/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

>>4918641

From Wikipedia:

>A "superdelegate" or an "unpledged delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically, based on their status as current (Republican and Democratic) or former (Democratic only) party leader or elected official. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.

>Although "superdelegate" was originally coined and created to describe this type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties,[1] even though it is not an official term used by either party.

>For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:

>-delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[2] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and

>-additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[2]

>For Republicans, there are generally 3 unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members.

>A common criticism is that unpledged delegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a candidate that did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.

Apparently, there is an analogue to unpledged delegates in the Republican party, but the number is limited and that number seems too low to sway a significant margin. But, as far as I can tell, there is no limit to the number of Democratic superdelegates.

I really want to know how superdelegates are selected, who can apply for the position, and what connections they have to the Democratic Party.

Dan Carlin talked about them on an episode of Common Sense recently, can't be assed to look it up. Basically yeah a super delegate can throw in for any candidate to 'maintain the integrity of the party' if the candidate mostly want is too outside of the party's ideals. They're a reminder that the two parties are party first, people second

>>4918669

If the candidate people mostly want*

>>4918619

They're there in the democratic primary to make sure the candidate the Democratic Party leaders and their financial backers have selected ends up winning the election

It's why there's never many democratic primary candidates

>>4918641

GOP super delegates are called 'unpledged delegates'

not as many of them as the DNC though, so it's slightly fairer

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-PU.phtml

I'm not sure on specifics, but it's basically the formalized process through which the democratic party can rig the primary election for their candidate of choice. I think Sanders would have to win more than a majority of votes in all the future state primaries in order to win the nomination because of this. The superdelegates are members of congress, the senate, governors, etc. I dunno much about Sanders' relationship with those in his party, but he seems too extreme to gain much support among them.

>>4918676

Considering that, do you think Sanders is doomed to lose the nomination?

I REALLY hope this happens. Such an outcome would demoralize their voter base entirely.

Funny that the 'Democratic' Party can completely override the will of the people. Of course, the election isn't over yet, but I sincerely doubt that the all-powerful Clinton dynasty will allow Sanders to steal the nomination that has been essentially promised to Clinton.

They were the reason Obama won over Clinton back in 08 cuz back then Clinton was slightly more popular

>>4918680

Republicans: 2,265 vs. 207

Democrats: 4,051 vs. 712

So it's only slightly fairer for the Republicans. They'll get away with using this against Trump easier than the Democrats will against Sanders, because Trump has so many competitors (which are all GOPe controlled).

>>4918713

Wouldn't those superdelegates have to agree on a single second-place contender in order to carry weight? I would imagine that the variety of candidates serves to dilute that influence.'

At any rate, the reason I was interested in the topic is because Clinton already has an assload of pledged superdelegates. If you look at statistics in the primary race, it shows Clinton with a huge lead because of these pledged superdelegates (and thusly spinning a bias for uninformed voters).

Conversely, searcing for Republicans shows only elected delegates, with Trump clearly in the lead.

>>4918713

If Trump gets 30% of the delegates and the second place gets 20%, not even if all 207 backed the second they could win.

So, we have to hope Trump can mantain a 30% lead (very feasible) or that the second place falls below 20% (also very feasible)

Odds are on our favor.

>>4918740

Sorry, meant just 30%, not lead.

>>4918740

Also on the dems side, if NH serves as a projection then Bernie will loose the nod to Hilary because he didn't win by a large enough margin. This is always how the DNC functioned. King nigger won due to the super delegates.. But I doubt your average berniefag was protesting on the streets back in 08.

>>4918776

I think a lot of people wanted to see Obama win because

>muh first black president

so there wasn't really an outrage when he won the primary. Berniefags, on the other hand, will cry for blood if their man is schlonged in favor of Clinton.

I hope /pol/ realizes that such an outcome would be a tremendous boon to Trump. Trump is essentially the only man that can deal with Hilary (the cuckservative Tucker Carlson breaks it down well here, in a decent article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572)

Also, I know some Berniefags that will vote for Trump if Clinton wins the nomination. We should meme this into existence, lads.

>>4918807

This needs to happen.

It doesn't benefit it one bit if Bernie wins the nomination.

Hillary winning would fracture the Left, not so much for Trump.

>>4918807

I believe Bernie won't lose because of the superdelegates, he may in fact lose during the race if the Dem polls are any accurate, Clinton has a 13 point advantage.

>>4918897

Oh yeah, and in SC he's losing quite badly. Let's see the effect of the NH win on that, though.

>>4918776

> King nigger won due to the super delegates.

Technically true, but not really. He ended ahead on pledged delegates. Hillary had a bigger portion of super delegates on her side early on, once Obongo started winning states more started gathering around him (including defectors from Clinton).

Superdelegates can, in numbers, make or break a King, but they've never voted against the popular vote and they would have a lot of trouble explaining that. The 6 superdelegates from NH could still do anything. With all that said, it's posible they end becoming the deciding factor but that would basically break the party. It's a failsafe mechanism with only one shot. If Berncucks back Hillary after evident fuckery, they really deserve anything they get.

The GOP side is maybe scarier. While the amount of unpledged delegates isn't as big, Rubio backers and Jeb backers are basically the same entity and will be obedient dogs. Destroying the GOP may be preferable for them to allowing a Trump victory. Sure, it gives Hillary the win but at least nobody will get hanged for treason.

Remember when the RNC decided unpledged delegates don't matter just to screw over Ron Paul?

>>4918971

I think a lot of kikery was behind the snubbing of Ron Paul. I knew too many Republicans who vocally supported Ron Paul, but notice that the media never focused on him, he was trivialized during debates, and he relied too heavily on grassroots support.

During that time, the right's presence on the web was limited. As an example, a lot of my older family members didn't use smartphones or social media at that time. This year, a lot of the conservative voter base is online, thus having greater access to information.

Let's look at the recent examples of Cruz and Rubiosoft. There was limited press coverage on traditional media, but the knowledge spread quickly on the web. Ron Paul lost due to underhanded tricks, but it is becoming harder for the establishment to play tricks because people have better access to information.

I really respect those people (especially on /pol/) who go through the trouble to connect the dots, to keep us informed. Sure, people were wise to what was happening with Ron Paul, but people didn't care as much, they still relied too heavily on the mainstream narrative.

Democrats are an entirely different story. They've been on the web longer, and have more presence on the most popular social media. I've literally seen zero support for Clinton on kikebook (the majority of whom are Democratic voters). If Clinton cheats Bernie out of a nomination, a shitstorm will ensue.

To go back on topic, how do superdelegates choose their candidate? Do they decide on their own whim, or do they follow the political current? Does it take into account the opinions of voters, or does ZOG basically tell them what to do? The whole idea of unpledged delegates who don't answer to the public seems utterly undemocratic to me.