If I were president, I would push for a Kurdish state made up of parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They've been the only group in that area to consistently help us, and seem half way decent. And they got screwed when Britain divided up its territories after WW2.
It'll never happen. The Kurds are, very generally speaking, very left of American politics. Democratic Socialists, Anarchists of varying flavors and varieties, Communists, etc.
As much as the Kurds deserve a land of their own, and as much as we owe them for the sacrifices they've made supporting American causes and fighting the good fight, we will NEVER actually repay them for it.
I'd say it has less to do with their politics and more to do with the fact that Iraq and Turkey are our allies in the region.
A US supported independent Kurdistan would mean Turkey bailing on NATO. The Kurds would also want the Iranian parts of Kurdistan eventually, and we're just now starting to normalize our relations with them.
It's something the Goverment would never want to back. It would almost certainly cause a war in the region.
When I was last in Berlin I got to spend an evening drinking with a group of Kurds. They had a lot of stories about the kinda of violence their families were facing back home and an absolute certainty that they'd eventually end up going back there and throwing down to get an independent Kurdistan going. As far as they're were concerned that war's been going on for a long time and they showed me a lot of youtube videos about alleged chemical attacks and bombings that places they'd known has suffered from.
While strategically it may not be in American interests to support the creation of a Kurd state, finding some way to stop that conflict is critical if people want peace in the region.
If so, I guess Wall Street got their order of 12th Dimensional Hyperchess early for 2016. Maybe they borrowed the set people always thought Obama was using.
0
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
Hillary's position on Glass–Steagall leads me to believe she'll do whatever benefits Wall Street the most up to and including letting them gamble with taxpayer money.
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Hillary's position on Glass–Steagall leads me to believe she'll do whatever benefits Wall Street the most up to and including letting them gamble with taxpayer money.
well for me it's that and also the fact that they've paid her millions of dollars
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
If anyone on Wall Street tells you they know whats best for Wall Street then chances are this is part of the hard sell on a broken Rolex watch.
Honestly though I don't look for wall street to get too up in arms either way. I doubt they'll be handing a lot of cash to Trump so It's kind of a wash.
It'd be pretty stupid to give money to a candidate like Warren or Sanders, who runs on you being able to pay yourself less and outlawing the size of your organization. Also you'd probably get fired as the head of any Wall Street organization that did that because, well. Maybe some activist hedge fund guys who have some hyper aggressive plan to jump on a bank division after It's broken out.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
also I'm like 95% sure I'd rather have warren stay in the senate than get the VP nom; plus I don't think I really believe nominating her would actually be indicative of any policy change on clinton's part
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I think it's more that Sanders' obsession with superdelegates forced people to actually explain how they work and why they're in place in a way that people actually understand. Ironically he helped raise awareness of them.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2016
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
I think it's more that Sanders' obsession with superdelegates forced people to actually explain how they work and why they're in place in a way that people actually understand. Ironically he helped raise awareness of them.
we had the same conversation in 2008; everyone seems to agree that superdelegates actually affecting the outcome would be terrible, so we might as well do away with'em
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
I said "why have them" and in response this says "they're working fine and are good"
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
I said "why have them" and in response this says "they're working fine and are good"
that's not a reason
It skirts around why Black people didn't voted for Sanders: The Democrat establishment (aka Team Obama) has been a big help to the Black community (or at least is leadership), so why the hell they should join a revolution against it or support said revolution?
TryCatcher on
+2
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
They let people know at the start of the preliminaries what the opinions of party insiders are of the candidates? Early pledging for Hillary this cycle may have had some impact
why would sanders make you want to keep superdelegates, superdelegates are awful
Super delegates are a non issue i did not care about.
Then Bernie started whining about them, then he started trying to court them to subvert the voting outcome, while whining about them.
So while at first i did not really care one way or the other, now i want to keep them just because i don't want Bernie getting his way.
Petty, sure, bat that's what it is.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
This doesn't really answer the question, and comes dangerously close to implying that wanting to remove superdelegates has racist undertones
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
'the reason the system was enacted' was essentially 'the voters kept nominating candidates we didn't like' (i.e. McGovern and Carter.)
while this is obviously a somewhat facile summary of the issue, the goal of superdelegates has always been to offer support to 'establishment' candidates vs. 'insurgents', allowing the party a way to keep a thumb on the scale
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
+6
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
They let people know at the start of the preliminaries what the opinions of party insiders are of the candidates? Early pledging for Hillary this cycle may have had some impact
It skirts around why Black people didn't voted for Sanders: The Democrat establishment (aka Team Obama) has been a big help to the Black community (or at least is leadership), so why the hell they should join a revolution against it or support said revolution?
I'm getting pretty tired of low-key racism accusations being leveled at anyone who doesn't want exactly what democratic party leadership wants
+5
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
why would sanders make you want to keep superdelegates, superdelegates are awful
Super delegates are a non issue i did not care about.
Then Bernie started whining about them, then he started trying to court them to subvert the voting outcome, while whining about them.
So while at first i did not really care one way or the other, now i want to keep them just because i don't want Bernie getting his way.
Petty, sure, bat that's what it is.
Spite is a very good and constructive reason to support the status quo
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
I ate an engineer
+4
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
instant runoffs don't work that way
Quoting you was not my intention.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
instant runoffs don't work that way
Quoting you was not my intention.
ah
it's still a relevant point though, there wouldn't be any debate between rounds of voting, it would just happen all at once and then the convention would move on to other business
0
Options
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
It's pretty crazy that only one president since the wall's conception in 1992 has confronted Israel with potential economic penalties over the construction of the West Bank Barrier.
Why does the US government support all the losers in that part of the world anyway (this is not a moral question, more of a strategic one).
Like, the IDF command (of the last fifteen years or so) is terrified of casualties, got beaten up by Hezbollah, and spends all its time launching air strikes on barely armed Palestinian militias and civilians because they fire the occasional shitty little rocket. The US spent billions on supporting an Iraqi army which caved into it's constituent militias within a few days (and subsequently asked Iran for assistance), and are the main backers of the Saudis, whose military forces might as well be called internal security and left at that (I once read it called that the most powerful weapon in the Saudi armoury is their smartphone which they use to call the USAF and beg for help). The only US allies in the region worth a shit are Turkey and they're becoming more and more of an embarrassment these days as well, the way Erdogan is going.
saudi arabia is terrible but also stable, which is more than can be said for the various places the U.S. has tried to intervene in the last couple decades
which is basically what the U.S. wants out of the region: just like, have stable governments, don't export terrorists/militants (or in the saudi's case at least don't do it openly), let us do business there
What the US wants out of the region is for oil to continue to be priced in US dollars, and for Saudi Arabia to not divest its massive holdings of US Treasury bills. Saudi Arabia has been under the protection of the United States since the 70s because they agreed to price their oil exclusively in dollars post Bretton Woods, and reinvest the profits in Treasury bills, starting with the Technical Cooperation Agreement and then the Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. Read up on the petrodollar system if you want to understand US foreign policy in the Middle East. Uninformed people like to say "it's about oil", and the facile nature of the statement evokes a reactionary "no it's not" from slightly more informed people, but really, oil is involved.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
instant runoffs don't work that way
Quoting you was not my intention.
ah
it's still a relevant point though, there wouldn't be any debate between rounds of voting, it would just happen all at once and then the convention would move on to other business
Yes, but instant runoff voting has no advantages over superdelegates besides "aren't superdelegates," or a situation where you have five candidates with ~20% each.
Since I believe that signaling "soft" support from elected officials is useful, I don't see instant runoffs having any added value. If you don't view that soft support as a positive, you'd disagree.
superdelegates as they stand seem utterly pointless
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them all
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.
The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, D-SC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress
I said "why have them" and in response this says "they're working fine and are good"
that's not a reason
reading between the lines of the CBC statements, it's seems clear they are opposed to anything they think might reduce minority participation in the convention. Right now members of the black, hispanic, etc caucuses are locked into delegate seats, and I guess they assume that under a system where all delegates were directly elected there would be fewer people of color involved.
which isn't the worst rationale I guess, but I feel like you could probably find a better solution than superdelegates
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
You won't find me arguing about that.
I'm not sure anyone on Wall Street can think that far ahead with that level of nuance.
well for me it's that and also the fact that they've paid her millions of dollars
Honestly though I don't look for wall street to get too up in arms either way. I doubt they'll be handing a lot of cash to Trump so It's kind of a wash.
It'd be pretty stupid to give money to a candidate like Warren or Sanders, who runs on you being able to pay yourself less and outlawing the size of your organization. Also you'd probably get fired as the head of any Wall Street organization that did that because, well. Maybe some activist hedge fund guys who have some hyper aggressive plan to jump on a bank division after It's broken out.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
their stated purpose is to stick with whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates
so....why have them at all
we had the same conversation in 2008; everyone seems to agree that superdelegates actually affecting the outcome would be terrible, so we might as well do away with'em
also their actual purpose is apparently just that congresscritters want a guaranteed seat at the convention
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well lets see what the Congressional Black Caucus said on the matter.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Races with more than 2 candidates can exist.
so have runoffs until a majority is reached
this is basic shit
I said "why have them" and in response this says "they're working fine and are good"
that's not a reason
Then Bernie started whining about them, then he started trying to court them to subvert the voting outcome, while whining about them.
So while at first i did not really care one way or the other, now i want to keep them just because i don't want Bernie getting his way.
Petty, sure, bat that's what it is.
This doesn't really answer the question, and comes dangerously close to implying that wanting to remove superdelegates has racist undertones
'the reason the system was enacted' was essentially 'the voters kept nominating candidates we didn't like' (i.e. McGovern and Carter.)
while this is obviously a somewhat facile summary of the issue, the goal of superdelegates has always been to offer support to 'establishment' candidates vs. 'insurgents', allowing the party a way to keep a thumb on the scale
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Nobody wants a convention to go more than a single round, and iirc the way delegates unbind it would require 2-3 additional votes to get someone to majority. Which is just opening the door for chaos a party doesn't want to deal with.
endorsements serve that purpose already
I'm getting pretty tired of low-key racism accusations being leveled at anyone who doesn't want exactly what democratic party leadership wants
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770
Spite is a very good and constructive reason to support the status quo
Self, do not say anything that will get you in jail.
Do not do it.
Just, don't.
or they could do instant run-off voting
Given the presidential electoral cycle in the US these days seems to last longer than the presidential terms themselves, I doubt another couple of days midprocess would bring the republic to its knees. Runoffs on much longer timescales than a political convention are routine all over the place.
=/
It's not about bringing the convention to its knees, it's about massively weakening the party by turning the nationally televised rah-rah event into a nationally televised shouting match.
instant runoffs don't work that way
Quoting you was not my intention.
ah
it's still a relevant point though, there wouldn't be any debate between rounds of voting, it would just happen all at once and then the convention would move on to other business
What the US wants out of the region is for oil to continue to be priced in US dollars, and for Saudi Arabia to not divest its massive holdings of US Treasury bills. Saudi Arabia has been under the protection of the United States since the 70s because they agreed to price their oil exclusively in dollars post Bretton Woods, and reinvest the profits in Treasury bills, starting with the Technical Cooperation Agreement and then the Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. Read up on the petrodollar system if you want to understand US foreign policy in the Middle East. Uninformed people like to say "it's about oil", and the facile nature of the statement evokes a reactionary "no it's not" from slightly more informed people, but really, oil is involved.
Yes, but instant runoff voting has no advantages over superdelegates besides "aren't superdelegates," or a situation where you have five candidates with ~20% each.
Since I believe that signaling "soft" support from elected officials is useful, I don't see instant runoffs having any added value. If you don't view that soft support as a positive, you'd disagree.
reading between the lines of the CBC statements, it's seems clear they are opposed to anything they think might reduce minority participation in the convention. Right now members of the black, hispanic, etc caucuses are locked into delegate seats, and I guess they assume that under a system where all delegates were directly elected there would be fewer people of color involved.
which isn't the worst rationale I guess, but I feel like you could probably find a better solution than superdelegates
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget