politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can anyone make the case that either of these candidates was forced? They both won overwhelmingly more votes more than the next closest candidate.
In 2016 and 2020 alike Bernie Sanders was winning the primaries. Each time the party pushed the scales away from the popular candidate.
In 2016 the superdelegates, which is essentially party establishment, backed Hillary in spite of the primary votes supporting Bernie to tip the scales. It caused the convention rules to be changed in 2018 so superdelegates can only vote in a contested convention instead of being able to just pick their chosen candidate.
In 2020 with the rule changes you had a few maneuvers in the primaries designed to hamstring Bernie and split votes. Namely by having Warren stay in the race and all the moderates and conservatives drop out and back Biden. You also have Clyburn in South Carolina. They manufactured consent for Biden being the popular candidate.
Definitely was a case for a forced candidate by the party establishment to control the options the people could choose from.
The only point at which sanders was winning the primary in 2016 was after like the first couple of primaries. Quickly after that, Clinton started to crush him. She won the popular vote, by far, so trying to pin it on super delegates doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Without them, she still crushed him. I don't see any way to argue that Clinton was forced on the democratic party.
In 2020, youre right a bunch of moderates were splitting the vote, they dropped out and all of the moderate votes went to a single moderate candidate. There's no doubt they picked the one who they thought had the best chance of beating trump. However, that candidate went on to crush the total of both sanders and warren put together in the popular vote. He won a majority of all votes cast, not just most of everyone remaining. Clearly the moderate candidate better reflected the will of the voters.
Maybe one could argue that some other moderate candidate got screwed, but this a problem with the fptp voting system where if all the moderates stayed in, sanders, someone who doesn't (unfortunately) represent the will of the voters likely would have won. I don't see how that would have been better representation of the will of the voters.
In 2016 the superdelegates coming out early and in support of Hillary was specifically to stunt the momentum Bernie was showing early on. That reality is why the party had to change the rules in 2018.
In 2020 the DNC similarly made effort to contest the convention to sidestep the 2018 rule changes to allow the superdelegates once again the room to tip the scales.
The thing to keep in mind is this happens outside the presidential elections. The state and local elections with the Democratic Party also follow this pattern. Progressive suppression is their mode of operation, it is just people only engage in politics once every four years typically.
Also, slightly aside you also had media storms expressingly fear and loathing about progressive candidates like Sanders, like suggesting public executions in central park should he win.
So you're saying that people were basing their votes on how the superdelegates were voting? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Do you have any information to back this up? Either way, how is the party having a preference for a candidate forcing it on everyone?
At the end of the day, both Clinton and Biden received far more votes than any progressive candidate. The democratic party is just not that progressive. Whether or not people are manipulated into feeling this way doesn't change the fact that it's not a forced thing. They voted this way.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is not that progressive. That's the point I am addressing.
Yet: progressive policy has significant support across the voting base and across both parties. There is an active suppression of any individual attempting to be a politician promoting and passing progressive policy. It is what the DNC has explicitly done at the minimum since 2010. (But essentially since Reagan.)
Now as far as people voting based on the lead of superdelegates? Yeah. Superdelegates are party leaders. Rejecting the notion party leaders influence the primary is like saying Trump endorsements don't impact GOP candidates. (Incidentally Republicans also have this dynamic of being fed terrible and unteneble candidates.) But the influence of leadership certainly has an effect especially in an environment where no one is talking about policies and instead nebulous concepts like 'electability.'
I couldn't name a single superdelegate and equating it to the most popular politician in the Republican party doesn't pass the sniff test to me. They way I read this is that there is nothing that indicates people are voting based on the superdelegates.
But, again, the original claim is that they were forced on us. The other is that they are promoting candidates. These aren't the same thing.
That is how the primary process works: it isn't an election day where a winner is decided. It is an ongoing process over time where candidates promote and modify their platforms based on the active results of each staggered vote.
So when that process is manipulated by a body of party officials with the ability to swing close conventions by 15 points, you have the function of forcing a predetermined result.
Republicans don't have superdelegates like the DNC, which is why you may have had trouble with that. The GOPs equivalent are still obligated to vote for the candidate the primary voters chose by popular vote at the convention. The DNC superdelegates don't have that obligation. They are uniquely equipped to be able to vote against the popular vote on their own volition.
If the argument is that we should get rid of superdelegates, I absolutely agree. But, again, the last two winners crushed the next closest candidates in the popular vote so arguing that the superdelegates were the reason makes no sense.
You'll have to explain to me what you think I'm having trouble with and what in my post leads you to believe that.
But you still have not supported the assertion that superdelegates have significant influence on the way people vote.
The sniff test part.
As far as supporting the assertion: The superdelegates are party leadership and standing elected members. They are a 15% voting block with the direct power to influence a primary election by claiming a candidate is or is not 'electable' based on their own support. They are not beholden to the voters results on how they vote. This gives them a considerable flex during the primary process to shape and control the party platform.
Like I said with the DNC primary: the debate about 'electability' has been the recurring theme. This is because the superdelegate voting bloc is declaring essentially a 15 point penalty in any given alternative candidate. They have a license to poison wells so to speak, and they make that known. They have the power to declare any candidate unelectable and have a mechanism to back that up.
Again here in 2024 the DNC is insisting Biden be the only option. Biden at this rate will again win the popular vote in the primary, the primary voters will notwithstanding. If you see no problem there then, well, you don't.
And many people are convinced at the poll to vote for the more 'electable' candidate when the stakes are where they are currently. It is the main argument I read and see every day.
No one is denying this. I've pointed out that Biden and Clinton both crushed everyone else in popular vote. So pointing to super delegates makes no sense when claiming they were forced on the party. Someone (you?) claimed people are influenced by the superdelegates votes. I asked if there was anything to back this assertion up. Still have seen nothing to support the claim.
And, again, them having a preference and pushing a candidate is not "forcing" anything. Can the SD tip the balance in a close election to pick a candidate that didn't win the popular vote? Sure, but this happened neither in 2016 nor 2020. So the constant insistence on superdelegates when we are talking about a case where the superdelegates did not change the outcome just makes no sense.
To be clear, we both agree that super delegates should go away. It should be something like the Star system or ranked choice system.
My point is the primary system is a process, not a one time vote. If you look at the primary vote as a final and singular number, then yeah the candidate won the primary with the popular vote.
But the primaries take place over time. The results of the initial primary states absolutely impact the votes of the later states. In the last two election cycles the initial momentum by Sanders was met with resistance and attack ads. There is clearly no dispute that the SDs have influence which they exert.
So it appears this boils down to a concern that you have with the word usage of 'forced'. Which is kind of a meaningless hangup given the reality of the electoral process and this thread of conversation.
This is so vague to the point it's meaningless. It seems, based on the context, that you think the super delegates were running the attack ads. Is this accurate? Politicians and their supporters attack each other all the time. Sanders likewise attacked Clinton and Biden. It's an empty point.
I'm hung up on the word because it means something very different than the way it was used. As I've already said, if it's really about thinking we should do away with the SD system, we both agree. You could simply say that's what you meant by the term force and we could move on. However, you're attempting to make it my issue, when all I did was point out that nothing was forced, Sanders was just beat. You've offered up nothing other than vague accusations about how the fact that SD exist and favored Clinton/Biden, that somehow "forced" them onto us.
I think it seems that way if you look at the outcomes and ignore the process which led to said outcome.
You get it. But word usage seems to be a stickler for you and I honestly can't help you navigate that. I call it forcing. You wouldn't. The overall point is tangible enough that it doesn't need further elaboration for the audience.
If Super Tuesday had been a week or two later, after the lockdowns got serious, I think we would have President Sanders or Yang. But the world was still mostly normal besides Trump's bs, so a return to status quo candidate carried the day.