ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
I'm happy to go back into the rationales behind super delegates when the thread rolls over, but the tl;dr is open primaries, a history of people outside the party influencing who wins and loses primaries, (Mostly people with names starting with Richard and ending with Nixon; although somewhat unsubstantiated), a legitimate way to change the winner if, for instance, the presumptive nominee ended up facing criminal charges before the convention (completely implausible with people like Trump and Hillary, I know.), and defense against voter fraud in areas which pretty clearly have voter fraud for reasons like voter ID-- for instance if Sanders had won South Carolina by a tiny margin and yet Hillary was leading in the polls by a comfortable margin among likely democratic voters, the super delegates from SC would probably feel pretty compelled to say that their states super delegate votes should belong to Hillary.
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.
like, there's no time when there was an open democratic primary, and a bunch of non-democrats threw the election toward somebody the party's voters didn't support. The party wanted a way to prevent voters from continuing to nominate candidates like McGovern and Carter, and superdelegates provided a way to influence the outcome without returning to the nonbinding primaries of years prior.
that, btw, is exactly what superdelegates accomplished in 1984 by providing Mondale with the majority over hart/jackson
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+1
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
honestly there are lots of mechanisms that could resolve a hypothetical situation where none of 3+ candidates have a majority of the delegates. There's no reason you couldn't vote by preferential or runoff process at the convention (it might even ease the angst of losing/fence-mending if you feel like your side got to support their second-preferred candidate), or that delegates couldn't be 'bound' more strictly to support of their candidate
ed: I mean, there's no reason any of this should 'open the door to chaos' if your rules aren't for shit
ed2: and I mean, is the hypothetical situation where superdelegates get together and throw the nomination toward somebody who commanded only a plurality of the votes really 'less chaotic'?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in 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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
like, there's no time when there was an open democratic primary, and a bunch of non-democrats threw the election toward somebody the party's voters didn't support. The party wanted a way to prevent voters from continuing to nominate candidates like McGovern and Carter, and superdelegates provided a way to influence the outcome without returning to the nonbinding primaries of years prior.
that, btw, is exactly what superdelegates accomplished in 1984 by providing Mondale with the majority over hart/jackson
Theories aren't always supported by history. That was the answer to what were the rationales behind super delegates that the CBC is talking about.
e: I'm not wholly opposed to getting rid of super delegates, and I don't think it would make a huge difference for the DNC at this time, as say, when the New Deal coalition existed.
The GOP could probably benefit greatly from them if for instance they'd rather commit political suicide instead of accepting a base that was never in favor of the platform everyone else in the party was elected on to begin with
Zoel on
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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
maybe not, but if there were no superdelegates you wouldn't have had this last month+ of Sanders supporters holding out hope they could secure the nomination that way; Clinton would've won a majority and that'd be that.
(runoff would be irrelevant in this situation anyway since there's only two candidates)
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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
maybe not, but if there were no superdelegates you wouldn't have had this last month+ of Sanders supporters holding out hope they could secure the nomination that way; Clinton would've won a majority and that'd be that.
(runoff would be irrelevant in this situation anyway since there's only two candidates)
Sander's supporters have been saying that California is rigged and it was something like a 70-30 landslide for him, which would put him close to a pledged delegate lead.
I don't think superdelegates are the reason Sanders is still fighting. They're just convenient.
milski on
I ate an engineer
+1
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
tbh I'm not inclined to continue to argue against ephemeral 'sanders supporters' who seem to have increasingly ridiculous opinions
the end of this particular campaign I think would have been much more decisive without the superdelegate issue floating around, and a decisive end is much better from a reconciliation standpoint than this slow angsty burn toward the convention we're currently doing.
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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
maybe not, but if there were no superdelegates you wouldn't have had this last month+ of Sanders supporters holding out hope they could secure the nomination that way; Clinton would've won a majority and that'd be that.
(runoff would be irrelevant in this situation anyway since there's only two candidates)
Sander's supporters have been saying that California is rigged and it was something like a 70-30 landslide for him, which would put him close to a pledged delegate lead.
I don't think superdelegates are the reason Sanders is still fighting. They're just convenient.
I don't think, even if every single one of the uncounted ballots went for him, it is mathematically possible for him to win by that much?
tbh I'm not inclined to continue to argue against ephemeral 'sanders supporters' who seem to have increasingly ridiculous opinions
the end of this particular campaign I think would have been much more decisive without the superdelegate issue floating around, and a decisive end is much better from a reconciliation standpoint than this slow angsty burn toward the convention we're currently doing.
Well the "decisive end" is typically brought about by a candidate simply conceding when they've lost, and not running long after they've been near mathematically eliminated. The latter is a function of Sander's grassroots fundraising, but the former is mostly on Sanders playing chicken and would occur regardless of the delegate process.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
I ate an engineer
+3
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
tbh I'm not inclined to continue to argue against ephemeral 'sanders supporters' who seem to have increasingly ridiculous opinions
the end of this particular campaign I think would have been much more decisive without the superdelegate issue floating around, and a decisive end is much better from a reconciliation standpoint than this slow angsty burn toward the convention we're currently doing.
Well the "decisive end" is typically brought about by a candidate simply conceding when they've lost, and not running long after they've been near mathematically eliminated. The latter is a function of Sander's grassroots fundraising, but the former is mostly on Sanders playing chicken and would occur regardless of the delegate process.
Yeah I don't see what not having super delegates would have done to stop Sanders from going to convention.
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
except that a very similar argument happened in 2008!
it's going to happen any time the margin between two candidates is close enough that superdelegates could potentially reverse it.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
*shrug*
could be
in which case, prepare yourself for this exact campaign in four years, because it was an absolute success on the fundraising front
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
except that a very similar argument happened in 2008!
it's going to happen any time the margin between two candidates is close enough that superdelegates could potentially reverse it.
Clinton dropped out. Maybe not as early as people would have liked, but she actually conceded.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
*shrug*
could be
in which case, prepare yourself for this exact campaign in four years, because it was an absolute success on the fundraising front
I won't be living in the US if there's a Democratic primary in 2020.
I ate an engineer
+2
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
You'd think but it's been working for him so far.
no, I haven't heard or seen any sanders supporters suggesting that they should just get to take all the delegates at the convention
Also, honestly, I wouldn't even care about Sanders running to the convention if he didn't begin to focus primarily on delegitimizing Clinton and the process since late March-ish. If he was an issues based candidate, whatever, do your thing.
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.
there's a (likely untrue imo) but coincidentally fun theory that the Bush-era axis of evil involved the countries it did because all three in a relatively short time decided to stop pricing their oil sales in dollars in favor of euros
at this point it seems kinda unlikely that the euro will replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency anyway
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Also, honestly, I wouldn't even care about Sanders running to the convention if he didn't begin to focus primarily on delegitimizing Clinton and the process since late March-ish. If he was an issues based candidate, whatever, do your thing.
yeah there was a way to take the campaign to the convention but this wasn't it, and it's been a real shitshow
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
You'd think but it's been working for him so far.
no, I haven't heard or seen any sanders supporters suggesting that they should just get to take all the delegates at the convention
He's suggesting he take the superdelegates, along with demanding the rules committee be tied with one neutral party, rather than favoring Clinton.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
except that a very similar argument happened in 2008!
it's going to happen any time the margin between two candidates is close enough that superdelegates could potentially reverse it.
Clinton dropped out. Maybe not as early as people would have liked, but she actually conceded.
yes, but prior to that superdelegates throwing her the nomination was a real conversation (well, real in the sense people were having it, not that it was ever a likely outcome)
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
You'd think but it's been working for him so far.
no, I haven't heard or seen any sanders supporters suggesting that they should just get to take all the delegates at the convention
He's suggesting he take the superdelegates, along with demanding the rules committee be tied with one neutral party, rather than favoring Clinton.
superdelegates which come from states he won
which wouldn't give him the nomination
and yeah, the "flip the superdelegates" path to victory was always bullshit
but uh this is an argument against superdelegates so....I'm glad we agree?
+2
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
Honestly the CBC wouldn't be unjustified if they were a little more scathing of Sanders in general; supporting super delegates is pretty measured. Sanders bragged about losing the entire south as if it was unimportant.... which is kind of a region where most democratic house members happen to be African American as a consequence of gerrymandering. I'm at a loss to draw a connection between Sander's bragging and under representation of African Americans within the party, but I can see why they might be a bit unsettled that a guy who basically wrote them off wants to get rid of super delegates.
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.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
except that a very similar argument happened in 2008!
it's going to happen any time the margin between two candidates is close enough that superdelegates could potentially reverse it.
Clinton dropped out. Maybe not as early as people would have liked, but she actually conceded.
yes, but prior to that superdelegates throwing her the nomination was a real conversation (well, real in the sense people were having it, not that it was ever a likely outcome)
Again, the divide was closer, and you had the issue with two states having their primaries invalidated because they tried to buck the system.
And again, even then she conceded and personally called for the acclimation vote. You didn't see any sort of public attempt to force Obama's hand by the Clinton camp in 08 after the primary election.
So the Senate is having votes on some measures after a filibuster last week.
Except they weren't actually voting on the bills themselves. You see they were actually voting to Invoke Cloture (aka- no more filibuster, we're going to finish talking and actually vote on a bill).
All four bills failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to Invoke, despite two of them getting 53 votes in favor. So all four bills failed. Because the GOP in the Senate isn't ready to stop talking and actually do their fucking jobs.
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.
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
You'd think but it's been working for him so far.
no, I haven't heard or seen any sanders supporters suggesting that they should just get to take all the delegates at the convention
He's suggesting he take the superdelegates, along with demanding the rules committee be tied with one neutral party, rather than favoring Clinton.
superdelegates which come from states he won
which wouldn't give him the nomination
and yeah, the "flip the superdelegates" path to victory was always bullshit
but uh this is an argument against superdelegates so....I'm glad we agree?
He out and out argued that supers from states he won should be bound to him, but supers in states Clinton won should be free to vote their conscience.
So the Senate is having votes on some measures after a filibuster last week.
Except they weren't actually voting on the bills themselves. You see they were actually voting to Invoke Cloture (aka- no more filibuster, we're going to finish talking and actually vote on a bill).
All four bills failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to Invoke, despite two of them getting 53 votes in favor. So all four bills failed. Because the GOP in the Senate isn't ready to stop talking and actually do their fucking jobs.
Yeah, the allowance of unlimited debate is yet another one of the "gifts" given to us by Aaron Burr, like the career of Michael Bay.
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
So the Senate is having votes on some measures after a filibuster last week.
Except they weren't actually voting on the bills themselves. You see they were actually voting to Invoke Cloture (aka- no more filibuster, we're going to finish talking and actually vote on a bill).
All four bills failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to Invoke, despite two of them getting 53 votes in favor. So all four bills failed. Because the GOP in the Senate isn't ready to stop talking and actually do their fucking jobs.
Yeah, the allowance of unlimited debate is yet another one of the "gifts" given to us by Aaron Burr, like the career of Michael Bay.
the filibuster gets a lot of talk, but isn't there some rule that lets any senator put a hold on proceedings for any reason, indefinitely? I remember reading something to that effect
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.
there's a (likely untrue imo) but coincidentally fun theory that the Bush-era axis of evil involved the countries it did because all three in a relatively short time decided to stop pricing their oil sales in dollars in favor of euros
at this point it seems kinda unlikely that the euro will replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency anyway
Yeah, I doubt a group of black-robed bonesmen sat down in a room and were like, "Enter Syria unto The Book", but I do think that when considering the various regimes who'd committed heinous crimes, maybe it was in the back of some people's minds, who then advocated in one way or another.
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
And you're going to square that policy with the Constitution...how, exactly?
So the Senate is having votes on some measures after a filibuster last week.
Except they weren't actually voting on the bills themselves. You see they were actually voting to Invoke Cloture (aka- no more filibuster, we're going to finish talking and actually vote on a bill).
All four bills failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to Invoke, despite two of them getting 53 votes in favor. So all four bills failed. Because the GOP in the Senate isn't ready to stop talking and actually do their fucking jobs.
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
So by the way with that guy having tried to use a cop's gun to shoot Trump that means that Hillary is the only candidate not to be threatened with a gun at some point since one of Sanders' campaign headquarters was shot at.
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
There is literally no proof this happened, and I tire of it being reported as fact.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
like, there's no time when there was an open democratic primary, and a bunch of non-democrats threw the election toward somebody the party's voters didn't support. The party wanted a way to prevent voters from continuing to nominate candidates like McGovern and Carter, and superdelegates provided a way to influence the outcome without returning to the nonbinding primaries of years prior.
that, btw, is exactly what superdelegates accomplished in 1984 by providing Mondale with the majority over hart/jackson
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"aren't superdelegates" is a pretty important advantage though
like everyone has been talking about how important it is for the two wings of the democratic party to mend fences after a nominee is selected and I have to think that process could have been aided with fewer undemocratic-seeming elements in our selection process
and as far as soft support goes, endorsements seem like they'd serve the same purpose
ed: I mean, there's no reason any of this should 'open the door to chaos' if your rules aren't for shit
ed2: and I mean, is the hypothetical situation where superdelegates get together and throw the nomination toward somebody who commanded only a plurality of the votes really 'less chaotic'?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Do you really think that instant runoff would have changed the rhetoric from Sanders in any fashion? He would have just argued that delegates should not have their first choice bound.
The fence-mending is not because of superdelegates; if there was actually a rift in the wings of the Democratic party, Sanders would have received endorsements from the progressive caucus. It's because Sanders seeks to delegitimize whatever process is in place.
I find it funny how everyone talks about how we need to mend fences, but the lion's share of the mending is put on the side that won the election to assume the positions of the side that lost, while we're supposed to ignore the rather unfounded claims of corruption and the abuse flung from that side.
Theories aren't always supported by history. That was the answer to what were the rationales behind super delegates that the CBC is talking about.
e: I'm not wholly opposed to getting rid of super delegates, and I don't think it would make a huge difference for the DNC at this time, as say, when the New Deal coalition existed.
The GOP could probably benefit greatly from them if for instance they'd rather commit political suicide instead of accepting a base that was never in favor of the platform everyone else in the party was elected on to begin with
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
maybe not, but if there were no superdelegates you wouldn't have had this last month+ of Sanders supporters holding out hope they could secure the nomination that way; Clinton would've won a majority and that'd be that.
(runoff would be irrelevant in this situation anyway since there's only two candidates)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Sander's supporters have been saying that California is rigged and it was something like a 70-30 landslide for him, which would put him close to a pledged delegate lead.
I don't think superdelegates are the reason Sanders is still fighting. They're just convenient.
???
I don't see how anything I've said here suggests that the impetus is purely on the Hillary camp to unify the party
but I will point out that as they are evidently the largest faction in the party, they're the most well-positioned to fix any institutional/systemic issues that are encouraging contentious primaries, and it's weird that any pushback on this tends to be of the "why is it OUR job" variety--it's your job because you're the ones who can do anything about it, of course
anyway, as always, my position is outcomes-oriented
one of the outcomes of the primary process is the one we've observed, which is that criticisms of undemocratic proceedings have stuck
so either that's fine and the system is working as intended or it isn't and things could be improved
it could well be that the party just needs to work on messaging in regard to how it selects its nominee, and it is absolutely true that certain states need to get their acts together
but I personally look at superdelegates as a mechanic that does more harm than good
the end of this particular campaign I think would have been much more decisive without the superdelegate issue floating around, and a decisive end is much better from a reconciliation standpoint than this slow angsty burn toward the convention we're currently doing.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't think, even if every single one of the uncounted ballots went for him, it is mathematically possible for him to win by that much?
Well the "decisive end" is typically brought about by a candidate simply conceding when they've lost, and not running long after they've been near mathematically eliminated. The latter is a function of Sander's grassroots fundraising, but the former is mostly on Sanders playing chicken and would occur regardless of the delegate process.
I believe the outcome observed here is mostly due to Sanders himself, not because of any specific system.
instant runoff wouldn't have mattered in this primary because there were only two candidates; he wouldn't have brought it up at all because it wouldn't have affected any outcomes and there's no way to pretend that it would have since it wouldn't even be relevant until the convention
and he would be free to make that argument, but I think people would see the obvious bullshit in the claim that delegates should be able to basically ignore primary results at the convention
Yeah I don't see what not having super delegates would have done to stop Sanders from going to convention.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You'd think but it's been working for him so far.
except that a very similar argument happened in 2008!
it's going to happen any time the margin between two candidates is close enough that superdelegates could potentially reverse it.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
*shrug*
could be
in which case, prepare yourself for this exact campaign in four years, because it was an absolute success on the fundraising front
Clinton dropped out. Maybe not as early as people would have liked, but she actually conceded.
I won't be living in the US if there's a Democratic primary in 2020.
no, I haven't heard or seen any sanders supporters suggesting that they should just get to take all the delegates at the convention
there's a (likely untrue imo) but coincidentally fun theory that the Bush-era axis of evil involved the countries it did because all three in a relatively short time decided to stop pricing their oil sales in dollars in favor of euros
at this point it seems kinda unlikely that the euro will replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency anyway
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
yeah there was a way to take the campaign to the convention but this wasn't it, and it's been a real shitshow
He's suggesting he take the superdelegates, along with demanding the rules committee be tied with one neutral party, rather than favoring Clinton.
yes, but prior to that superdelegates throwing her the nomination was a real conversation (well, real in the sense people were having it, not that it was ever a likely outcome)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
superdelegates which come from states he won
which wouldn't give him the nomination
and yeah, the "flip the superdelegates" path to victory was always bullshit
but uh this is an argument against superdelegates so....I'm glad we agree?
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Again, the divide was closer, and you had the issue with two states having their primaries invalidated because they tried to buck the system.
And again, even then she conceded and personally called for the acclimation vote. You didn't see any sort of public attempt to force Obama's hand by the Clinton camp in 08 after the primary election.
Except they weren't actually voting on the bills themselves. You see they were actually voting to Invoke Cloture (aka- no more filibuster, we're going to finish talking and actually vote on a bill).
All four bills failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to Invoke, despite two of them getting 53 votes in favor. So all four bills failed. Because the GOP in the Senate isn't ready to stop talking and actually do their fucking jobs.
He out and out argued that supers from states he won should be bound to him, but supers in states Clinton won should be free to vote their conscience.
Yeah, the allowance of unlimited debate is yet another one of the "gifts" given to us by Aaron Burr, like the career of Michael Bay.
the filibuster gets a lot of talk, but isn't there some rule that lets any senator put a hold on proceedings for any reason, indefinitely? I remember reading something to that effect
Yeah, I doubt a group of black-robed bonesmen sat down in a room and were like, "Enter Syria unto The Book", but I do think that when considering the various regimes who'd committed heinous crimes, maybe it was in the back of some people's minds, who then advocated in one way or another.
And you're going to square that policy with the Constitution...how, exactly?
The bandwagon effect has been horribly overrated.
Are you fucking kidding me?!
'murica.
There is literally no proof this happened, and I tire of it being reported as fact.
pleasepaypreacher.net