• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

John Lewis Endorses Keith Ellison for DNC Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because you keep wanting to not admit that the early superdelegate support, DNC behind the scenes meddling by DWS with places like MSNBC when they DARED to speak against her, etc.

You just dont wanna talk about that. That early superdelegate support was unfair, and gives a erroneous sense of lead that doesn't exist.

"But Republicans dont have superdelegates, and they wish they did now!"

Fuck that. The PEOPLE got what they wanted. Better or worse.

Superdelegates would have possibly prevented someone like Trump from getting the nomination. That's as strong an argument for them as any.

besides, THE PEOPLE wanted Hillary Clinton, as you can tell by her popular vote leads in both the primary and general election.
 

Xe4

Banned
Oh my god, I knew it would happen but is every fucking battle in the Democratic Party going to be this proxy Clinton vs. Sanders horseshit?

I mean I think it's telling that Ellison started out with both establishment and Sanders wing support (endorsements by Schumer and Reid, alongside Warren and Sanders) but people still want to make it this "Keith vs. THE MAAAAAN" thing.

Like gee, someone who supported Clinton supports Keith? Wacky and crazy! In spite of the fact that Keith and Bernie are not the same candidate, they're not running for the same job and 2017 is not 2016.

Just give it a fucking rest.
Yup. This can't be said enough.
 
By the way, does Ellison or Perez have a strong stance on what they're going to do about super delegates, if anything?

You'd think that'd be one of the bigger issues facing them for this position.
Seems to be (for Ellison) to let the unity commission figure it out.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/dnc-candidates-superdelegates-232470

I know their was some talk about cutting it down to only elected Reps, Governors and Senators, which eh. I'd rather the whole system just be eliminated not because I particularly care one way or the other, it's just obnoxious when people blame them for their candidate losing and even more obnoxious when they try to pull this eleventh hour "THE SUPERDELEGATES DON'T VOTE UNTIL AUGUST!!!!" silliness.

Because you know, nothing demonstrates principles like spending the entire election season railing against this institution for the hypothetical event that they'll overrule the will of the people, and then demanding they overrule the will of the people when the will of the people isn't you.

One reform I wouldn't mind seeing is the primary process being compressed into like, two months tops. The primary going on as long as it did last year only fed the delusion that Bernie would turn it around when he obviously wasn't. I can't tell you how many times I saw that stupid meme that went "When you're down 400 delegates, and realize California has 537" (whatever the number was) That's right, Bernie will win 80% of the vote in California. Of fucking course.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Superdelegates would have possibly prevented someone like Trump from getting the nomination. That's as strong an argument for them as any.

besides, THE PEOPLE wanted Hillary Clinton, as you can tell by her popular vote leads in both the primary and general election.

Why do people keep saying this like it matters? Especially in the GE. She didn't have the votes where it counted.
 
Why do people keep saying this like it matters? Especially in the GE. She didn't have the votes where it counted.
So the superdelegates should have overrode the will of the people to install a more electable candidate? Isn't that exactly what Sanders supporters accuse the DNC of doing?

If Clinton was such a bad candidate that she lost the GE what does that say about Sanders losing to Clinton in the primary? It's not the DNC's fault that Sanders completely wrote off the South. When South Carolina came in with a 50-point margin for Clinton I knew his campaign wasn't going anywhere.

Obama was able to beat Clinton in 08 by making serious inroads with minority voters and young voters. Sanders generally only had success with the second, and least reliable of those two.
 
Why do people keep saying this like it matters? Especially in the GE. She didn't have the votes where it counted.

It was a direct response to your post. If you don't think it's relevant, don't bring it up in the first place by acting like the majority of people didn't get to be represented by who they voted for in the Democrats' primary.
 
Superdelegates would have possibly prevented someone like Trump from getting the nomination. That's as strong an argument for them as any.

besides, THE PEOPLE wanted Hillary Clinton, as you can tell by her popular vote leads in both the primary and general election.
I can't even begin to imagine how the Democrat party platform could produce a result anything like Donald Trump. Doesn't matter how few superdelegates there are or how neoliberal democrats become. I'm saying this as a big Bernie supporter that was not happy at all with the DNC since before the 2016 primary. The parties are just not the same in that respect at all. There is an actual respect for government institutions and the governmental process in the Democratic party that I just don't see in the Republican party anymore.
 
I can't even begin to imagine how the Democrat party platform could produce a result anything like Donald Trump. Doesn't matter how few superdelegates there are or how neoliberal democrats become. I'm saying this as a big Bernie supporter that was not happy at all with the DNC since before the 2016 primary. The parties are just not the same in that respect at all. There is an actual respect for government institutions and the governmental process in the Democratic party that I just don't see in the Republican party anymore.

Someone in the mold of Huey Long would be a possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom