Thursday, June 1, 2017

Democrats Not being Very democratic

This Super Delegate thing confuses me...  Especially from a party that each and every vote must matter...  Thoughts?  CNN DNC and Super Delegates

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, it is a republic, not a democracy, as Republicans frequently, if irrelevantly, explain to me. As a Democrat, I try to have the courtesy not to comment on the internal rules and what not of the other party. But I don't expect the same treatment from Republicans concerning the workings of our party. When they are thoughtful, and sincere, such as the analyses we have received from them concerning super delegates, we welcome them. In my case, this is particularly true since Republicans seem to care about these particular issues much more deeply and more passionately than I do.

==Hiram

Anonymous said...

Do you think it's wrong for me as a Democrat, to care so little about the inner workings of the Republican PartY? In the interests of the republic, should we get copies of their rule book, and make instructive marginal notations and then send them off to Republican leadership?

--Hiram

John said...

As I said, I mostly find it ironic. The party who complains about the electoral college and state weighted voting... Has their own version of it in their internal process.

Anonymous said...

I mostly find it ironic

As a Democrat, I find it hard to care enough about the matter to find it ironic or not. It's such and inside baseball sort of a deal. Our party is a coalition of a lot different and often conflicting interests, and in order to recognize that, sometimes we do things that viewed in isolation that look a bit sill, ironic even.

Generally speaking, our party does lots of things internally, that we would find totally unacceptable in the broader electoral context. We check ID's at conventions, for example, something that we fiercely oppose at general elections. There are certainly reasons for that, but I do concede the irony of the practice is particularly poignant.

--Hiram

Sean said...

I don't think that the fact that an organization has different rules for governing itself than what we expect in a general election is ironic at all. You can't just walk in off the street and vote at the General Mills shareholder meeting, for instance. You have to actually own stock and be an investor in the company. There are good reasons for that, just as there are good reasons for there to be fewer hurdles when it comes to a general election.

John said...

But it is the concept of Super Delegates that I find amusing. The idea that the party can not trust the voters to make the correct call.

Sean said...

"The idea that the party can not trust the voters to make the correct call."

Given that there's never been a Democratic nomination tipped by superdelegates -- never even close, by the way -- I'm not sure that statement is operative.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that the fact that an organization has different rules for governing itself than what we expect in a general election is ironic at all.

It's ironic when it suggests one thing and does something else, as we Democrats do. It's not a big deal for me. I would never suggest that avoidance of the possibility of irony should influence our decision making, but irony is out there for it's fans to find.

My own unironic view is that the voters should choose the delegates, but that isn't without it's problems too. I have never thought the superdelegate thing mattered much, irony or not. Perhaps a dash of irony would help.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Given that there's never been a Democratic nomination tipped by superdelegates -- never even close, by the way -- I'm not sure that statement is operative

It's always a question too, of what matters and how it matters. The Russian stuff genuinely threatens to bring down the Trump administration. Yet polling shows that few Americans care about it. Politics is more complicated than it seems at times.

--Hiram

John said...

Food for Thought.
NewsWeek Lawsuit

Anonymous said...

Say what you will, but we nominated Hillary, and the other party with their wondrous democratic procedures nominated Trump. Whatever the nature of the process, the candidate we nominated won the popular vote by 2.8 million. We must be doing something right.

--Hiram

John said...

Yes the Democrats selected a candidate who was really popular in California and the New England States. The Democrats can not win the Presidency with that candidate, I mean she lost to Trump...

What could be more embarrassing?

John said...

I wanted to focus on this map

Anonymous said...

What could be more embarrassing?

Well, lots of things. We have a president who is unfit for office and an unsuitable role model for children. We have a president who even Fox News points out, is the target of ridicule from other world leaders. We have a president who despite all evidence to the contrary, thinks Barack Obama was born in Kenya. We have a president who openly solicited help from a foreign power during his campaign. Or in the alternative, joked about openly soliciting help from a foreign power during his campaign.

Never in my lifetime have I ever thought that I would be so constantly embarrassed by our political leadership. In terms of embarassment and humiliation there has never been anything comparable to the fact that Donald Trump, a huckster and a con man, is the president of the United States.

--Hiram

John said...

And as I said... Hillary did so poorly that she lost to this dufus...

John said...

One persons view.
CNN Secret to DEMs Winning