4 added 11 characters in body
source | link

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have onesuperdelegates, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal Walter Mondale four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal Walter Mondale four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have superdelegates, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal Walter Mondale four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal George McGovernWalter Mondale four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal George McGovern four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal Walter Mondale four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

2 deleted 118 characters in body
source | link

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal George McGovern four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Democrats run liberal George McGovernAgain, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a seriousseries of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiredrequiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal George McGovern four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Democrats run liberal George McGovern, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a serious of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as required stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

A better way to look at this question is to ask why Democrats do have such an expansive superdelegate system (Republicans kiiiiiiiiind of have one, but far less and bound to the results of state primaries).

In 1968, the Democratic Party's primary system was exposed as more or less a farce. Due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances-- such as sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson deciding not to seek reelection mid-run, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy-- Vice President Hubert Humphrey didn't receive a single vote in a state primary, but ended up winning the nomination due to a bit of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. Particularly galling to most Democratic primary voters was that Humphrey was pro-Vietnam War, despite the fact that the vast majority of actual votes had gone to anti-war candidates like Kennedy and McCarthy. All the while you have riots and violence outside the convention, and the whole thing is a PR disaster.

So following the election, the party reforms the party primary process to shift the power to actual Democratic voters. But what immediately follows is a period of Republican presidential election domination. George McGovern, at the time probably the most liberal candidate to date, gets flattened by by Nixon. Jimmy Carter (not exactly in the liberal branch of his party, but certainly a populist) manages to beat a Watergate-tainted and unelected Gerald Ford, but gets flattened by Reagan four years later. Democrats run liberal George McGovern four years later, and the result is the most lopsided presidential election to date with Reagan winning 49 states.

So now Democrats are looking at a situation where the only successful presidential candidates in their lifetime were chosen in smoked-filled rooms, with the exception of 1976, when the Republicans were so badly hurt by Watergate that they could've run a ham sandwich. They come to the conclusion that perhaps they've gone a bit too far; perhaps there can be a system where the voters have most of the votes, but the party elites can still act as a check. The 1984 election is the first Democratic election with superdelegates, and they've stuck ever since. (Not that it helped. Again, 49 states.)

So why have Republicans never followed suit? Bluntly, they've never needed to. Superdelegates first and foremost are designed to check the ideologically entrenched wing of your party. The GOP has often seen the right-wing candidate beat the more centrist candidates for the nomination: Reagan over H.W. Bush, W. Bush over McCain, Trump over a lot of people. But what do those candidates have in common? They won.

That's your simple answer. Democrats had a series of serious electoral setbacks that, rightly or wrongly, they viewed as requiring stricter party control of the nomination process. Republicans never really had one.

1
source | link