Democrats brace for Chicago battle over superdelegates.....

More fallout to take place with the Democrats. Looks like establishment Demos want to keep their Superdelegate status. Younger members are against their superdelegates. Either way its another split they having going. What say ye?




Tensions are rising among Democrats ahead of next week’s summer meeting in Chicago, where they will vote on key reforms to the party’s presidential nominating process.

The battle is over a proposal that would reduce the power of superdelegates ahead of 2020. Superdelegates are Democratic leaders who are able to vote for their preferred candidate at the convention, even if that candidate lost the primary or caucus in the delegate's state.

In Chicago the measure will come before the entire DNC for a vote, and it’s expected to be close.

The original proposal was drafted by the Unity Reform Commission, created in the aftermath of the 2016 election to unite the Sanders and Clinton delegates who came to blows during the primary. The commission also proposed measure to provide DNC budget transparency and crack down on conflicts of interest, but those measures have been pushed to the side.

The meeting next week is expected to be contentious as an opposition wing has formed against the superdelegates measure. In the final days, members have been whipping each other to rally behind weakening the influence of superdelegates.....snip~

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-brace-for-chicago-battle-over-superdelegates

 

I'm OK with political parties choosing their candidates instead of the public. Political parties are for politicians, not voters. The voters can choose from the candidates.

 

Compromise. Let the Democrats keep their representatives, senators and governors as super delegates. That should cut their super delegates down by about half. As for the democrat's national and state party leaders, no super delegate status. Democratic Party national and state leaders are suppose to be neutral anyway when it comes to the primaries and caucuses.

This would leave them around 270 super delegates depending on what happens in this midterm coming up. A far cry from the 712 they had in 2016.

 

I'm okay with the Demos sticking to their Superdelegates.....as more of the left will end up bailing on them. More Independents will walk away from them too.

 

This is how they can sell their nomination to the highest bidder. Hillary paid for the 2016 nomination.

 

Ahahahaha.....Democrats compromise. That's a good one Pero.

 

"Democratic" Party.

hehehe

 

it's funny how they establish and defend superdelegates
but hate the EC system (when they lose)

 

Its not looking good for Bernie and the other Socialists. They will be screwed over for sure.

 

Party over the People? For that is how we can get a gov't not responsive to the voters. Princeton evidenced, using congressional record that only special interests and elites get represented in DC.

So when a party can choose, they can give the people a choice, but it is limited, in that each choice will be in support of the status quo. And the status quo is we do not have a working republic. It is something else, and what helps to keep it in place is a party choosing who we can vote for. Ever hear of party politics? The founders were worried about such a thing. And we now have one that is entrenched, damaging a republic. No representation for 300 million americans? That is a huge problem. Not to you perhaps, but to many of us.

You know why the DP went with super delegates long ago, right? They lost an election with a popular candidate. It was put into place to keep grassroots and populists, kicked to the curb. Only establishment status quo welcomed. Hard to make a party responsible to the People when you rig it like that.

 

Hillary paid in the sense of bailing out the Democratic Party from the debt left over by Obama, and thus nature took its course in that sense. That's on Obama who apparently has zero stewardship ability regarding finances. No wonder our debt doubled under him.

 

That's actually a benefit. We don't need little Lenins taking over, even ones that have kinder methods but want the same end.

 

Well great, maybe that will help keep all those radical leftists that the Democrats refuse to kick out of their ranks marginalized.

 

I agree with this in principle, though with only two political parties being considered "viable" in national elections in most cases, especially in the presidential race, the issue does become sticky. If the public can't have their voices heard in a party primary, they're effectively disenfranchised even before the election comes around, and I think that ended up hurting Hillary and Democrats a lot in 2016. People didn't like her or Dirty Donald, and so didn't vote, or voted for someone else, a "spoiler" and a "protest vote."

 

Meh, the Communist Party says they have infiltrated the Demo Party and they aint going nowhere. They will gladly help those Socialists out.

 

Oh I know. The CPUSA has had its hands in Democrat politics for decades, including but not limited to through the unions.

Keep in mind, however, Obama is a product of the Democratic Socialists of America's "New Party" platform so those radicals have already taken the White House.

 

I think your corporate/big banking democrats, that along with the GOP, who refuse to represent anyone but special interests and our elites, as evidenced by Princeton, using congressional record, are safe and sound. So you have nothing to fear and the elites will continue to own the DP and GOP. And 300 million plus americans will continue to not get represented in DC. Your kind of gov't, apparently. An oligarchy, or corporate state. But if you are not an elite, go ahead and cut your own throat, for you are supporting that metaphorically, with your belief system, IMO. But if you are upper middle class, or upper class, of course you want the DP to continue to be sold out to your peer group. I doubt you are in that group though. So sharpen that knife and get it over with. ha ha

 

I view voters as being fairly disenfranchised under the current system. No matter who is in power, the government seems to continue doing the same things. In other words who is in power doesn't really matter. If we want voters to have real power let them vote on major issues as well as people.

 

I think we get status quo with minor tweaks no matter who is in power. A party should not be responsible to the people. It should be responsible to the politicians. The people should have nothing to do with political parties.

 

Translation....... The Democratic Party do NOT intend to let the voters make choices for us. We will choose for you. Hmm... now doesn't that seem familiar? Isn't that the way they do it.... in Soviet Russia? China? Cuba? Venezuela? N Korea?? The DNC.. "people's republic of democracy" where you don't actually get democracy, just a serving from the plantation kitchen....

 

Ah, the places Republicans love now, with the policies that Republicans try to emulate.

I was Republican back when Republicans hated commies. If Reagan were around now, he'd be shocked at how Republicans have turned into commie lovers, and he'd be a proud Democrat, like me. Democrats are the heirs of Reagan, and of capitalism. Republicans stand for authoritarianism and socialism;

And some racism-lite to top it off, implying that black people are letting themselves be fooled because they're stupid.

 

Hardly. The DNC "choose" for the deplorables, or at least the ones who vote their way. Just like the authoritarian tyrannies of the world they so wish to emulate. I think it's laughable that you now assert that today's democrats are the heirs of communist hate when so many of your ranks are, themselves actually communists. Your laughable assertions do make life more fun, but they are woefully baseless, and frankly, just a tad unhinged. But hey, I suppose that you just simply looked longingly into the mirror, and this just came out...

 

Sounds like how the communist party works. But not a representative democratic republic.

Nothing in a republic, including political parties, should serve anything but the People. Otherwise you get a banana republic. I am shocked that this seems to be fine with you. ha ha.

 

Totally agree. The current DNC crop all believe in their own elitism, and of course, their "duty" to decide for the rest of the folks. And of course, the payment for that subjugation are the dependency programs and give aways to make the bitter reality of their authoritarian tyranny less obvious...

 

You misunderstand. The purpose of a political party is to win elections in order to gain and maintain power. That has nothing to do with the people. It has everything to do with politicians. The role of the people in the republic is to vote for candidates. Why they get involved with political parties is a mystery to me.