pre-Democratic convention discussion LATEST: Sanders supporters protesting

[Gass3268]

Interesting that Brown and Kaine are the only swing state 2018 Senators speaking.

[swf541]

Interesting that Brown and Kaine are the only swing state 2018 Senators speaking.

Casey doesnt count?

Though I think he will do fine, he is fairly popular even in some of the rural areas compared to other dems

[Gass3268]

Interesting that Brown and Kaine are the only swing state 2018 Senators speaking.

Casey doesnt count?

Though I think he will do fine, he is fairly popular even in some of the rural areas compared to other dems

For some reason I thought Casey was up in 2020. My mistake.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Interesting that Brown and Kaine are the only swing state 2018 Senators speaking.

Casey doesnt count?

Though I think he will do fine, he is fairly popular even in some of the rural areas compared to other dems

For some reason I thought Casey was up in 2020. My mistake.
Casey is up in 2018. Pat Toomey's the one up this year.

[Blue3]

Are O'Malley, Webb, or Chafee expected to speak?

[Gass3268]

Are O'Malley, Webb, or Chafee expected to speak?

O'Malley yes, Chaffee and Webb no.

[Devout Centrist]

Are O'Malley, Webb, or Chafee expected to speak?

O'Malley yes, Chaffee and Webb no.

Webb would get on stage and urge the audience to vote for Trump.

[IceSpear]

LOL at the idea of inviting Webb and Chafee.

[Likely Voter]

Proposal to eliminate supers was defeated in rules committee but could end up on the floor via minority report

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-allies-226068

[IceSpear]

Proposal to eliminate supers was defeated in rules committee but could end up on the floor via minority report

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-allies-226068

Gross. Dems are asking for trouble here. It's blatantly obvious that superdelegates have outlived their usefulness (actually, they've never had any to begin with.)

If they're ever so desperate that they're willing to disregard democracy and cause a massive clusterf**k, they could just unbind the delegates altogether. So I really don't see what purpose the supers serve.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Proposal to eliminate supers was defeated in rules committee but could end up on the floor via minority report

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-allies-226068

Gross. Dems are asking for trouble here. It's blatantly obvious that superdelegates have outlived their usefulness (actually, they've never had any to begin with.)

If they're ever so desperate that they're willing to disregard democracy and cause a massive clusterf**k, they could just unbind the delegates altogether. So I really don't see what purpose the supers serve.

With the supers, the establishment has the power to save the party from a bad nominee. Yes, the supers have never collectively gone against the pledged delegate winner, but if the democrats were about to screw themselves over in what they think is a competitive GE (if you're going to ask why they didn't overthrow Mondale, that's probably because they knew Reagan was unbeatable.), the pressure would be on the supers big time.

With unbinding everyone, you have to go through the trouble of actually changing the rules. With that, the "dangerous democratic winner" would do what they could to stack the committee with their members, like Trump did to a point (although there was some establishment anti-unbinding people) and the attempt to change the rules could easily fail. With the superdelegates, there's no rule change needed. You already have the unbound delegates. All they have to do is vote how they need to in the roll call vote to save the party.

In fact, there's nothing stopping the supers from choosing Bernie, if they wanted to. Clinton isn't at 2383 with pledged alone (Sanders didn't formally submit the papers to suspend his campaign or release his delegates).

Ultimately, with Trump winning and Sanders coming way too close to doing so, I just don't think voters should be trusted to do what's right for the party at the presidential level. Dems should keep supers, and Repubs should have them. There's a check in the general with the actual real life electors that are free to overturn the actual PV in all but two states (a bunch more states punish the electors for doing so, but only two actually throw out the votes), there's no reason a similar check shouldn't be done in the primary. The founding fathers had the right idea when they made the presidency an indirect election, and this year shows it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Nothing exciting like Make America ____ Again theme for the days?

[The Other Castro]

Nothing exciting like Make America ____ Again theme for the days?

They have:

Night 1: United Together
Night 2: A Lifetime of Fighting for Children and Families
Night 3: Working Together
Night 4: Stronger Together

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see how this goes.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see how this goes.

That would be a good compromise. When does it get voted on?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Proposal to eliminate supers was defeated in rules committee but could end up on the floor via minority report

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-allies-226068

Gross. Dems are asking for trouble here. It's blatantly obvious that superdelegates have outlived their usefulness (actually, they've never had any to begin with.)

If they're ever so desperate that they're willing to disregard democracy and cause a massive clusterf**k, they could just unbind the delegates altogether. So I really don't see what purpose the supers serve.

I think the Republicans have given us a prime example of why Democrats have superdelegates.

[Likely Voter]

compromise plan wins overwhelmingly...so no floor fight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/23/democrats-vote-to-bind-most-superdelegates-to-state-primary-results/

Note: I made a thread about the impact on future elections in the Process subforum
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241542.msg5176173#msg5176173

For purposes of the 2016 election this beef between the campaigns appears to have been solved so likely no drama at the DNC over it

[IceSpear]

compromise plan wins overwhelmingly...so no floor fight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/23/democrats-vote-to-bind-most-superdelegates-to-state-primary-results/

Stupendous news!

[Blue3]

I feel like it could have gone a lot farther, but some superdelegate reform is better than none.



Has an updated speakers list been revealed?

And are Dems having a keynote speaker this year?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yahoo

Assholes.  Can't wait for the floor fight.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yahoo

Assholes.  Can't wait for the floor fight.

Did you not read the part above that a compromise had passed?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ah, sorry.  My thread got merged and I didn't see that there was a compromise made.

Glad it's been done.  That's big.

[Likely Voter]

Here is the cspan page for the DNC with the beginnings of a schedule.

http://www.c-span.org/convention/?party=dnc

So far they havent populated much beyond the headliners but for the RNC it was pretty well filled out by Day 1 so check back

[Gass3268]

Ah, sorry.  My thread got merged and I didn't see that there was a compromise made.

Glad it's been done.  That's big.

Ah makes sense!

[Gass3268]

Also there was the creation of a "unity commission" to examine and implement further chances to the nominating process