Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Of course it is. And Bernie's campaign wasn't exactly built on democratic triumphs either; many of his victories were in caucuses. "Yeah, you won in an election with thousands of voters, but I managed to convince this school gymnasium of angry old white people I'm the guy."
As for the actual question of superdelegates, it absolutely is appeasement to get rid of them, but they're such a boogeyman among the Sanders faction that the only way to deflate Sanders is to defeat him without the superdelegates even being there.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:23:37 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."And leaving them a useful scapegoat is better how? Super-delegates don't do actually do anything useful and just act as a lightning rod for controversy and saltiness.
This way they can feel mollified while being deprived of a powerful angle of attack if they lose.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:23:52 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThere are an infinite number of scapegoats that people like Trump and Sanders can use. If we start running damage control on everything they might do, we become purely reactionary. That's exactly what they want.
People like them will never run out of manufactured scandals. That is entirely the point of manufacturing scandals in the first place: to ensure a steady supply.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:25:15 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.You can't win a Democratic primary if black people don't think you're keeping it 100. We'll be fine with superdelegates gone. Sanders or his successor will just self-sabotage with tin-eared race rhetoric.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
It's fallacious to assume they're all equally effective, the super-delegate system is easy to understand and obviously undemocratic thus it's the perfect thing to be used to incite populist anger and support.
If we're going to support electoral reform (which we should) we can't really oppose the removal of the super-delegate system just because someone we don't like supports it. Sure he'll win in the short term but in the longer term this will hurt him by removing a powerful symbol of establishment 'unfairness'.
Hopefully.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:26:31 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSuperdelegates are only a symbol of establishment unfairness because Bernie started whining about them. If we remove them, he'll just start whining about something else, and then that will be a powerful symbol of establishment unfairness. Again: that's how manufactured scandals work.
Doing whatever makes the populist insurgent happy all the time is how you get politics like the Tea Party and Trump.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:30:11 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.In my view, the most important antidote to Bernie is to rope him and his faction into looking more and more like the sore losers they are.
So how should the Democrats counter Sanders if he were to reemerge in the Presidentials?
edited 26th Apr '18 11:31:54 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."The most important antidote to Bernie is seriously, he's not even a registered Democrat, so why should our party give a single solitary f*ck what he thinks?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
No, that's not because America shits on party discipline. The Midwestern neanderthals that torpedoed the Democratic effort from within loved that he wasn't a party man.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:33:35 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
![]()
![]()
I couldn't disagree more, different things have varying degrees of effectiveness in making controversies out of them. Super-delegates are undemocratic and thus perfectly mesh with the Sanders conspiracy theory that the establishment cheated him.
Frankly I think it's a mistake to ignore the fact that people could (and do) have sincere issues with the super-delegate system. Furthermore I don't see why clashing with Sanders and defending a blatantly undemocratic system would be a good decision on the part of the DNC.
I see no real cost to removing them and very real benefit, Sanders is always going to make demands and thus there isn't any significant loss to submitting to them this time.
Unless we should mindlessly oppose everything he proposes?
![]()
Because people care about what he thinks? In politics just because someone is egotistical and honor-less does not mean that it's safe to ignore them.
Sure it feels good but it's just a losing proposition in the long run.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:35:13 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYes, it is. Because Bernie is just another Russia-backed troublemaker trying to tear down our institutions and generate chaos. When we allow him to dictate the political conversation and incorporate his nonsense into our party, we cheapen our ability to push back.
The superdelegate complaint was never actually valid, because Bernie lost without them. Despite that, he has consistently hammered at that talking point, because it sounds just plausible enough to sound like it means something, and helps to get people riled up against the Democrats.
This is the same thing that FOX News and the Republicans do. They have never run out of ammo, because like Sanders, neither they nor their audience actually cares if their talking points have substance. This is how populism works. We aren't up against Bernie or Trump or Rupert Murdoch; we're up against the structures that empower them.
Overcoming the misinformation campaigns that allow them to do this is more important than simply reacting to whatever nonsense they're screaming about today. We need to be focused on educating voters about why he's full of shit.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:38:05 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.For anyone interested, Fox posted the full interview to Youtube.
Of note - he reiterated the lie that "He gave them $1.8 billion in cash!" to Iran as part of the nuclear deal, which was a refund for the Iran-Contra weaponry that Iran had paid for but not received from the American government
.
And here's the issue I have with the Superdelegates - by announcing which candidate they support right off the bat, they then give said candidate a significant boost in the public eye compared to the others, and in a more substantive way than just an endorsement would do, as it tangibly pushes them closer to becoming the Democratic nominee. If they were given, say, a gag order until 3/4 of the way through the process, I'd be satisfied, as it allows the public to make determinations without that bias.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:44:27 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
Ok I don't like Sanders but if we're going to use Russian covert support as a disqualifier then we should turn against BLM and quite a few genuinely progressive people/movements who are supported simply because Russia wants chaos. I really don't think we should let them determine who's worthy of paying attention to or not, because then they'll just support everyone to poison the waters.
Honestly I think at this point it would probably be most productive to agree to disagree, super-delegates are fundamentally counter-productive in that if it's necessary to turn against the base then we've already lost and its existence is just a useful propaganda for populists like Sanders.
I would not be opposed in the slightest to their removal Sanders suggestion or otherwise.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:51:48 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMike Pompeo sworn in as Secretary of State. Confirmation vote was 57-42. All present Republicans (IE, Not Mc Cain) voted yes, as did...
- independent Sen. Angus King of Maine
- Democrats Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana
edited 26th Apr '18 11:50:38 AM by bitemytail
I would agree if BLM had ever supported Russia in turn. Bernie's fondness for the Soviet Union and his decision to vote against sanctioning Russia for election meddling are pretty alarming given Russia's support of him.
For me, I'm extremely skeptical of anything that Trump and Sanders have to say about electoral reform because of their support for Russian election meddling intended to support them in turn. Trump and Sanders are two sides of a coin trying to hand our democracy to Putin, but only Trump is recognized for the threat he poses.
I think any and every policy they propose about changing our election system needs to be interpreted with that in mind. When Sanders continues whining about superdelegates, I hear: "Russia's left-leaning tool wants to eliminate a procedure intended to limit the ability for populists like Trump to seize control of the party."
I'm extremely suspicious of why he's still talking about this after it's long been discredited as a factor in his loss, and what it means for Russia's future plans.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:53:08 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Ok that's a fair point, even if he's just being stupidly isolationist and passive (a more than possible option) that's rather damning all the same.
I think any and every policy they propose about changing our election system needs to be interpreted with that in mind. When Sanders continues whining about superdelegates, I hear: "Russia's left-leaning tool wants to eliminate a procedure intended to limit the ability for populists like Trump to seize control of the party."
The difference is that if a populist is going to win then they already have support of a significant number of people in the base and thus denying them will just cause the party to lose the election, it's like trying to prevent cancer by shooting a cancer patient in the head. It technically does it but in a horribly pointless manner.
I would much rather deprive him of future ammunition while also removing a pointless system.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:55:40 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI don't think that the superdelegate proposal is that much of a bad idea even though the people supporting it/quoted in the article are assholes.
Not on board though with other things like the caucuses, etc. which strike me as implicitly racist/classist if not necessarily by design.
Also, not sure if I posted this before, but from the way he's voted, I have to concede that obnoxious leftists were right about Jones. He's made really bad voting decisions on most if not all of Trump's nominees. Obviously he's still better than Roy Moore, and I would think there's other policy decisions where he's good. But yeah, if you're voting the same as Manchin/Republicans, you're voting wrong.
Wait, voting the same as Manchin the Southern Democrat?
....
Just like Jones?
That doesn't sound like voting wrong to me. The man represents Alabama and thus everyone should've expected him to vote with the Republicans quite a bit.
edited 26th Apr '18 11:59:09 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang"Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine; Democrats Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana"
These people will lose elections for not voting yes with the least possible resistance. Unsurprising and disappointing.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Tobias: Left-wing politicians staying away from intevertionism is standard all around the globe since at least the 1950s, I have trouble believing they were always funded by russian propagandists.
@Crimson: Yeah, Alabama and North Dakota will be really mad that their senators didn't oppose a Trump nominee.
edited 26th Apr '18 12:02:21 PM by Grafite
Life is unfair...Also we're talking about sanctions not foreign intervention, Sanders has no excuse for voting against them.
Eh, depends on what you mean by "reliably". If I recall, basically all Democratic Senators in states that went heavily for Trump have been voted against him a lot more than could honestly be expected of them.
I'd still say voting our way 80% is fairly reliable, even if doing so 90+ would obviously be our preference.
edited 26th Apr '18 12:27:30 PM by LSBK
We're also not going to be able to stop Trump's appointments without something outrageous motivating it, so choosing that as the hill to die on is pointless. He'll just find some new monster and repeat the whole process. If Manchin can keep his Democrat ass in a Senate seat by giving constituents the red meat they crave on an ultimately inevitable outcome, so be it. He's been voting with us on tentpole issues.
edited 26th Apr '18 12:29:43 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

edited 26th Apr '18 11:21:20 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.