Oprah 2020

[ahhell]

So what was the purpose of the super delegates? It seems pretty clear that they are intended to give dem party insiders and more sway than the regular party members. Keep in mind, I didn't say they are what caused is loss, I just said that the process was rigged in favor of establishment candidates. The reality that nobody had really heard of them until this election also says something about their purpose.

On February 12, 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz's response was, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.

Did they matter, probably not, doesn't mean they weren't intended to prevent someone like Bernie from getting the nomination.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah, jesus christ on a pogo stick.... not this bunk again.

No, the primary was not 'rigged' against Sanders.

I agree that I find this whole obsession with the idea of that primaries were rigged annoying, but perhaps for different reasons that most.

I hate the whole concept of the primaries but... they've never pretended or even claimed to be some sort of pre-election where the most popular candidate was going to get the nomination. The Primaries have always been popularity contests for old guard members of the party. That's what Primaries are. You don't need to primaries to determine the most popular candidate... that's what the election is for.

It's not rigged if they do exactly what they say they are going to do. They never told the rank and file mass populace of Democrats they were going to pick the most popular candidate. If that's all they were doing there would be zero point of in holding primaries.

Of course it was a smoke and mirrors shell game to anoint some old guard member of the party. At what point was anyone ever pretending it was anything else?

What exactly do people think the Primaries are?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I still think this is likely, regardless of who the Democratic Party choose. If there isn't a recession between now and 2020 and if President Trump chooses to, and/or is able to, stand then IMO he has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

You must be predicting some major change in the current trajectory.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what was the purpose of the super delegates? It seems pretty clear that they are intended to give dem party insiders and more sway than the regular party members.

Ah... yeah. That's exactly what they are. That's what they've always been. That's why they've always admitted they were. I mean it's sorta in the name. "Super Delegate" isn't exactly subtle.

Okay people get the the mass demographic of registered voting democrats and "The Democratic Party" aren't the same thing right?

Again... what do you think the purpose of the Primaries are? To pick the favorite candidate of the 44,706,349 registered Democrats or the favorite candidate of ~4,000 members of the DNC?

 

[Ron Swanson]

I still think this is likely, regardless of who the Democratic Party choose. If there isn't a recession between now and 2020 and if President Trump chooses to, and/or is able to, stand then IMO he has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

I read a couple articles where political commentators tend to think the same thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Donald Trump has almost zero chance of winning in 2020.

Problem is that is exactly the chance he had of winning in 2016.

 

[Belz...]

What exactly do people think the Primaries are?

Whatever's convenient at the time. Same way people complained about the EC when Hillary lost but would've been quite happy if the situation had been reversed.

 

[ahhell]

Ah... yeah. That's exactly what they are. That's what they've always been. That's why they've always admitted they were. I mean it's sorta in the name. "Super Delegate" isn't exactly subtle.

Okay people get the the mass demographic of registered voting democrats and "The Democratic Party" aren't the same thing right?

Again... what do you think the purpose of the Primaries are? To pick the favorite candidate of the 44,706,349 registered Democrats or the favorite candidate of ~4,000 members of the DNC?

I wouldn't expect it to be any different but it was clearly organized to obscure that reality from the average(maybe below average) voter. Casino's rig the odds in their favor, everybody knows that but it doesn't change the fact that that the odds or rigged in favor of the house.

I am amused by the... vociferous reaction I get to stating what is essentially a fact. The Dems rig their primary in favor establishment candidates. The GOP has but this last election their system was not as robust as it should have been and we got Trump.

As a side note, one of the problems with US politics is that the primary system makes the system look more democratic than it really is, I suspect this disenchants a lot of voters and wonder if we might have more participation if we went back to smoke filled rooms to choose the candidates.

Ironic side note, Washington State has a fake primary in which folks vote for a candidate but it all for show, the delegates were actually chosen at an earlier caucus. Hillary won the meaningless primary while Bernie won the caucus. Now, whats the point of that if not to fool the average voter into thinking they had some say in the choice?

 

[Segnosaur]

So what was the purpose of the super delegates? It seems pretty clear that they are intended to give dem party insiders and more sway than the regular party members.

In a close primary season (or one where no candidate has a clear majority), the super delegates may be relevant and/or hold the balance of power. (I would not have a problem with that, since those super delegates tend to be people who have worked with the party for a long time and have a vested interest in working with whomever becomes the candidate).

When one leader has a clear majority, the Super Delegates don't really have much sway. Which is the case for the 2016 primaries.

Keep in mind, I didn't say they are what caused is loss, I just said that the process was rigged in favor of establishment candidates.

Yet you specifically mentioned super delegates as an example for the 'rigging' against Sanders.

 

[The Don]

You must be predicting some major change in the current trajectory.

Not really, but IMO it's comes down to "It's the economy, stupid !".

If people feel that the economy is doing just fine (and likely they will because regardless of what President Trump does or does not do it's unlikely there'll be a crash in the next 2 1/2 years) then they'll tend to vote for the incumbent.

Trump has solid, unshakeable high-30's support who will vote for him personally regardless.

On top of that is "soft" support from GOP loyalists who would vote for any GOP Presidential candidate but who are not Trump supporters per-se.

On top of that is "soft" support from the politically disinterested who think things are bumbling along just fine, so why risk changing things.

I think those three groups could easily add up to enough people to get President Trump re-elected unless:

• There is an economic crash in the next couple of years with mass unemployment and so on AND/OR
• The Democratic Party finds a combination of message, policies and candidate which is so enticing that people can't help but vote for them

From where I sit, both are long-shots right now

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am amused by the... vociferous reaction I get to stating what is essentially a fact. The Dems rig their primary in favor establishment candidates. The GOP has but this last election their system was not as robust as it should have been and we got Trump.

No. The Dems use their primary to favor establishment candidates because that is the literal definition of a Primary and what it does. You can't use the word "establishment" as a scare word when we're talking about the actual, literal establishment in question.

It's not a "rig" if it is doing exactly what it's supposed to do and exactly what the people running it tell you what it is going to do. The mass voting Democrat demographic of citizens are all butthurt because "their" candidate didn't get picked when at no point did anyone actually claim that ever going to happen.

People are spoiled because the choice of the organized party leadership and the choice of the mass voting block of citizens who register for that party so often overlap by coincidence. This Primary was only a "thing" because they didn't and the Party didn't have time to rewrite a new narrative for the voters.

If I was registered active member of a party and the party's leadership was obviously favoring a candidate that the laypeople members of the party were no the idea that they would pick my candidate and not theirs wouldn't even cross my mind.

The "system" is exactly as robust as it is supposed to be to do what it is supposed to do. Protect the party. Not the voter base or even, and this is an important distinction, the election itself.

 

[Belz...]

People are spoiled because the choice of the organized party leadership and the choice of the mass voting block of citizens who register for that party so often overlap by coincidence.

Coincidence or simple fact that the most popular candidate has better odds of winning and is hence more often chosen by the party.

The Sanders voters just didn't understand how the system works and they got salty because they didn't get their fantasy version of the world... just like some fans didn't get their fantasy version of Luke Skywalker.

 

[Segnosaur]

I wouldn't expect it to be any different but it was clearly organized to obscure that reality from the average(maybe below average) voter. Casino's rig the odds in their favor, everybody knows that but it doesn't change the fact that that the odds or rigged in favor of the house.

I am amused by the... vociferous reaction I get to stating what is essentially a fact.

Just because you think its a fact does not necessarily make it a fact.

The Dems rig their primary in favor establishment candidates.

No, the democrats hold their primaries to select the person democratic party members want to lead them in the next election, which generally means people that actually reflect on party values.

As a side note, one of the problems with US politics is that the primary system makes the system look more democratic than it really is, I suspect this disenchants a lot of voters and wonder if we might have more participation if we went back to smoke filled rooms to choose the candidates.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the law that states how a particular party is supposed to select their leader. And nor should there be. That's what general elections are for. The primaries are designed to reflect the will of the party members, not the general electorate.

Sanders had a fair shot at winning the primaries. There was no rigging. The fact that he didn't win doesn't mean there was some hidden plot to deny him the candidacy, it just means that the party members didn't feel someone who hadn't been a part in building the party should be the one who leads it.

 

[Belz...]

Sanders had a fair shot at winning the primaries. There was no rigging.

No but Sanders fans and right-wingers both have a vested interest in selling the idea that there was.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Coincidence or simple fact that the most popular candidate has better odds of winning and is hence more often chosen by the party.

The Sanders voters just didn't understand how the system works and they got salty because they didn't get their fantasy version of the world... just like some fans didn't get their fantasy version of Luke Skywalker.

Man you could do such a think piece of the 2016 election being a metaphor for not following "Chosen One" mythologies...

But I digress. Yeah you're correct generally speaking the leadership of a party and the rank and file of a party are going to agree because they share more common goals and interest than they differ on.

But that's not absolute. It's not guaranteed. It's not chiseled into the charter of the party that the party leadership has to follow the will of the people.

Again I feel like people aren't getting that this sort of grass roots, power to the people mentality is... pretty the polar opposite of what a major political party is conceptually.

You don't need a process to vet and approve the most popular candidate for an election... that's what the election already does. "We have to figure out the most popular candidate before the election" doesn't make any kind of sense.

If people knew who they were going to vote for before the primary than what difference did it make who the "official" party chose as their "official" candidate?

If more of the Democratic voter base wanted Sanders than Hillary.. why didn't he win the election? Voting for Sanders wasn't illegal just because he wasn't the candidate. Hell he was on the ballot where I voted, just as simple and as easy to vote for a Hillary, Trump, Stein or Johnson would have been.

Why? Because everyone knows a lot of people, maybe not an exact majority by definition but enough to be huge election swaying block of people, are waiting for their party to tell them who to vote for.

Be honest. How many people could right now mail in a ballot for 2020 election with a vote for "Whoever the D or R Party (Circle One) chooses" and have nothing functionally change.

The Primaries have zero power over who you actually choose to vote for as a citizen. The influence it has it totally voluntary. I don't see how a system like that can get "rigged" by any reasonable definition of the world. The only people a hypothetical "rigging" of a primary would effect would be people who are waiting for the party to tell them who to vote for anyway so... how that even work?

 

[xjx388]

I don't know . . . if the purpose of a primary is to install the candidate that the DNC wants, then what -the primary is largely a show? It won't matter who you vote for in the primary because the DNC and their super-delegates will make whatever they want to happen, happen.

It certainly didn't work this way on the RNC side of things because I seriously doubt the RNC wanted Trump to win the primary. I don't think it worked that way when Obama won the DNC primary either.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't know . . . if the purpose of a primary is to install the candidate that the DNC wants, then what -the primary is largely a show?

But then that's not the purpose of the primaries. The purpose is to reflect the wishes of the Democratic members, who's preferences may or may not reflect those of the DNC themselves.

It certainly didn't work this way on the RNC side of things because I seriously doubt the RNC wanted Trump to win the primary. I don't think it worked that way when Obama won the DNC primary either.

Yup, Obama's win over Clinton is probably the strongest evidence that the claims of rigging are bunk. In that election, a relative newcomer beat an established candidate (who had more superdelegates early on)

One of the big differences between Obama and Sanders (and why Obama won and Sanders lost) is because Obama actually was a democrat, whereas Sanders was just visiting.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know . . . if the purpose of a primary is to install the candidate that the DNC wants, then what -the primary is largely a show?

Well... yeah mostly.

Again I personally think using the term "rigged" is wrong because... rigged suggest it's doing it's not supposed to be doing and not openly admitting it's doing. It goes beyond "Open Secret" into full on "I'm literally just doing exactly what I said I was going to do." level.

Now to be fair do I think the DNC just straight up ignores the primary vote? No. Again knowing what their voter base wants is just useful information.

But they aren't held to it. This is a narrative they are writing and 99 times out of a 100 they can rewrite the narrative and tell the voters that the candidate they want is the best one and... most voters go along with that.

Again the primary, stated purpose of a Primary is for the Party Leadership to tell the Party Voter Base who to vote for, not for the Party Voter Base to tell the Party Leadership who they want the candidate to be and the fact so many people seem to think it is is just hard for me to wrap my head around because... how that even work I don't can't even.....

Now if you are the leadership of an organization that is preparing to present a plan to it's membership knowing what plan the membership would prefer is extremely useful information and if you can make your plan match the prefer plan all the better for everyone involved but.... again not required.

It won't matter who you vote for in the primary because the DNC and their super-delegates will make whatever they want to happen, happen.

Well yeah.

Again I'm honestly perplexed at people who think this whole process flows in a different direction because... what sense would that even make? How would that even work as a concept? How do 44 million people vote to tell 4 thousand people who to tell them to vote for?

This isn't like election day where you're (ostensibly) telling the Electoral College voters who to vote for.

If the Party Voter Base already knew he they wanted to vote for and were telling the Party Leadership... what purpose would the Party Leadership even fulfill in that process? You don't need their permission to vote for the guy you want to vote for.

Again the only way this entire process makes sense is if there is a large enough to be statistically meaningful block of voters out there who don't know who they are going to vote for until their party tells them who to vote for.

How can asking someone for them to tell you who to vote for and them not giving you the answer you want be rigged?

The Primaries are basically opinion polls where the Party Leadership gets a gauge of how popular their potential candidates are but that's it. If the Party Decides they can run with a candidate less popular by knowing full well that a large enough chunk of their Voter Base is going to vote for whoever they tell them to anyway they'll run with it.

 

[ahhell]

Perhaps its my choice of words that's poked this hornets nest.

All I'm saying is that the Dems had a system of selecting their candidate that favors candidates that are preferred by the folks in positions of leadership within the party. This system clearly favored Clinton over Sanders. That it didn't matter in this election doesn't really change that. I suspect lot of regular dems didn't realize that until this election. Saying things like Sanders had a fair chance is just silly, he didn't but he shouldn't have, he wasn't even a democrat.


How many rank and file democrats new that 15% of the delegates weren't determined by primary voting prior to 2016?

And yes, it is absolutely up to the party how they select their candidate, however, in my opinion having a system that appears more democratic than it actually is setting yourself up for the kind of anger that you saw in the Dem primaries. Folks felt cheated, sure, they could have read the rules before but who reads the EULA?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Folks felt cheated, sure, they could have read the rules before but who reads the EULA?

Because this isn't an EULA. This isn't "The fine print." This isn't some technicality.

On it's most basic level the whole "rigged" argument boils down to the Democratic Voter Base asking the Democratic Leadership who they think they should vote for... and then telling them they are wrong.

If a majority of the Democratic Voter Base wanted Sanders as President why isn't he President (or at least why wasn't he the one that lost to Trump and not Hillary?) Because the Party Leadership said no? Than why'd you ask the Party? 20 goto 10.

If the Primaries are the Voter Base asking the Party who do vote for than you can't get mad when you don't like the answer given.

And the Primaries being the Voter Base telling the Party who they are going to vote for doesn't make any kind of sense.

How many rank and file democrats new that 15% of the delegates weren't determined by primary voting prior to 2016?

I doubt 1 in 20 voters could tell you with any degree of accuracy or comprehension how, on a functional level, how their Party operates. Hell I doubt a solid 1/4 of Americans could write a solid paragraph explain exactly why they are a member of a political party in any way that makes sense.

But that's their problem.