And this is the very kind of thing that I was referring to when I posted a comment about “Democrat dipsh*ttery” in another thread.
Superdelegates were created after 1972 for the very purpose of preventing a fringe nominee like McGovern. How is it a “dirty trick” for a party to take measures to control its nominations?
The period from JFK to Carter was the evolution of the primary system being used to select the nominee as opposed to the smoke filled rooms.
The 1972 Democratic convention was such a mess that there were endless squabbles over delegates and was such a mess that McGovern couldn’t even give his acceptance speech in prime time.
The current system with primaries or caucuses in every state has made the idea of a contested convention almost impossible. Even 2008 didn’t result in one and that was as close to a tie as possible. There aren’t regional wings of the Democratic Party these days so three viable candidates isn’t likely to happen. It’s almost always going to come down to A vs B.
In 1988 and 2016 all the talk of superdelegates was ridiculous. Dukakis had amassed an insurmountable lead over Jackson and so did Hillary over Sanders. Primaries aren’t football games where a team can score 3 unanswered touchdowns. It’s ridiculous to think that in a large delegate state, one candidate will take all the delegates.
And the author is a known sanders supporters and his sources is one unidentified Delegate. Who could of course be making it all up. Or a handful of guys could be kicking ideas around.
I have grave doubts there is anything serious afoot.
Ah ok, as I said, I didn’t even click the article. Politico used to be a slightly right of center but decent news source. It’s even still in print in the D.C. area but is a shred of its former self.
Now, they’ll print almost anything for clicks. Another Democrats in disarray’ article.
I bet most Republicans would have loved to have superdelegates in 2016.
Again. Recent history shows us that this isn’t true. Bernie was treated fairly in 2016 and there was a problem.
Pretty much this. I don’t have a negative opinion about Politico in general but this is clickbait, and dumb clickbait at that.
If Sanders can win on the first ballot with pledged delegates he would deserve to win and would be the nominee. Acting on an idea like Sanders pushed at the end of last cycle, for the supers to undo the pledged delegate result, would not fly.
If the DNC doesn’t want to nominate “outsiders” then it should change its rules about who’s allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
The problem being that the schedule has changed quite a bit and early/absentee is becoming more common. 538’s primary model shows something well outside the norm as of 23 Jan.
Part of the issue is how many delegates have been pushed forward in the process due to schedule changes. In 2016 25.22% of total pledged delegates had already been decided by the end of Super Tuesday. This year we’ll be at 38.0% after Super Tuesday. By the time Iowans come together to caucus on Monday seven early states will already be voting. That is the same day CA mails their absentee ballots opening their voting. There simply isn’t the same amount time for that normal winnowing to produce an A vs B race in that schedule.
The relatively high 15% threshold the DNC uses for every state helps. It can produce less than proportional results in big fields. That might be enough to keep too many delegates being shunted away from A or B before it is a head to head race. The majority of delegates are awarded by congressional district though. It is possible for candidates to break threshold and cherry pick delegates away from the leaders even without winning any of the statewide delegates. Threshold helps but it is not a panacea.
The DNC has also been pretty smart about using debate inclusion rules to force early winnowing. Without it the scenario could be even uglier. Waiting for winnowing to happen naturally in IA and NH would risk splitting the delegates in the early voting states even further than the might already. Coming out of Super Tuesday with a mathematically possible but unrealistic chance of the front runner winning a majority of delegates would be a trainwreck.
Again, 538 is giving the trainwreck an almost 1 out of 6 chance based on their prediction model. The odds are low but not as low as past experience might make us think. At least a few members of the DNC should probably be thinking about whether it is uglier to let party leaders weigh in early or let the contested convention play out.
Remember, the ending of the boy who cried wolf story involved an actual wolf showing up. 
The Democratic party doesn’t control who can enter elections. State governments do.
This is more than Bernie can accomplish. You need the 50th most liberal senator to vote for your policies in order to get anything passed. And this assumes the Dems control the Senate and kill the filibuster. You will only get “milquetoasty” reforms no matter who wins. The 50th most liberal senator will be “milquetoasty”. We live in a pretty conservative country. Reform will be slow no matter who wins.
I won’t.
But… not allowing Bernie to run as a Democrat would also be “unfair” and rigging the game against him.
True. Earlier voting will be a factor, how large it will be is unknown. I’ve already locked up a Pete vote in MN from a friend.
But, another new factor will be the almost complete elimination of caucuses. Bernie winning small state caucuses helped him continue the myth that he still had a chance, even caucuses held on the Saturday of Easter weekend.
How about the DNC makes it own rules and people who don’t like them can seek the nomination of a party with rules more to their liking?
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism. The Sanders campaign was unable to prove deliberate malfeasance and, unfortunately, people like you have clouded things by equivocating the two. This is transparently absurd. Just because Sanders couldn’t prove the DNC rigged the vote doesn’t mean there was no evidence of favouritism. Because there was. Your huffy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Bernie Bros has good reason to be, at the very least, healthily suspicious of how Bernie was treated in 2016.
Isn’t that what I said?
Nope.
I seriously wonder if leadership at DNC has in any election not had personal opinions and favorite choices or least favorite choices.
yep ur wrong