Yeah, the Democratic Party is not that progressive. That’s the point I am addressing.
Yet: progressive policy has significant support across the voting base and across both parties. There is an active suppression of any individual attempting to be a politician promoting and passing progressive policy. It is what the DNC has explicitly done at the minimum since 2010. (But essentially since Reagan.)
Now as far as people voting based on the lead of superdelegates? Yeah. Superdelegates are party leaders. Rejecting the notion party leaders influence the primary is like saying Trump endorsements don’t impact GOP candidates. (Incidentally Republicans also have this dynamic of being fed terrible and unteneble candidates.) But the influence of leadership certainly has an effect especially in an environment where no one is talking about policies and instead nebulous concepts like ‘electability.’
I couldn’t name a single superdelegate and equating it to the most popular politician in the Republican party doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. They way I read this is that there is nothing that indicates people are voting based on the superdelegates.
But, again, the original claim is that they were forced on us. The other is that they are promoting candidates. These aren’t the same thing.
That is how the primary process works: it isn’t an election day where a winner is decided. It is an ongoing process over time where candidates promote and modify their platforms based on the active results of each staggered vote.
So when that process is manipulated by a body of party officials with the ability to swing close conventions by 15 points, you have the function of forcing a predetermined result.
Republicans don’t have superdelegates like the DNC, which is why you may have had trouble with that. The GOPs equivalent are still obligated to vote for the candidate the primary voters chose by popular vote at the convention. The DNC superdelegates don’t have that obligation. They are uniquely equipped to be able to vote against the popular vote on their own volition.
So when that process is manipulated by a body of party officials with the ability to swing close conventions by 15 points, you have the function of forcing a predetermined result.
If the argument is that we should get rid of superdelegates, I absolutely agree. But, again, the last two winners crushed the next closest candidates in the popular vote so arguing that the superdelegates were the reason makes no sense.
which is why you may have had trouble with that.
You’ll have to explain to me what you think I’m having trouble with and what in my post leads you to believe that.
But you still have not supported the assertion that superdelegates have significant influence on the way people vote.
As far as supporting the assertion: The superdelegates are party leadership and standing elected members. They are a 15% voting block with the direct power to influence a primary election by claiming a candidate is or is not ‘electable’ based on their own support. They are not beholden to the voters results on how they vote. This gives them a considerable flex during the primary process to shape and control the party platform.
Like I said with the DNC primary: the debate about ‘electability’ has been the recurring theme. This is because the superdelegate voting bloc is declaring essentially a 15 point penalty in any given alternative candidate. They have a license to poison wells so to speak, and they make that known. They have the power to declare any candidate unelectable and have a mechanism to back that up.
Again here in 2024 the DNC is insisting Biden be the only option. Biden at this rate will again win the popular vote in the primary, the primary voters will notwithstanding. If you see no problem there then, well, you don’t.
And many people are convinced at the poll to vote for the more ‘electable’ candidate when the stakes are where they are currently. It is the main argument I read and see every day.
This gives them a considerable flex during the primary process to shape and control the party platform.
No one is denying this. I’ve pointed out that Biden and Clinton both crushed everyone else in popular vote. So pointing to super delegates makes no sense when claiming they were forced on the party. Someone (you?) claimed people are influenced by the superdelegates votes. I asked if there was anything to back this assertion up. Still have seen nothing to support the claim.
And many people are convinced at the poll to vote for the more ‘electable’ candidate when the stakes are where they are currently.
And, again, them having a preference and pushing a candidate is not “forcing” anything. Can the SD tip the balance in a close election to pick a candidate that didn’t win the popular vote? Sure, but this happened neither in 2016 nor 2020. So the constant insistence on superdelegates when we are talking about a case where the superdelegates did not change the outcome just makes no sense.
To be clear, we both agree that super delegates should go away. It should be something like the Star system or ranked choice system.
My point is the primary system is a process, not a one time vote. If you look at the primary vote as a final and singular number, then yeah the candidate won the primary with the popular vote.
But the primaries take place over time. The results of the initial primary states absolutely impact the votes of the later states. In the last two election cycles the initial momentum by Sanders was met with resistance and attack ads. There is clearly no dispute that the SDs have influence which they exert.
So it appears this boils down to a concern that you have with the word usage of ‘forced’. Which is kind of a meaningless hangup given the reality of the electoral process and this thread of conversation.
There is clearly no dispute that the SDs have influence which they exert.
This is so vague to the point it’s meaningless. It seems, based on the context, that you think the super delegates were running the attack ads. Is this accurate? Politicians and their supporters attack each other all the time. Sanders likewise attacked Clinton and Biden. It’s an empty point.
So it appears this boils down to a concern that you have with the word usage of ‘forced’. Which is kind of a meaningless hangup given the reality of the electoral process and this thread of conversation.
I’m hung up on the word because it means something very different than the way it was used. As I’ve already said, if it’s really about thinking we should do away with the SD system, we both agree. You could simply say that’s what you meant by the term force and we could move on. However, you’re attempting to make it my issue, when all I did was point out that nothing was forced, Sanders was just beat. You’ve offered up nothing other than vague accusations about how the fact that SD exist and favored Clinton/Biden, that somehow “forced” them onto us.
I think it seems that way if you look at the outcomes and ignore the process which led to said outcome.
You get it. But word usage seems to be a stickler for you and I honestly can’t help you navigate that. I call it forcing. You wouldn’t. The overall point is tangible enough that it doesn’t need further elaboration for the audience.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is not that progressive. That’s the point I am addressing.
Yet: progressive policy has significant support across the voting base and across both parties. There is an active suppression of any individual attempting to be a politician promoting and passing progressive policy. It is what the DNC has explicitly done at the minimum since 2010. (But essentially since Reagan.)
Now as far as people voting based on the lead of superdelegates? Yeah. Superdelegates are party leaders. Rejecting the notion party leaders influence the primary is like saying Trump endorsements don’t impact GOP candidates. (Incidentally Republicans also have this dynamic of being fed terrible and unteneble candidates.) But the influence of leadership certainly has an effect especially in an environment where no one is talking about policies and instead nebulous concepts like ‘electability.’
I couldn’t name a single superdelegate and equating it to the most popular politician in the Republican party doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. They way I read this is that there is nothing that indicates people are voting based on the superdelegates.
But, again, the original claim is that they were forced on us. The other is that they are promoting candidates. These aren’t the same thing.
That is how the primary process works: it isn’t an election day where a winner is decided. It is an ongoing process over time where candidates promote and modify their platforms based on the active results of each staggered vote.
So when that process is manipulated by a body of party officials with the ability to swing close conventions by 15 points, you have the function of forcing a predetermined result.
Republicans don’t have superdelegates like the DNC, which is why you may have had trouble with that. The GOPs equivalent are still obligated to vote for the candidate the primary voters chose by popular vote at the convention. The DNC superdelegates don’t have that obligation. They are uniquely equipped to be able to vote against the popular vote on their own volition.
If the argument is that we should get rid of superdelegates, I absolutely agree. But, again, the last two winners crushed the next closest candidates in the popular vote so arguing that the superdelegates were the reason makes no sense.
You’ll have to explain to me what you think I’m having trouble with and what in my post leads you to believe that.
But you still have not supported the assertion that superdelegates have significant influence on the way people vote.
The sniff test part.
As far as supporting the assertion: The superdelegates are party leadership and standing elected members. They are a 15% voting block with the direct power to influence a primary election by claiming a candidate is or is not ‘electable’ based on their own support. They are not beholden to the voters results on how they vote. This gives them a considerable flex during the primary process to shape and control the party platform.
Like I said with the DNC primary: the debate about ‘electability’ has been the recurring theme. This is because the superdelegate voting bloc is declaring essentially a 15 point penalty in any given alternative candidate. They have a license to poison wells so to speak, and they make that known. They have the power to declare any candidate unelectable and have a mechanism to back that up.
Again here in 2024 the DNC is insisting Biden be the only option. Biden at this rate will again win the popular vote in the primary, the primary voters will notwithstanding. If you see no problem there then, well, you don’t.
And many people are convinced at the poll to vote for the more ‘electable’ candidate when the stakes are where they are currently. It is the main argument I read and see every day.
No one is denying this. I’ve pointed out that Biden and Clinton both crushed everyone else in popular vote. So pointing to super delegates makes no sense when claiming they were forced on the party. Someone (you?) claimed people are influenced by the superdelegates votes. I asked if there was anything to back this assertion up. Still have seen nothing to support the claim.
And, again, them having a preference and pushing a candidate is not “forcing” anything. Can the SD tip the balance in a close election to pick a candidate that didn’t win the popular vote? Sure, but this happened neither in 2016 nor 2020. So the constant insistence on superdelegates when we are talking about a case where the superdelegates did not change the outcome just makes no sense.
To be clear, we both agree that super delegates should go away. It should be something like the Star system or ranked choice system.
My point is the primary system is a process, not a one time vote. If you look at the primary vote as a final and singular number, then yeah the candidate won the primary with the popular vote.
But the primaries take place over time. The results of the initial primary states absolutely impact the votes of the later states. In the last two election cycles the initial momentum by Sanders was met with resistance and attack ads. There is clearly no dispute that the SDs have influence which they exert.
So it appears this boils down to a concern that you have with the word usage of ‘forced’. Which is kind of a meaningless hangup given the reality of the electoral process and this thread of conversation.
This is so vague to the point it’s meaningless. It seems, based on the context, that you think the super delegates were running the attack ads. Is this accurate? Politicians and their supporters attack each other all the time. Sanders likewise attacked Clinton and Biden. It’s an empty point.
I’m hung up on the word because it means something very different than the way it was used. As I’ve already said, if it’s really about thinking we should do away with the SD system, we both agree. You could simply say that’s what you meant by the term force and we could move on. However, you’re attempting to make it my issue, when all I did was point out that nothing was forced, Sanders was just beat. You’ve offered up nothing other than vague accusations about how the fact that SD exist and favored Clinton/Biden, that somehow “forced” them onto us.
I think it seems that way if you look at the outcomes and ignore the process which led to said outcome.
You get it. But word usage seems to be a stickler for you and I honestly can’t help you navigate that. I call it forcing. You wouldn’t. The overall point is tangible enough that it doesn’t need further elaboration for the audience.