the threat of a palatable GOP candidate combined with growing dissatisfaction over establishment/status quo politics will motivate her to represent the people as opposed to the monied interests that largely bankrolled her campaign, but again, I don't think that can be relied upon, especially since it's a pretty good bet she can be seen as the lesser evil vs nearly anyone the Republicans field. If anything will apply the requisite pressure, it will be Dem and Independent progressives breathing down her neck: actively monitoring, challenging and holding her accountable.

Surrealistik said:

My reservation is that:

A: She'll do more to champion the interests of her donors when crafting/signing legislation than the people who voted for her.

B: She'll pull an Obama in the event of a Republican dominated House whereby she doesn't utilize the bully pulpit or otherwise make a substantive effort to embarrass/fight against GOP intransigence, instead opting to come to 'bipartisan' agreements that her donors favour per A, citing 'compromise' as being necessary with people who don't know the meaning of the word.

C: She ultimately won't commit to anything her donors find unacceptable (meaningful campaign finance reform being foremost because that means a big loss of influence for them, but there's plenty of progressive legislation that likewise meets this criteria).

Unfortunately meaningful campaign finance reform can't be legislated; it requires a constitutional amendment; this is not something Hillary can merely 'sign', it's something she'll have to fight and flip the House for, or barring that, help organize and promote state efforts to enact such an amendment per the likes of WolfPAC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC . Will she go so far? Doubtful, particularly given that lobbying and Buckley v Valeo didn't even make her radar, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Further, I don't think the threat of being voted out come term 2 can be counted on given the GOP propensity for fielding dumpster fires. Hopefully the threat of a palatable GOP candidate combined with growing dissatisfaction over establishment/status quo politics will motivate her to represent the people as opposed to the monied interests that largely bankrolled her campaign, but again, I don't think that can be relied upon, especially since it's a pretty good bet she can be seen as the lesser evil vs nearly anyone the Republicans field. If anything will apply the requisite pressure, it will be Dem and Independent progressives breathing down her neck: actively monitoring, challenging and holding her accountable.

Click to expand...

You do realize that ordinary people donated to her campagin? So her doners are also the American people.

And if progressive legislation is going to pass the congress, it needs a congress willing to craft it and send to the president for signage."

Perotista said:

Their system doesn't bother me. I figure it is up to each party to make their own rules. After all it is the candidates of each party going after the nomination. Then again I am old enough to remember when primaries mean nothing, they were but a testing ground without most delegates being bound by whom the voters choose. Until 1972 there were only around 15 states that had primaries. State party leaders choose the delegates to the convention prior to then for most states. I seen the system evolve into what it is today. But the voters really had little say in the nomination until 1972 when the primaries rose from 15 to 28 and since 1976 we had the system we know today.

I seen it go from when each state's party leader had full control whom their state delegates would support and vote for during the convention. When conventions were actually used to choose the nominee instead of just a scripted show for the most part. Which one is better? I don't know. In my lifetime, the old system brought us Truman, Eisenhower, JFK. The new system or modern primary system gave us Reagan and on to this year with Trump and Clinton.

Under the old system, my guess this year the GOP would probably have nominate Jeb Bush and the Democrats Hillary Clinton. But perhaps it really doesn't matter, the voters are still stuck with whomever the two parties choose regardless of how. The biggest change was under the old system around 80% of all Americans affiliated or identified with the two major parties, today less than 60% do and it is still the major parties choosing who will or won't be the nominees. Under the old system only 18% of the electorate was independents, under the modern day system, today according to Gallup 42% are independents and left out of the nomination process.

Click to expand...

Independents have to decide: do they want to be truly independent? Or do they want to have a role in selecting the nominee of both parties? Independents can not have both

Unitedwestand13 said:

You do realize that ordinary people donated to her campagin? So her doners are also the American people.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that private, monied interests constitute a vastly disproportionate amount of her campaign finance, and thus their influence promises to be likewise disproportionate.

And if progressive legislation is going to pass the congress, it needs a congress willing to craft it and send to the president for signage."

Click to expand...

Sure, which is why flipping the House is so important, because otherwise, we're either going to get no legislation, or bad/unacceptably adulterated legislation, which is, as the GOP has demonstrated, the only kind they're willing to permit. As stated, I have no reason to believe that she won't pull an Obama, using the GOP as an excuse to broker bad deals rather than actually fight and embarrass them so we can flip them out of the House.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Independents have to decide: do they want to be truly independent? Or do they want to have a role in selecting the nominee of both parties? Independents can not have both

Click to expand...

More and more people are becoming independents and have been for a long time. Both parties have left middle America, those in the center, center right and center left without a political home. According to Gallup, independents now make up 42% of the electorate although there are three categories of independents.

From 1939 until 1961 independents made up 20% or less of the total electorate according to Pew Research. In 1986 independents broke 30% and remained in the 30's until recently when they have climbed to 40% or above of the electorate. Right now both political parties have an unfavorable rating of above 50%, people just don't like either party and this year they don't like either party's nominee.

Perhaps this nation needs an aberration like this year to get a viable third party established finally. A political party that represents those people who are not extreme right or left. Then again I am probably dreaming.

radcen said:

Is the Dem "superdelegate" system fair?

On paper, at least, they're unpledged, but all the talk from the beginning of the primary was that most were already committed to Hillary. If so, did that doom Bernie Sanders from the start? Or, was it just fine?

Click to expand...

It's not fair in that they could theoretically nix a candidate nominated by a small margin. Yet if they did, popular opinion in their own party would cause serious problems for them in their own elections. So in a way it's unfair but balanced by the inherent threat of being kicked out the next time they run.

On the other hand, if there's a truly horrible choice popularly selected by that same small margin, they can overturn it despite the threat, should they decide to. Unless said choice is extremely popular, of course.


Sanders didn't get screwed over by the superdelegates.
Unless it was by the News organizations constantly counting them as already a given, when anyone with half a brain cell would realize they'd almost surely support whoever won the pledged delegates, no matter who they said they'd support when asked half a year before... Which might have influenced people voting in primaries into thinking it was already decided, and wanting to be on the winning side. That's not on the superdelegates though, it's on the news agencies.


There's no way to know precisely, but I doubt that was enough to cause his defeat.

If anything, he was defeated by a combination of factors, which may include the above in part.

Perotista said:

Their system doesn't bother me. I figure it is up to each party to make their own rules. After all it is the candidates of each party going after the nomination. Then again I am old enough to remember when primaries mean nothing, they were but a testing ground without most delegates being bound by whom the voters choose. Until 1972 there were only around 15 states that had primaries. State party leaders choose the delegates to the convention prior to then for most states. I seen the system evolve into what it is today. But the voters really had little say in the nomination until 1972 when the primaries rose from 15 to 28 and since 1976 we had the system we know today.

I seen it go from when each state's party leader had full control whom their state delegates would support and vote for during the convention. When conventions were actually used to choose the nominee instead of just a scripted show for the most part. Which one is better? I don't know. In my lifetime, the old system brought us Truman, Eisenhower, JFK. The new system or modern primary system gave us Reagan and on to this year with Trump and Clinton.

Under the old system, my guess this year the GOP would probably have nominate Jeb Bush and the Democrats Hillary Clinton. But perhaps it really doesn't matter, the voters are still stuck with whomever the two parties choose regardless of how. The biggest change was under the old system around 80% of all Americans affiliated or identified with the two major parties, today less than 60% do and it is still the major parties choosing who will or won't be the nominees. Under the old system only 18% of the electorate was independents, under the modern day system, today according to Gallup 42% are independents and left out of the nomination process.

Click to expand...

This is a very good post. You're a tad older than me. My political memory goes back only as far as Nixon and Watergate. I was alive for the previous few elections, but was more interested in the ice cream man, if you know what I mean.

I have read about what you describe, and have always found it interesting.

radcen said:

This is a very good post. You're a tad older than me. My political memory goes back only as far as Nixon and Watergate. I was alive for the previous few elections, but was more interested in the ice cream man, if you know what I mean.

I have read about what you describe, and have always found it interesting.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have never been an ideologue or a true partisan. I have leaned toward one party and then the other and have gone back and forth over time. I first became interested in politics watching the 1956 Republican and Democratic conventions on TV. A time when conventions choose the nominee, a time the nominee for most part was unknown until after the convention. Of course IKE running for his second term was no contest, but Stevenson had a hill to climb. An interesting side note of the 1956 Democratic convention is JFK was running for VP and the convention went with Kefauer. There was actual suspense in some of those conventions.

In 1960 the Democratic nod was still up in the air when the Democratic convention began. They were indeed a lot more interesting than the scripted and non-event conventions we have today. Most people don't realize, but the conventions was where and how each party choose their nominees back then. Not with the modern primary system.

the CURRENT RICH put into place a system where the CURRENT RICH can stop the voters will


totally CROOKED.. and the media not calling them on this outrageous cheating proves the media is part of this outrageous RIGGED SYSTEM


buying off a few delegates to stop the will of the voters