Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Post Reply
User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Mori Chu »

Another set of states have their primaries today (Tue 6/7). Interested to see what happens with California. Hillary projected to win narrowly. Would not totally shock me if Bernie somehow won; it seems like everybody I talk to likes Bernie better than Hillary, though I know it is a very biased sample. We'll see.

I do think this business about the AP and Hillary announcing that she's already won the nomination is BS. They announce this when (a) she doesn't have the delegates necessary without counting superdelegates, (b) on the day of some huge states doing their primaries in an obvious attempt to influence those primaries. I think it's going to piss off Bernie supporters, and Hillary needs to be mending fences with them right now, not aggravating them.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Another set of states have their primaries today (Tue 6/7). Interested to see what happens with California. Hillary projected to win narrowly. Would not totally shock me if Bernie somehow won; it seems like everybody I talk to likes Bernie better than Hillary, though I know it is a very biased sample. We'll see.

I do think this business about the AP and Hillary announcing that she's already won the nomination is BS. They announce this when (a) she doesn't have the delegates necessary without counting superdelegates, (b) on the day of some huge states doing their primaries in an obvious attempt to influence those primaries. I think it's going to piss off Bernie supporters, and Hillary needs to be mending fences with them right now, not aggravating them.
Do you think her team asked the AP to announce that? Or that she pressured the remaining un-pledged super delegates to tell the AP they are voting for her?

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

Oh, and like it or not, super delegates are delegates and count like anyone else. So it doesn't matter if she only won by super delegates, it would still count. Each party has their incredibly stupid primary rules, and that is the Dems.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Mori Chu »

I wrote this post on my Facebook, if anyone cares.
I'm seeing a lot of enthusiastic messages today, celebrating Hillary's big win, a lot of excitement about the first female nominee for President. I also want to see more diversity among our elected officials, and I want to celebrate it when it arrives.

But I can't bring myself to celebrate about Hillary today. When I look at the delegate count, she has 2168 delegates earned through public votes, short of the 2353 needed to secure the nomination. When you add her superdelegates, her total increases to 2740 and gives her the majority needed to make her the presumptive nominee.

I'm not a "Bernie bro." I haven't donated to Bernie Sanders, gone to his rallies, anything like that. I honestly don't even think Bernie would be a very effective President. I think he's a bit too much of a one-issue politician and that he'd face a completely obstructionist House and Senate who would block him from accomplishing much of the revolution he wants to bring.

But I really dislike how the primary process has been handled by the Democratic party. I hate this whole superdelegate business. The party elites basically get to pick who the nominee is if the vote is at all close. And the fact that they're able to pledge who they'll vote for (Hillary) so early has a big influence on the public votes to follow. The public has heard for months that Hillary is way ahead, when that simply wasn't true except for these pledged superdelegates.

I see a lot of Hillary supporters saying that she has a big lead in the popular vote anyway, and that the superdelegates shouldn't switch their votes to Bernie because that would be going against the will of the people. Yes, I agree with that, in a literal sense. But: (a) There shouldn't be any superdelegates in the first place, and (b) the "pledges" of the superdelegates has swayed the popular vote to a degree that's likely significant but hard to prove. Lots of people vote for the candidate who is ahead, the one they think can and will win (and is currently winning) the election.

The Associated Press even jumped the gun and announced Hillary as the nominee the morning of the California primary, before she even had the necessary delegate count, even if you did include the superdelegates. This, again, has a big influence on the vote that day. It makes people less likely to turn out and vote if they think the election is already over.

I don't want to turn this into an attack on Hillary herself, nor a praise for Bernie or his policies. And I definitely don't want to talk about D****d T***p. To me it isn't about the merits of the individual candidates. I just feel like the people didn't really decide this primary. The party elites and superdelegates made the decision early on that Hillary would be the nominee, and the rest has been for show.
I realize that Hillary has many millions of enthusiastic supporters, and I myself do think that she's an effective politician and would in many ways be an effective President. When she receives the nomination, it will be a big day for women and for inclusiveness/diversity in politics, an example and an inspiration for so many people all over the country. I want to celebrate that, too.

But I think the deck has been stacked, and it's left a bad taste in my mouth. I feel disaffected as a voter, that my vote doesn't really matter, that the outcome has been decided long before I enter my polling place. The negative impact of that exceeds the joy I will feel for seeing the first female Presidential nominee.

I hope that the Bernie supporters use their unified energy and passion to push the Democratic party to get rid of superdelegates. I want to see the nominee be decided solely by the votes of the people in each state, period.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

I want to see the nominee be decided solely by the votes of the people in each state, period.
Then we should do away with the republic we have and go to a true democracy. That may sound ridiculous, but your entire post really boils down to that.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Mori Chu »

I don't mind there being parties and nominees and an electoral college (though I think each state should split its electoral votes proportionally).

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I don't mind there being parties and nominees and an electoral college (though I think each state should split its electoral votes proportionally).
But the electors are not obligated by any federal laws to vote for the candidate that got the most votes in their state.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

I thought this summed it up nicely:
Even If Sanders Gets What He Wants, He Still Loses
Despite being beaten badly in New Jersey and California Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is soldiering on and refusing to admit defeat. He thinks that the superdelegates can yet hand him the nomination. In particular, he thinks that superdelegates in states that he won should vote for him at the convention. Let's see how that would work out. The second and third columns below give the number of pledged and superdelegates each state (and territory) has, total. The next two columns give the number of pledged delegates Clinton and Sanders have won, respectively.

Image

To start with, there is one more primary to go, in D.C. next Tuesday. Nearly all Democrats in D.C. are either black or Democratic Party insiders, so Clinton is going to sweep that contest. Let's assume Sanders does unexpectedly well there and gets 5 of the 20 delegates, which is probably overly optimistic for him. Then he would have 1,809 pledged delegates.

What Sanders has asked for is for the superdelegates to vote the way their states voted. If they all do that, winner take all, he picks up the super delegates in the "Sanders WTA" column, giving him 184 super delegates and a total of 1,993 delegates, still 390 delegates short of a majority, so Hillary Clinton still wins by a very large margin.

Now suppose Sanders, who says he is good at arithmetic, is also good at Excel. He could easily deduce the fact that he is better off asking the superdelegates in all states to be allocated in proportion to the pledged delegates so he can get some delegates in the big states he lost, even if that means losing a handful of delegates in the small states he won. With this allocation, he gets 322 superdelegates, for a total of 2131. Now he is only 252 delegates shy of a majority, so Clinton's lead is reduced to just over 500 delegates. That doesn't do the trick, either. What he needs is for the superdelegates in the states he won to all vote for him and for a very large number of delegates in states he lost to override the will of the voters and vote for him anyway, because he really wants to be the nominee very much. That's going to be a tough sell. (V)

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Mori Chu »

The point isn't that Bernie is ahead or should be ahead, nor that all the superdelegates should flop to him and overrule the public vote. The point is that the public early "pledging" of superdelegate to Hillary has made it look like she's way ahead for months, when really she hasn't been way ahead without the superdelegates. And that this perceived lead has likely influenced the voting in Hillary's favor, which is unfair.

I don't think Bernie should win or be the nominee, but I do wish they would reform the system to remove superdelegates or reduce their number or insist that they not "pledge" for any candidate until the convention.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:The point isn't that Bernie is ahead or should be ahead, nor that all the superdelegates should flop to him and overrule the public vote. The point is that the public early "pledging" of superdelegate to Hillary has made it look like she's way ahead for months, when really she hasn't been way ahead without the superdelegates. And that this perceived lead has likely influenced the voting in Hillary's favor, which is unfair.

I don't think Bernie should win or be the nominee, but I do wish they would reform the system to remove superdelegates or reduce their number or insist that they not "pledge" for any candidate until the convention.
Pledging just means that you publicly say who you are voting for. They don't count more than any other vote. I would be in favor of them only announcing their pledge after their state votes.

And just for the record, I agree they are stupid, just like the stupid rules on the GOP side about how you have to vote with each round at the convention.

User avatar
Superbone
Posts: 33490
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA (Phoenix Native)

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Superbone »

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:And that this perceived lead has likely influenced the voting in Hillary's favor, which is unfair.
That doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. I would think it would have the opposite effect.
"Be Legendary."

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Indy »

Superbone wrote:
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:And that this perceived lead has likely influenced the voting in Hillary's favor, which is unfair.
That doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. I would think it would have the opposite effect.
Most people are sheep. But Suns fans are always rooting for underdogs.

User avatar
Superbone
Posts: 33490
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA (Phoenix Native)

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Superbone »

Indy wrote:
Superbone wrote:
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:And that this perceived lead has likely influenced the voting in Hillary's favor, which is unfair.
That doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. I would think it would have the opposite effect.
Most people are sheep. But Suns fans are always rooting for underdogs.
That must be it. :D
"Be Legendary."

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Super Tuesday part X (California etc)

Post by Nodack »

Great Facebook post Mori. I couldn't agree more. I guess the two party's get to make up their own rules.

Post Reply