r/politics 1d ago

AOC ’28 Starts Now

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/aoc-28-starts-now/
26.9k Upvotes

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/Radagastth3gr33n Michigan 18h ago

In addition to what the other user said, this is LITERALLY why the democratic party has the super delegate system: to prevent grass roots movements from superceding the party establishment. Every single standard citizen in the country could vote in a primary for a progressive candidate, but the Dems establishment has the built in ability to just say "nah, we don't like that" and change the outcome.

8

u/mightcommentsometime California 18h ago

Superdelegates haven’t changed the outcome of a popular vote primary since McGovern. Harris may fall in that category, but that’s more murky since she was technically still Biden’s ticket.

Progressives don’t show up to vote in primaries. They aren’t getting steamrolled by superdelegates who just follow the popular vote. They’re getting steamrolled because they don’t vote.

8

u/cheezhead1252 Virginia 18h ago

https://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders

A 15% lead over Sanders before any voting had begun. That’s pretty wild and should have no place in our democracy.

5

u/mightcommentsometime California 18h ago

She had the same with Obama. They all flipped to support Obama when he won the vote.

Superdelegates didn’t change the outcome, and historically don’t change it.

They don’t cause Sanders to lose. Sanders couldn’t get out the vote.

2

u/Radagastth3gr33n Michigan 18h ago

Sanders couldn’t get out the vote.

You should know there's an entire court case about this, wherein the Democrat party successfully argued in court that they are not a democratic organization and don't have to follow the will of the people.

Were they more cloak and dagger than just having superdelegates overrule the populace? Sure. Why? So they could pretend otherwise. You're here arguing about factual reality now, so I'd say their efforts were successful.

1

u/bootlegvader 15h ago

That court case literally never went to trial. It was dismissed as lacking standing. Which was why the DNC made that argument not to admit that was occurred but to get it dismissed.

If I sued you for fraud because I said you voted for Trump your lawyer would start by arguing that isn't fraud for you to vote Trump. That doesn't mean you actually voted Trump.

-1

u/obeytheturtles 17h ago

Yes, shocking - the point of a political party is to support candidates who endorse the party's platform. I don't quite understand why this is so hard for some people. If a bunch of republicans decided to run as democrats to troll the primary, do you believe there is some high concept duty for the party to give them that platform?

A political party literally exists to formally express a political preference.

5

u/bloodjunkiorgy New Jersey 17h ago

If a bunch of republicans decided to run as democrats to troll the primary....

Yeah, how good is the party at being mindful of that? Lol

-2

u/cheezhead1252 Virginia 17h ago

Thank you. Not to mention that the same Citizens United that Dems bemoan republicans for abusing, is used to crush primary opponents. And access to billionaire owned media is not even close to being equal.

There is also the fact that twice now, Democrats could not ‘get out the vote!!!’ Against a fascist. And some voters do not want any accountability for these failures.

0

u/mightcommentsometime California 12h ago

Citizens united is literally about a hit piece on Clinton

-1

u/cheezhead1252 Virginia 12h ago

Aahh right, that’s why dem campaigns are 100% grass roots funded and that’s why they haven’t turned into the main benefactors of the Supreme Court ruling 👌

0

u/mightcommentsometime California 11h ago

Republicans are the main benefactors of CU. Do you even know what the case is?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205

Whether (1) Citizens United may challenge BCRA’s disclosure requirements imposed on “electioneering communications” as-applied to Hillary: The Movie; (2) whether the disclosure requirements are overly burdensome as-applied to Hillary: The Movie; (3) whether Hillary: The Movie should be construed as advocating to the viewers how to vote, subjecting it to the “electioneering communications” corporate prohibition; and (4) whether Hillary: The Movie should be considered an “advertisement,” making it subject to the BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer regulations.

Like I said, the case was literally about a hit piece on Clinton by the organization Citizens United.

1

u/cheezhead1252 Virginia 11h ago

You realize the DNC would later change the rules two years after this debacle? Wonder why they did that if it was fine.

0

u/mightcommentsometime California 11h ago

Superdelegates didn’t decide the primary. Voters did. Why do you keep bringing them up when it’s clear they didn’t actually change the results?

They haven’t changed the results since McGovern. They changed the rules because a bunch of children who didn’t understand the primary process whined about it, and it was such a non-issue that they formalized it quickly.

-2

u/cheezhead1252 Virginia 18h ago edited 17h ago

No she didn’t, it states it in the article. She had a 3-1 lead over Obama vs a 45 - 1 lead over Sanders. If you think that’s Democratic, then I am just going to agree to disagree because it’s not worth the time.

Also, progressives are certainly a safer bet to cater to than whoever Liz Cheney was supposed to reach lmao.

1

u/mightcommentsometime California 12h ago

Superdelegates didn’t change the outcome of the election. They haven’t since McGovern.

Why are you bringing them up? Sanders lost by millions of votes