Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

Nobody including you. You have no basis for making statements about what half of any population thinks without some reason. Your posts are full of these kinds of assertion. I pulled out the easiest point to assail, but others have found the same lack of basis in many of the things you post. The book is full of garbage. However what I actually called a superstitious would be a belief by half of the black people in NY that they are targeted for genocide.

Yes, that is true, and legal. But it still stinks given that there is an illusion to the contrary. But you correctly state reality. No argument there.I don't think Trump is being naive though. I think he is posturing. He understands that there is an appearance of impropriety here that some of the electorate will buy into. Some folks will rally behind Trump if it appears that the establishment is screwing him over. He may actually be able to wring out some concessions for the GOP as well. Instead of calling it naive, I see it as akin to an NBA coach whining about not missed calls after a game. No, the whining won't change the game outcome, but it may influence how future games get called.

I can understand what you are getting at but the characterization is way off base.Caucuses and the ground organization are true grassroots politics at its democratic best. You talk up your neighbors and friends, even going door-to-door to meet and greet. Then you invite like supporters over to your house for a Saturday afternoon BBQ and talk about the candidates and the issues. Figure out who can go to the caucus next Tuesday night, how y’all can get there, plan meeting at Olive Garden for dinner before then let’s go out for a beer after.This is done in every neighborhood in the precinct. On caucus night, if you’re really good, you have 30-40 people attend. You discuss the candidates and the issues and you pass some resolutions then you select which 5 of you are going to go as your representatives to the district caucus. Since your organization was more better than the other guys you have more votes at this little precinct caucus and your 5 people get selected to go to district. Then you go drink beer.This happens over and over for each precinct in the district where, depending on the party rules, you directly select a few delegates to the national convention as well as select your district’s reps to the state convention where the other state-wide delegates will be determined.He with the most effective ground organization will prevail in the resulting delegate selections. He who ignores the grassroots ends up bitching about how unfair, how rigged, the process is. Bullshit.To me, this far more effective and representative of a political party’s supporters and the philosophy it extends. These are plain ordinary motivated people willing to spend the time, and their dinner and beer money, getting engaged in the process of selecting their leaders rather than just standing in queue waiting to pull a lever because you like the idea of a big fence.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I just read Parade (the one in the Washington Post) from Sunday and they said parties can set whatever rules they want to select their candidates. The government has no say or rules (if I remember the article correctly).It was in an article (featured on the cover) of the electoral college. The EC was the main issue. April 23, 2016.That article text might then (indirectly) explain why and how Democrats have super delegates giving 15% to the "establishment favorite", and how Lyndon Larouche got his delegates "stolen" (erased and unseated at the convention for holding views the party disagrees with) in 1996 and 2000.On the GOP side.Ron Paul got enough delegates in 2012, by flooding conventions in many states (that Romney otherwise won the popular vote - which turned out to be "just a beauty contest" with no teeth), that Romney might not have won on the first ballot, but the party changed the rules (late in the summer after primaries were over) saying that the first ballot can only see the Paul voters vote for Paul if he won at least 6 or 8 states. He might not have even been allowed on the ballot, but I forget. His delegates were seated by couldn't vote for him. Somehow, they still gave him a nearly unanimous vote in Minnesota ( though Santorum won and Paul only got about 20% of the popular vote) and Nevada (where Romney won easily, and Gingrich came in 2nd), but other states voted in a (pro-Romney ) way that followed the media narrative that Paul delegates couldn't vote for Paul.I forget exactly. In 2008 Romney got 50% in Nevada (Paul got 32%) but dropped out. Paul supporters said "McCain and the GOP stole Paul votes at the convention".Mark Levin was saying (with experts backing his lawyerly opinion up) that the 2012 rules would only allow Trump and Cruz on the first ballot and all other delegates should be "freed" to vote for one or the other.The party fears that just 2 candidates on the ballot would enable about 300-400 "freed" delegates (Kasich, Rubio, Carson, etc.) to give a few dozen (or so) to Trump on the first ballot, before the Cruz "flood" can vote on the 2nd ballot.The party says they can change the 2012 rules before the 2016 convention.

It seems that 1996 DNC chairman Don Fowler (?) brought in super delegates (where 15% are unelected and support the establishment favorite) because he feared Larouche might win.Here are the words of his son.

quote:

---

Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.

​

My Father the Superdelegate and Why There's Nothing to Fear | HuffPost Latest News

---

LaRouche was, and is, a nothing in the Democratic Party because the party, meaning the grassroots and the leadership, couldn't stand the "bizarre and dangerous extremist" (as Adlai Stevenson called him) twerp.Besides, the Democrats instituted the Super Delegate in response to the disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago. Had nothing whatsoever to do with LaRouche.Get off this LaRouche fetish. He ain't running. Take it to another thread.

Carly Fiorina? Are you kidding me?Desperate times call for desperate measures for sure, but, this early and this person?

Better as the Vice-President than running a company. A Vice-President can not cause too much damage short of shooting you thinking you are a dove.

I was on a "fetish" about GOP and Democratic primary rules. (Im off the media coverage issues)I found out that the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to the Democratic Primary.Know how?Larouche invoked it to be able to keep his won delegates (the DNC rules prevented a felon from having certain rights at the convention). The courts said that the Voting Rights Act (which gives felons certain rights) doesn't apply to party primaries.I used Larouche and Fowler as a search term to try to learn more about the rules. I actually know more about Fowler than LaRouche. I remember him well from the 1990s. His son wrote that article I linked. I suggest reading it. It uses (poor justification and)excuses to defend a 100% undemocratic selection process.Whether you like it or not, the Larouche experience provides examples that can educate us.And I have heard for a long time that the 1990s were the origin of the super delegates. You say 60s/70s?

quote:

---

the Democrats instituted the Super Delegate in response to the disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago

---

The 1968 events were what led to reforms that gave the people (ie voters) a lot more power.Then, after big looses from 1972 to 1980, a 1982 reform (in time for 1984) brought in super delegates to weaken voters from making "unwise" choices in the primary.1990s DNC chairman Don Fowler must have made decisions in the 1980s (and held on to them thereafter), which his son was referring to in the 2011 article I quoted.His son, in 2011, said that Larouche was a concern.Regardless, the post 1968 reforms should not be confused with the 1982 reforms (which we still have today).1982 was the reform to bring in super delegates.

In response to 1968 the Democrats changed the delegate selection process with disastrous results. In 1984 the party redid the selection process and made super delegates so the party, those that have to work with the results in congress, had more influence in the process.Remember, a political party is NOT a democratic governmental organization. It is a private concern with the intent of putting forward for election by the public those people and ideas that reflect the philosophy and the issues of the leadership, themselves elected to that position by the party base.The Democrats learned, the hard way, what loose control does to the party. It loses its identity and flirts with all manner of crazy. It loses elections. The Republicans are learning that now.

Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984." Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business NewsThey sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.

That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary. Because southern states don't count despite the fact that southern democrtatic voters represent a diverse cross section of the population that is generally not found in the states Bernie has tended to win. Let's count up victories in Alaska and Wyoming and claim that those wins mean more than victories in Georgia or North Carolina.I know we like to think that southern states are just redneck red states, but the population that gives southern states that reputation is not the population that Sanders and Clinton are appealing to and competing for in southern states. Or for that matter even in states like New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.I like Bernie, and I appreciate that he has not gotten a fair shake from the Democratic party. But some arguments should not be used by creationists or anyone else.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not too sure why you're saying this. In those southern states the Republicans would win in November, anyway. Even if they put up a broom stick as candidate (as they've done before...).

So if I was a Bernie supporter, you would want me to go and knock on doors when I have 3 kids to babysit. I then have to invite a bunch of people over to my house and offer them canaps which I haven't even prepared. From the group, some Hillary plants posing for Bernie bully and cajole their way into voting on my behalf. Before the vote they still have the chance to get rid of any genuine Bernie fans. Perhaps they could give them the wrong address, get them drunk or just dump them on the sidewalk. The survivors who actually arrive at this mysterious caucus location have been screened and are all bona fide Hillary supporters. So my Bernie vote is thus ignored hmmm great system.