Chaka Fattah, an indicted Congressman on a money laundering/illegal contribution charge and a possible bribery charge, lost a primary challenge in PA's 2nd (Philly) to Dwight Evans
Evans was a bit old for a new rep but I voted for him to get rid of Fattah. Would have been nice to get the ranking member of appropriations from my district but dude is about to get crushed by that investigation.
Evans was a bit old for a new rep but I voted for him to get rid of Fattah. Would have been nice to get the ranking member of appropriations from my district but dude is about to get crushed by that investigation.
Yeah morally and strategically it was the better choice
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Remember over the whole past decade when Bernie Sanders wouldn't stop crusading about how outrageous were the injustices in the Democratic presidential nominating process?
It's obviously an issue he cares about a great deal.
Maybe he could have joined the party sometime over the last decade and done something about it instead of only lifting a finger when he's running in its primary because running as an independent isn't a viable campaign.
This is before the full allocation of delegates. Now that its nearly the end the polite fiction that superdelegates don't exist for the final margin is going to go away
I have mixed feeling on super delegates. On one had they annoy me. On another, they do provide some interesting measures of a candidate because working within the system to get backing, is a skill that will be needed since the other major party is going to have seats in Congress and even in the same party, there is a disagreement.
I'd be more concerned about super delegates if they didn't support the person with the most pledged delegates.
Given that still hasn't happened I'm mostly just generally annoyed they exist.
I'm growing more comfortable with having an establishment 'Abort Launch' button given what's happening on the other side of the aisle.
Eh, in theory I agree. But the reality of the situation seems to indicate that the party is screwed no matter what in a situation where delegates go against the wishes of the voters.
Which is why the supers will never go against the wishes of the voters. It's mostly just a badge of honor for the loyal, a perk. Had the primary concluded with Bernie winning more of the pledged, they'd have flipped to support him instead.
Any situation where a "Left Trump" might occur is one in which it wouldn't really matter what the supers did anyway, because the party would be fucked regardless. Source: The GOP.
I'm glad we have superdelegates, and I have a feeling they'll be much more important and make more sense as we see the rise of Internet Age politicians.
Trump has shown it's feasible for any internet troll to run for President and maybe even win if they just put more research and planning around their platform. Think about, in the future we might see a President with the same character as Trump but with enough actual political experience to be dangerous. If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you haven't fully thought this through.
There has to be something in place to stop these fringe candidates, because clearly we can't rely on voters. Thank God for super delegates IMO.
For those of you who follow prediction markets, Bernie is now #4 for the dem nomination after Warren and Biden. Makes sense if you assume the only way Hillary loses at this point is health or legal troubles.
I'm glad we have superdelegates, and I have a feeling they'll be much more important and make more sense as we see the rise of Internet Age politicians.
Trump has shown it's feasible for any internet troll to run for President and maybe even win if they just put more research and planning around their platform. Think about, in the future we might see a President with the same character as Trump but with enough actual political experience to be dangerous. If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you haven't fully thought this through.
There has to be something in place to stop these fringe candidates, because clearly we can't rely on voters. Thank God for super delegates IMO.
Trump has to be superdelegated out before we can claim that stuff though
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'd be more concerned about super delegates if they didn't support the person with the most pledged delegates.
Given that still hasn't happened I'm mostly just generally annoyed they exist.
I'm growing more comfortable with having an establishment 'Abort Launch' button given what's happening on the other side of the aisle.
The button doesn't actually do anything. If they had it, and pressed it, they would quickly discover that mislabeling a self-destruct button does nothing good. The fundamental problem over voter revolt over [whatever] does not go away. They, in fact, remain in total theoritical control. If they desired it, they could rewrite the rules to say whatever it is they wanted and elect whoever they wanted.
They stop a contested convention in a 40-35-25 situation. Superdelegates have a use.
+19
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The actually reasonable use of superdelegates is to trick the media into reporting the establishment candidate's delegate total as higher, so they look like they have more momentum/inevitability. This is a perfectly acceptable and useful thing to do.
Also, they're important in a rare, specific, but dangerous situation where a Trump-like figure is poised to hijack the party--it's possible that the superdelegates tanking the candidate (but probably losing the election) would still be a better scenario than letting that candidate in and fighting for them in the general. Basically it's arguable that right now the GOP would do better in the long run to repudiate Trump and lose than let him represent them (and then probably still lose), and the same thing could potentially happen on the D side in the future.
But the actual important use of the superdelegates is the first thing--a thumb on the media scale.
The GOP problem is that they made everything winner takes all in their primary system. That let Trump get a 100% of delegates in some states with only a plurality.
The current Democratic primary might allow the same thing. A regional candidate could prevent either front runner from securing enough delegates.
Let's say we have a primary just like this one and the front runner is Joe Schmo. On May 9th, with the race almost won one of the following occurs:
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
Let's say we have a primary just like this one and the front runner is Joe Schmo. On May 9th, with the race almost won one of the following occurs:
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
Without supers, the delegates agree on a new rule: Candidates require a unanimous vote to win on the first ballot. Problem solved!
Let's say we have a primary just like this one and the front runner is Joe Schmo. On May 9th, with the race almost won one of the following occurs:
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
I believe in this scenario pledged delegates could rewrite the rules so that they are no longer pledged. I'm not 100% on that but my understanding is that they can basically do whatever they want.
I feel like pledged delegates mass rewriting the rules is much worse as a panic button than superdelegates
Not really. In both cases you're appealing to the electorate with "We have a good reason for doing this, srsly". You can yank the nomination from a guy with 80% of the delegates if, for example, he pledges allegiance to ISIS.
Basically, the superdelegates only "help" when they're not needed because a rules change would be seen as equally legitimate.
I feel like pledged delegates mass rewriting the rules is much worse as a panic button than superdelegates
Not really. In both cases you're appealing to the electorate with "We have a good reason for doing this, srsly". You can yank the nomination from a guy with 80% of the delegates if, for example, he pledges allegiance to ISIS.
Basically, the superdelegates only "help" when they're not needed because a rules change would be seen as equally legitimate.
Even under your premise the superdelegates would still be needed to avoid a contested convention in a 3-person 40/35/25 race; in that scenario the pledged delegates would all want their guy to win and would be unlikely to vote for a new set of rules that would let the guy with 40% get the nomination uncontested.
Funny how no one had a problem with Obama using super delegates to get the upper hand on Clinton back in '08.
But now when Hillary does it people want to bitch about it.
No one in this thread is "bitching" about it. We're talking about the concept in abstract, academic terms, with no real relation to the current Primary status, because it's pretty much over. What are you even talking about?
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah morally and strategically it was the better choice
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's obviously an issue he cares about a great deal.
This is before the full allocation of delegates. Now that its nearly the end the polite fiction that superdelegates don't exist for the final margin is going to go away
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's over.
Given that still hasn't happened I'm mostly just generally annoyed they exist.
I'm growing more comfortable with having an establishment 'Abort Launch' button given what's happening on the other side of the aisle.
And you wonder why, before it got soured with time, "Third Way" politics were appealing.
If the right's gonna call you a far left loon, and the left is going to call you a centrist, may as well judo the two attackers into each other.
Eh, in theory I agree. But the reality of the situation seems to indicate that the party is screwed no matter what in a situation where delegates go against the wishes of the voters.
Any situation where a "Left Trump" might occur is one in which it wouldn't really matter what the supers did anyway, because the party would be fucked regardless. Source: The GOP.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Trump has shown it's feasible for any internet troll to run for President and maybe even win if they just put more research and planning around their platform. Think about, in the future we might see a President with the same character as Trump but with enough actual political experience to be dangerous. If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you haven't fully thought this through.
There has to be something in place to stop these fringe candidates, because clearly we can't rely on voters. Thank God for super delegates IMO.
Trump has to be superdelegated out before we can claim that stuff though
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The button doesn't actually do anything. If they had it, and pressed it, they would quickly discover that mislabeling a self-destruct button does nothing good. The fundamental problem over voter revolt over [whatever] does not go away. They, in fact, remain in total theoritical control. If they desired it, they could rewrite the rules to say whatever it is they wanted and elect whoever they wanted.
Also, they're important in a rare, specific, but dangerous situation where a Trump-like figure is poised to hijack the party--it's possible that the superdelegates tanking the candidate (but probably losing the election) would still be a better scenario than letting that candidate in and fighting for them in the general. Basically it's arguable that right now the GOP would do better in the long run to repudiate Trump and lose than let him represent them (and then probably still lose), and the same thing could potentially happen on the D side in the future.
But the actual important use of the superdelegates is the first thing--a thumb on the media scale.
The current Democratic primary might allow the same thing. A regional candidate could prevent either front runner from securing enough delegates.
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Without supers, the delegates agree on a new rule: Candidates require a unanimous vote to win on the first ballot. Problem solved!
I believe in this scenario pledged delegates could rewrite the rules so that they are no longer pledged. I'm not 100% on that but my understanding is that they can basically do whatever they want.
Not really. In both cases you're appealing to the electorate with "We have a good reason for doing this, srsly". You can yank the nomination from a guy with 80% of the delegates if, for example, he pledges allegiance to ISIS.
Basically, the superdelegates only "help" when they're not needed because a rules change would be seen as equally legitimate.
Even under your premise the superdelegates would still be needed to avoid a contested convention in a 3-person 40/35/25 race; in that scenario the pledged delegates would all want their guy to win and would be unlikely to vote for a new set of rules that would let the guy with 40% get the nomination uncontested.
But now when Hillary does it people want to bitch about it.
No one in this thread is "bitching" about it. We're talking about the concept in abstract, academic terms, with no real relation to the current Primary status, because it's pretty much over. What are you even talking about?