Example #12,000,000 that Deb Wasserman Schultz is completely ignorant

[THE_DEVIL]

Read this quote from Wasserman Schultz on super delegates and please tell me I am not the only one who sees how idiotic this is.

Wasserman Schultz replied, “Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates— those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support, and they receive a proportional number of delegates going into our convention.”

She added, “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 grassroots activists. We are as a Democratic Party really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grassroots activists and diverse, committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend, and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.”

Tapper responded, “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on.”

 

[moral_victory]

“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 grassroots activists.

Holy hell.

 

[dgordo]

I'm not sure what's so bad about this. It's up to the party to chose their candidates not the people.

Anyone paying attention knows this is how it works. I guess I'm shocked she would be so honest about the process.

 

[Raglefant]

I don't think she invented this process. Having said that, 11,999,999 are probably still enough examples.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Mind-boggling.

 

[moral_victory]

I'm not sure what's so bad about this. It's up to the party to chose their candidates not the people.

Anyone paying attention knows this is how it works. I guess I'm shocked she would be so honest about the process.

There weren't always superdelegates though were there?

 

[Raglefant]

So it prevents a hostile takeover of the party? Pubs have a mechanism for this too, right? Would be amazing if both parties override the popular vote in their primary race in the same year. That would go over well with the American people right now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not sure what's so bad about this. It's up to the party to chose their candidates not the people.

Anyone paying attention knows this is how it works. I guess I'm shocked she would be so honest about the process.

It isn't that she's defending it that is shocking people. It's that she thinks she can sell the Orwellian argument that somehow these unpledged delegates actually enhance activist vitalism - rather than counter it.

We all know why they are there. They are there to protect the Democratic party from too much democracy. But she is trying to claim that they improve the democratic process.

Nobody's buying it.

 

[joelbc1]

There weren't always superdelegates though were there?

they came to being sometime after the '68 Convention and have been modified a couple of times since......

 

[BioHawk]

The superdelegate thing is a false argument. The Superdelegates will go the way the wind is blowing, just like they did in 2008. The only way I could ever see the Superdelegates becoming a factor beyond a "seal of approval" is A) it were an actual tie with voted for delegates and popular vote totals were very close, or B) A "grass-root" group tried to rig the election and get someone like Donald Trump nominated on the Democratic side to ensure a worthless candidate to run against for the GOP guy. or C) something happens late in the primary process to make a candidate completely unelectable, like a video of them screwing 12 year olds is released or they get arrested by the FBI in April. Not really sure that B is even possible anymore, though. It's too easy to expose shenanigans like that anymore.

 

[TexMichFan]

She passed #12,000,000 a long time ago.

 

[The Tradition]

Rubio's priorities:
(1) God
(2) Family
(3) Country


Lil' Debbie's priorities:
(1) Party
(2) Hillary

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Holy hell.

This is the Democrat leadership.....you know...the party that is supposed to be FOR "grass roots" and the little guy.
Oh wait.........they are corporate and banking shills too.

How does it feel to be constantly lied to?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

they came to being sometime after the '68 Convention and have been modified a couple of times since......

They shouldn't exist, period.

 

[naturalmwa]

The superdelegate thing is a false argument. The Superdelegates will go the way the wind is blowing, just like they did in 2008. The only way I could ever see the Superdelegates becoming a factor beyond a "seal of approval" is A) it were an actual tie with voted for delegates and popular vote totals were very close, or B) A "grass-root" group tried to rig the election and get someone like Donald Trump nominated on the Democratic side to ensure a worthless candidate to run against for the GOP guy. or C) something happens late in the primary process to make a candidate completely unelectable, like a video of them screwing 12 year olds is released or they get arrested by the FBI in April. Not really sure that B is even possible anymore, though. It's too easy to expose shenanigans like that anymore.

Option C might get tested this year.

 

[hawkcub]

The superdelegate thing is a false argument. The Superdelegates will go the way the wind is blowing, just like they did in 2008. The only way I could ever see the Superdelegates becoming a factor beyond a "seal of approval" is A) it were an actual tie with voted for delegates and popular vote totals were very close, or B) A "grass-root" group tried to rig the election and get someone like Donald Trump nominated on the Democratic side to ensure a worthless candidate to run against for the GOP guy. or C) something happens late in the primary process to make a candidate completely unelectable, like a video of them screwing 12 year olds is released or they get arrested by the FBI in April. Not really sure that B is even possible anymore, though. It's too easy to expose shenanigans like that anymore.

C is the only legitimate argument for SD. A, you will still have a winner unless its an exact tie. B, even you say it has a low chance of happening. But at the end of the day voters are voting for that person.

 

[moral_victory]

This is the Democrat leadership.....you know...the party that is supposed to be FOR "grass roots" and the little guy.
Oh wait.........they are corporate and banking shills too.

How does it feel to be constantly lied to?

I'm aware of their behavior.

 

[dgordo]

There weren't always superdelegates though were there?

No, the local party bosses basically told the delegates who to vote for pre 1968.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Rubio's priorities:
(1) God
(2) Family
(3) Country


Lil' Debbie's priorities:
(1) Party
(2) Hillary

Well done.

Except that only one of them is running to be president.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is the Democrat leadership.....you know...the party that is supposed to be FOR "grass roots" and the little guy.
Oh wait.........they are corporate and banking shills too.

Yes. The Dems have been getting more and more like the GOPs for a while now. Are you just realizing this? And why does this bother you now when it's been a truism about the GOP for at least a century?

To a fascist, I would think you'd much rather have 2 competing fascist parties than one and a bunch of people who believe in democracy and a government of, by and for the people, as Lincoln so quaintly said and no Republican has believed since.

 

[joelbc1]

They shouldn't exist, period.

No, they should. You don't want your Party hijacked by a radical minority. The super delegates give the Party stability. You don't have to agree with them but that is the purpose.

 

[TexMichFan]

Rubio's priorities:
(1) God
(2) Family
(3) Country


Lil' Debbie's priorities:
(1) Party
(2) Hillary

Not sure it isn't
(1) Hillary
(2) Hillary

 

[TexMichFan]

No, they should. You don't want your Party hijacked by a radical minority. The super delegates give the Party stability. You don't have to agree with them but that is the purpose.

If you have a primary / caucus system to elect your candidate wouldn't the candidates who lost be in the minority and the one that one be in the majority?

It appears to be more of the party elite being afraid that their voters would nominate someone who they don't like.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If you have a primary / caucus system to elect your candidate wouldn't the candidates who lost be in the minority and the one that one be in the majority?

It appears to be more of the party elite being afraid that their voters would nominate someone who they don't like.

What if Hillary accrues a majority of the committed delegates but is indicted for emails or whatever and refuses to drop out?

I don't mind that the party has a safety valve. That just makes sense. What's objectionable is that those uncommitted delegates would be siding with Hillary this early despite - even in contradiction to - the will of the voters in their state.

 

[dgordo]

If you have a primary / caucus system to elect your candidate wouldn't the candidates who lost be in the minority and the one that one be in the majority?

It appears to be more of the party elite being afraid that their voters would nominate someone who they don't like.

Kind of like how the gop changed their convention rules to keep Ron Paul of the ballot.

 

[TexMichFan]

What if Hillary accrues a majority of the committed delegates but is indicted for emails or whatever and refuses to drop out?

I don't mind that the party has a safety valve. That just makes sense. What's objectionable is that those uncommitted delegates would be siding with Hillary this early despite - even in contradiction to - the will of the voters in their state.

There are better ways to get rid of an indicted candidate.

If this was just a safety valve I would agree with you but this looks way more like the party elite wanting to insure that candidates like Bernie don't have an even chance.

 

[TexMichFan]

Kind of like how the gop changed their convention rules to keep Ron Paul of the ballot.

So you would agree or disagree with both?

Don't understand the one side did something so I won't be upset if the other side does argument.

 

[joelbc1]

If you have a primary / caucus system to elect your candidate wouldn't the candidates who lost be in the minority and the one that one be in the majority?

It appears to be more of the party elite being afraid that their voters would nominate someone who they don't like.

Iowa's caucus elects delegates to the county convention by proportionality of the vote. The caucus does NOT "elect" candidates....IOwa's process is a long drawn out affair....following are county, district and state conventions and "delegates" change as candidate strengths and weaknesses are exposed. I don't think the Iowa Delegation to the national convention is chosen until June or July. But a caucus is a caucus and NOT a primary (like NH and SC).....and again, the "super delegates" are the party elite..those folks who work year round for the Party either as volunteers or as public officials. Again, you don't have to like it and you can claim "Foul!" but this is the way it is...and the process is much better than it was 50 years ago and it has "updated" itself as needs arose. Please remember, in '08 most of the super delegates were "pledged" to Hillary but they ALL voted for Obama at the convention.
I don't understand why folks allow their panties to get all in a bunch over this.....the process really does work and nothing is ever chiseled in stone. Remember, Democrats are not a member of a political party because we are Democrats.

 

[soybean]

So it prevents a hostile takeover of the party? Pubs have a mechanism for this too, right? Would be amazing if both parties override the popular vote in their primary race in the same year. That would go over well with the American people right now.

It already happened in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

 

[joelbc1]

If you have a primary / caucus system to elect your candidate wouldn't the candidates who lost be in the minority and the one that one be in the majority?

It appears to be more of the party elite being afraid that their voters would nominate someone who they don't like.

Absolutely. I mentioned that Dems don't want their Party hijacked by fringe forces any more than GOPers want their Party hijacked by the same. It is a "safeguard" for the Party and I have no problem with it.

 

[TexMichFan]

Absolutely. I mentioned that Dems don't want their Party hijacked by fringe forces any more than GOPers want their Party hijacked by the same. It is a "safeguard" for the Party and I have no problem with it.

Is Bernie a fringe force?

 

[soybean]

Rubio's priorities:
(1) Self
(2) Family
(3) Other people's credit cards.


Lil' Debbie's priorities:
(1) Party
(2) Hillary

Fixed it for you.

 

[TexMichFan]

Iowa's caucus elects delegates to the county convention by proportionality of the vote. The caucus does NOT "elect" candidates....IOwa's process is a long drawn out affair....following are county, district and state conventions and "delegates" change as candidate strengths and weaknesses are exposed. I don't think the Iowa Delegation to the national convention is chosen until June or July. But a caucus is a caucus and NOT a primary (like NH and SC).....and again, the "super delegates" are the party elite..those folks who work year round for the Party either as volunteers or as public officials. Again, you don't have to like it and you can claim "Foul!" but this is the way it is...and the process is much better than it was 50 years ago and it has "updated" itself as needs arose. Please remember, in '08 most of the super delegates were "pledged" to Hillary but they ALL voted for Obama at the convention.
I don't understand why folks allow their panties to get all in a bunch over this.....the process really does work and nothing is ever chiseled in stone. Remember, Democrats are not a member of a political party because we are Democrats.

We just have a difference of opinion on this.

I think if someone has to get 700 more delegates thru the primary/caucus process to win the nomination than someone else that the party elite support then it is not a fair process.

 

[soybean]

Is Bernie a fringe force?

He claims to be a Democrat now for the last year or so after being a independent socialist for the past forty.

 

[joelbc1]

Is Bernie a fringe force?

Well Tex....to some he might be because he is not a "Democrat" in the pure sense of the word.....I have no problem with him and if he wins more delegates between now and June, I bet he will receive the nomination by an overwhelming majority. Bernie's message strikes home with a lot of folks. He talks about the #1 problem facing the country today and he has been doing so for 4 years. His passion is infectious. And unlike "taxes" people understand income disparity.

 

[joelbc1]

We just have a difference of opinion on this.

I think if someone has to get 700 more delegates thru the primary/caucus process to win the nomination than someone else that the party elite support then it is not a fair process.

But the super delegates are not bound to vote for any one candidate.....generally they follow the will "of the people" but they are there as a safeguard for the Party.

 

[soybean]

We just have a difference of opinion on this.

I think if someone has to get 700 more delegates thru the primary/caucus process to win the nomination than someone else that the party elite support then it is not a fair process.

Bernie has no historical connection to the Democratic party whatsoever...he simply parachuted in just in time to claim a party affiliation.

 

[TexMichFan]

He claims to be a Democrat now for the last year or so after being a independent socialist for the past forty.

He is not claiming to be Democrat.

I would have had no problem with the Democrat telling him before they started that since he was not a Democrat he would not be able to try and run as one but once you open the door to him being your nominee then you are excepting him as a Democrat.

 

[TexMichFan]

But the super delegates are not bound to vote for any one candidate.....generally they follow the will "of the people" but they are there as a safeguard for the Party.

Half of all super delegates have already decided for Hillary so the following the will of the people argument does not work for me here.

 

[joelbc1]

He is not claiming to be Democrat.

I would have had no problem with the Democrat telling him before they started that since he was not a Democrat he would not be able to try and run as one but once you open the door to him being your nominee then you are excepting him as a Democrat.

Kind of like Trump.......