Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

I mean, there's plenty to be said about Clinton vs. Sanders, but claiming that she performs better against the GOP field isn't supported by the evidence.

Gotcha, Nate Silver, Sam Wang, 95% of the democratic leadership and the republican superPacs are all going without evidence.

The party leadership supporting the candidate they want? Yeah, that's definitely more important than voter opinion. The attack ads being pointed at the candidate who's half-made of (to their base, anyways) low-hanging fruits seems equally obvious and equally pointless. If I had to hazard a guess, their line of thought is that in the event of Trump splitting the GOP, Clinton will be more likely to draw moderate votes than Sanders.

I mean, hell, if Clinton wins the nomination because a bunch of superdelegates went to her before primary votes were cast, that's just one more reason to throw my hat in with the President America Deserves. I'd almost rather suffer through four years of utter hell watching the country fall apart maybe followed by real reform rather than another four-to-eight of a center-line candidate supporting the same money machine with all the problems of that further increasing the likelihood of an extremist on the right managing to use it to pull themselves into the Oval Office after it's over.

[smjjames]

Though I guess it does beg the question of how the system would fare if there were superdelegates in the presidential election.

Isn't the Eelectoral College a rough equivalent?

[SalmonGod]

Ok.  I still don't understand how that explains the superdelegate issue, but at least I understand why I found the progression non-sequiter.

[mainiac]

Though I guess it does beg the question of how the system would fare if there were superdelegates in the presidential election.

The primaries are trying to do something different from a general election.  Primarys are trying to assemble a winning coalition.

Could be a matter of the party establishment superseding the popular vote in order to ensure the more "electable" candidate wins. Though frankly, the pure volume of superdelegates in my opinion is way too high- it should be for tiebreakers and other way-too-close situations.

It's 7%, that's only enough to swing 1 primary since the system was set up.

[smjjames]

Yeah, it's not neccesarily the superdelegate system itself that I'm complaining about, it's the fact that she has a massive lead from the start.

Granted it largely became that way because of Clintons inevitability and what looked like a weak field of opponents.

Salmongod, not sure if you realize, but those superdelegates can change sides at any time up to the convention, meaning, it's not fixed.

[smjjames]

Maybe we need literal "coalition" candidates? Lower candidates during the primaries can pool in their delegates with the expectation of having some influence should the victor win office?

Oh wait, I just described parliamentary politics.

That's what the conventions are for.

edit: Half expected a response between the two posts.

[mainiac]

That's because no candidate has covered her base with the party as much as Clinton and Sanders has done so very, very little.

[SalmonGod]

It's 7%, that's only enough to swing 1 primary since the system was set up.

So my math here is wrong?  Or did I find bad information?  Because it looks like more than that.

Delegates needed to win the nomination: 2,382

Superdelegates already pledged to Clinton: 394
Percentage of delegates needed for nomination provided by superdelegate pledges: 16.5%

Superdelegates already pledged to Sanders: 44
Percentage of delegates needed for nomination provided by superdelegate pledges: 1.8%

Salmongod, not sure if you realize, but those superdelegates can change sides at any time up to the convention, meaning, it's not fixed.

Yeah, I get that.  How often do they switch on their pledges, historically?

[smjjames]

Salmongod, not sure if you realize, but those superdelegates can change sides at any time up to the convention, meaning, it's not fixed.

Yeah, I get that.  How often do they switch on their pledges, historically?

Not sure how to find information on how often they switch pledges (yeah, yeah, I know, use google, just not sure where I might find it), but I know a whole bunch of them jumped ship from Clinton to Obama in 2008.

[RedKing]

It is not 7%. The number of superdelegates varies from cycle to cycle, but there will be roughly 712 superdelegates in this primary, out of a total of 4763 delegates. That's just shy of 15% (14.95%, to be exact). Furthermore, as a candidate only needs to get to 50%+1 to win, they need only 2382 to win. If all the superdelegates went in the same direction, that would give them nearly 30% (29.9%) of the target needed, before any primary-awarded delegates are tallied. A candidate could conceivably win up to 58.7% of the awarded delegates and still lose due to superdelegates. And that's just in a two-person race. In a multi-candidate race where the awarded delegates are more thinly dispersed, the superdelegates' kingmaking potential is even greater.

I'm not saying the primaries aren't important, but I'm not dismissing the superdelegates as meaningless either. They are definitely a fingertip on the scales.

 

[Helgoland]

Someone tell me if I understand correctly: The whole superdelegate system is basically meant to inject a bit of parliamentarism into the process, right? To give the party as an entity of its own a say in the process, along the lines of 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'?

[RedKing]

That's a hospitable way of putting it, yes. I'd say it's more alike the lines of "Entrenched power gonna entrench."
In theory, it would be to stop a charismatic nut like Trump from winning the nomination and dooming the party. But in practice, it can also be used to tip the scales in favor of an establishment politician who has curried a lot of favor and ties within the party. It's the old boys' network codified.

[mainiac]

So my math here is wrong?  Or did I find bad information?  Because it looks like more than that.

I must have been mixing it up with something.

[mainiac]

Someone tell me if I understand correctly: The whole superdelegate system is basically meant to inject a bit of parliamentarism into the process, right? To give the party as an entity of its own a say in the process, along the lines of 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'?

This would explain everything as I am a relentless hater of the presidential system and greatly favor parliamentarianism.

[smjjames]

Salmongod, not sure if you realize, but those superdelegates can change sides at any time up to the convention, meaning, it's not fixed.

Yeah, I get that.  How often do they switch on their pledges, historically?

I can't seem to get to anywhere past 2008, but the whole migrations of the delegates in 2008 should give you an idea.