DNC trying to back away from Reform

Originally four big reforms to eliminate super deligates were demanded but only a very minor change of requiring super deligates to vote the way their district voted was actually adopted by the DNC. Now the DNC seems to be trying to find a way out of even that extremely modest reform. The corruption of the democratic process just goes on and on.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...educe-superdelegates-influence-bernie-sanders

I'm sure @Ancalagon will be here to tell us how they aren't corrupt any time now.

How is it corruption? It's their organization, they can set up their processes however they want. Considering what happened with the Republican nomination process, I can't blame the Dems for wanting to retain a safeguard against some interloper coming out of nowhere and hijacking the party.

Regardless of who the Democrat nominee is in 2020, I'm confident in the Democrats' ability to fuck up an easy victory once again.

The DNC reeks of corruption. Anything they do to dispel that notion would be fine by me.

They're "corrupt" because they privately preferred their big-brand candidate to some outsider not even in the party. That's the standard.

Now, in hindsight, Sanders would have been the better pick. But that's a mistake shared by the DNC and Dem primary voters alike. It's not "corruption."

I'm not saying there's any actual corruption, they just have that stink about them. Maybe I'm full of shit. I admit it's just a gut feeling.

Gut feelings in lieu of reason can lead you to the White House. Just look at Donnie Smallhands.

Fair enough.

The Democratic Party seems to have bought in to the ridiculous idea that they were "saddled" with Hillary Clinton due to a corrupt nomination process that prevented the "more electable" Senator Bernie Sanders from winning.

First off, I don't think Sanders was all that "electable" even against Donald Trump.
Second off, rank and file Democrats had been salivating for Hillary Clinton to become president since 2000. Barack Obama's emergence in 2008 had temporarily derailed those aspirations but they didn't disappear.

Clearly a ridiculous idea. They had Clinton, Sanders, and uhh some M guy? R maybe? to pick from. They were afforded a wide field of highly qualified candidates from which to choose the ideal next President of the United States of America.

I didn't give a shit who won the 2016 Dem nom, as long as Trump didn't win. But then America lost its fucking mind and now here we are.

You voted for Trump, didn't you @Dayton3?

It's just that them having superdelegates made them huge hypocrites when it came to complaining about how POTUS is elected and how some states' electors effectively get more voting power than others based on their populations. So some of the Democrats actually went about changing that, and now that the election is far enough in the past, apparently they think everyone will have forgotten about that particular talking point. You know, like Clinton saying anyone who didn't accept the election results was a threat to democracy.

I'm curious, did Clinton deny that the election results were legitimate?

I'm not saying she did, but plenty of other people have, hence the complaint over electors and superdelegates.

Absolutely not.

Perhaps but he'll be nearly 78 by the time the 2020 presidential election rolls around. Trump was (and is) too old in my opinion. Biden would be more so.

Funny how the "party of diversity" want to run yet another old white guy.

Well both parties in the post World War Two era (basically since the Vice Presidency has become much more important and prestigious) have effectively adopted a "It's their turn" tradition when it comes to presidential nominations.

IIRC Hillary Clinton even used "It's her turn" as a campaign theme for awhile in 2016.

Yeah the "it's their turn" is how we got Trump, among other factors.

Maybe not, but a lot of people were saying it at the time.

Turns out the idea was floated around.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4

I have to agree we need to step the age of presidential candidates back some. I get people are more active later in life, but I was having a real hard time backing Bernie in the last election because of how old he was. Clinton was in failing health and that was interfering with her run. Trump was coked out of his mind and seems to be somewhat suffering from the problems of old age. I don't think he is as awful as the news makes him, but he has lost a step from his young days and we need someone who does not need to take a golf cart around because he cannot walk. Obama may have been too new to the scene and too young, but I am a bit tired of the elderly president. They just do not have the life experience with technology a gen x person would. That does lead to some stupid security risks with emails and texts.

We really should have a mandatory retirement age for elected and appointed officials. A seventy year old has no business there anymore.

Yeah but whom are we kidding. In this country we can't even stop elderly people from driving.

Or getting hit by poor drivers who flee the scene.

Just because @Forbin believes in the paper-bag test doesn't mean rational people do.