Fairness and what is now called transparency are central to democracy.  Any political process that seems unfair, concealed, or manipulated creates distrust in the system.  And distrust predictably yields to anger and hostility.  Political parties often lose track of this truth in their efforts to perpetuate their own power.

All this comes to mind with the building anger within the Democratic Party’s system of so-called super delegates.  By and large to be “super” one must be an elected or party official, a Senator, Representative, Governor, or Mayor, or a precinct chair, county chair, or state party official.

In brief, the history is this: following an angry Democratic convention in 1968 in Chicago, a Democratic Party reform commission opened up the nomination process of primaries and caucuses to women, young people, minorities and others historically left out by big city party bosses. This led to many elected and party officials being left out of the 1972 convention.  And that led to a counter-reform in which automatic delegate seats were reserved for elected and party officials.

In 1984, there were some 800 super delegates to the Democratic convention.  Even though I was successful in half of the primaries and caucuses, all 800 voted for Vice President Walter Mondale at the convention including those from States that I had won.  There was no legal, or apparently moral, obligation on the part of those delegates to acknowledge the results of the primary or caucus in their States.  Those super delegates represented the difference in the nomination process that year.

It has only become apparent recently to supporters of Senator Sanders that super delegates have no obligation to acknowledge or respect the outcome of a primary or caucus in their States.  But, for better or worse, those are the rules.

Clearly, those rules should be changed.

Following this convention the Democratic Party should change its rules to require the super delegates in every State to reflect the outcome of the contest in their States.  But this should be proportional.  Just because candidate A wins a primary, that does not mean candidate A should get all the super delegates.  If the vote in State X is 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B, then the ten super delegates from State X should be apportioned six for candidate A and four for candidate B.

The original concept of the super delegate was to ensure that an elected or party official should be enabled to participate in a national convention out of respect for his or her contribution in serving the nation and the party.  It was not meant to give super delegates as a class the right to overrule the party voters in their States and lock-step nominate a candidate that a large minority or even majority of primary voters have opposed.

There will be serious protests at the Democratic convention over this issue, and super delegates who vote against the clear opinion of the party voters in their States will pay a price.  It is too late to change the rules in the middle of the process this year.

But the rules regarding super delegates must be changed before the next national election in the interest of upholding democratic principles of fairness, transparency, and justice.

26 Responses to “Should Delegates Be “Super””

  1. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Senator Hart,

    This is very interesting and replete with certain undertones which have nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Ahem.

    When Walter Mondale received the votes of those 800 super delegates your campaign had long since been suspended, had it not? So, I’m not sure what this issue is with Mondale getting that support.

    As for changing the rules for super delegates as you suggest, it begs the question: why have super delegates at all. Just leave the nominating process up the wisdom of the people.

    Ah, but there is the rub. The people, in all of their infinite wisdom, may choose a seriously flawed candidate. Then what to do!?

    What is the difference between the Democrats’ super delegate problem and the Republicans’ delegate problem?

    In Canada, only a party leader can aspire to be the next prime minister. Only a member of parliament can aspire to be a party leader. You have to win a national election in your riding to be a member of parliament. It’s a bit more complicated than that but, not much more. I think your nominating and presidential election process is pretty darn democratic, relative to every other democracy on the planet.

  2. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    What … you hired a moderator? 🙂

  3. Gary Hart Says:

    History is a bit different, Ms. Miller. In 1984 my campaign prevailed throughout the primaries. Never suspended. I won all the Western states including on the final day the State of California in which I prevailed against VP Mondale in every congressional district except two (won by Jesse Jackson). I swept the State. GH

  4. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    So, you were at the convention, then? What happened after the last primary? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that you had withdrawn before the convention …

  5. Gary Hart Says:

    Ms. Miller: somewhere in the vast archives of CNN or someone is a tape of a speech I gave to the 1984 convention after receiving a 12 minute sustained ovation from the delegates, 1200 of whom were committed to my candidacy. I never suspended and I never gave up. And…I never will.

  6. Gary Hart Says:

    Ms. Miller: somewhere in the vast archives of CNN or someone is a tape of a speech I gave to the 1984 convention after receiving a 12 minute sustained ovation from the delegates, 1200 of whom were committed to my candidacy. I never suspended and I never gave up. And…I never will.

  7. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Well, I apologize for being so ill-informed. It happens. 🙁

    But, how would you change the super delegate rules or would you dispense with the super delegates altogether?

  8. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Please excuse my confusion … as you must have guessed, I mixed up the 1984 and 1988 campaigns and was completely ignorant regarding your first run for the presidency. I’m sure I must have read about it somewhere … the memory may or may not be the first to go but it is not at all what it used to be … again, my apologies.

  9. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Senator Hart,

    I’m going to offer up an explanation of sorts for my incredible ignorance, at least as it relates to the 1984 presidential campaign.

    My first real foray into US politics and presidential campaigns was in the late summer of 1987, at the end of my university years and during the Iran-Contra hearings. That is when I began to pay attention to another US senator with presidential ambitions. Of course, that would be Senator Joe Biden.

    The 1988 presidential campaign left a lasting mark on me, if largely in retrospect, as I learned more about Biden and followed his senate career more closely over the years and decades since. That was the year when the asinine media storyline on Biden began – or was that the media’s asinine storyline … no matter as it’s a classic difference without distinction.

    In any event and to my mind, the resounding impacts of that 1988 campaign effectively obliterated the one immediately before it. Though I have certainly heard of your 1984 convention speech and of the parallels with another memorable Democratic convention speech just 20 years later. I am looking forward to revisiting that earlier speech for the first time!

  10. Gary Hart Says:

    Your confusion is understandable, Ms. Miller. The complexity of my life sometimes confuses even me.

  11. Elizabeth Miller Says:


  12. Gary Hart Says:

    This post does not argue for or against the existence of so-called super delegates. I try to give the brief history of how they were created in the 1970s in the first place. I do argue that, if they are to exist, they should be bound by the outcome of the primaries and caucuses in their respective States and roughly in proportion to those outcomes. Because of wide-spread misunderstanding about how super delegates have behaved in past conventions and even this year, the supporters of the unsuccessful candidate, at least in the Democratic Party, will be very angry at the convention.

  13. Stephen D. Pillow Says:

    Why do we still have an outdated politically controlled nomination process for Presidential candidates? We have done away with the old process that had the Senators for each state elected by the legislatures of the respective states. Why do we not have direct election of the President as we do for all other elected offices? Is it because the “Party” still does not trust the people to elect a qualified Presidential candidate? Or is it because the “Party” does not want to loose control of the electoral process and the influence that the “Party” has over the Presidential nominee?

    It would appear to me that the simplest solution to all of this would be to eliminate the whole convention process and have a general election on a given date for all states for the Presidential vote, say in early to mid-June. If there is a need for a runoff, then do so in mid-to late August. Then have the general election in November as presently scheduled. This would remove the whole business of “PARTY” politics from the process.

    I know that the “Party” big wigs would howl because they would have no means left in which to prance in the lime light before the party. This whole idea of internal party politics removes the actual nomination from the people and places in the control of non-elected individuals within the “Party”. The “Party” like many, if not all, elected officials, especially at the federal level, has lost sight of whom that are supposed to represent.

    One Person, One Vote.

  14. Edward Goldstick Says:

    Senator Hart (and Ms. Miller),

    Here you go:



    All I’ll add (for now) is that I actually missed your campaigns in ’84 and ’88 because I was on a long sojourn overseas that began in ’83. I was aware of your campaign and probably would have embraced it, but I was relatively disengaged otherwise…

    I cannot reread the quasi-transcript carefully now, but I thought I’d forward it immediately to satisfy the curiosity of others (and you or someone else may have already discovered this…).

  15. Neil McCarthy Says:


    I always thought the purpose of the super-delegates was to (1) enhance the majority of any presumptive nominee (i.e., one who had won the most primaries and caucuses and had the greatest number of pledged delegates), (2) empower a group of people who are pretty professionally adept at winning elections and knowing what it will take to do so, and (3) insure that the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, helps (has some sort of allegiance to and will work for) the underticket (most of the super delegates being the people who will constitute the underticket.

    Like all systems, it does not function perfectly by any means. As you know, I was very much for you in 1984 — volunteered, raised money, ran around LA to help my boss become a Hart delegate. I also was convinced that Vice President Mondale was going to be beaten soundly and that you would have been a better nominee (and had a much greater chance of winning). From my vantage point, the super-delegates let us down in 1984. They didn’t do one of the jobs they were supposed to do.

    But I am not sure I’d eliminate them. The Bernie/Hillary battle is a case in point. I like them both but also have problems with both of them. The problem with Hillary is the gnawing sense that there will always be another shoe to drop (emails, speeches, Bill’s whatevers). The problem with Sanders is that he brands himself a “democratic-socialist” and a lot of his economic proposals are either not fully funded or won’t have the huge impact he is claiming for them. There is such a thing as the Keynesian multiplier, but that doesn’t mean it can’t become the left wing’s version of David Stockman’s magic asterisk. And it’s tough enough selling yourself as a Roosevelt New Dealer these days (or, as you did, even a New Democrat). Why take on the baggage inherent in using a word like socialism to describe what you are for (especially when the democratic-socialists in Europe, after whom you are modeling yourself, probably would not consider you much of one in the first place)?

    Anyway, I would hope and expect the super delegates to put a brake on extremism that could ultimately hurt our chances in the fall. It ain’t “democratic” but it beats a Cruz or Trump presidency.

  16. Brian C. McCarthy Says:


    I’m not sure there’s a good reason for keeping the super delegates around at all – and I know that wasn’t your point – but there are much greater problems with the nomination process than the SD’s. We have a process of electing a president that is nonsensical at best, ludicrously undemocratic at worst.

    States with small populations that are not reflective of the nation as a whole have undue influence because their contests fall early in the primary/caucus calendar. States with closed primaries shut out participation of the large and growing percent of the populace that do not enroll formally in one of the two major parties. The process takes far too long and makes candidates spend too much time raising money. Caucuses, by their nature, tend to draw the most ideological voters. I could go on but you know the shortcomings of the system as well as anyone.

    I’m not sure if a national, one day primary would be feasible, but what about a system in which the primaries are all open and take place over, say, 5 weeks, with 10 states voting each week? The states voting on any given week would rotate so that every state would move up or down in the rotation each election cycle, so Iowa and New Hampsire aren’t always first and California not always last. Every group of 10 states should broadly represent the whole country, being chosen from various parts of the country so as to avoid one day’s primary being too concentrated in one geographic area (such as the South on Super Tuesday or the Northeast Corridor this coming Tuesday). This would both shorten the nomination process and give all regions of the country a more equal voice in the selection.

  17. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    The initial confusion of Ms. Miller, an admirer of the host of this forum, alas is typical of most members of today’s politically engaged class. There is nothing like participating in historical events as I did in Senator Hart’s 1980s presidential campaigns (as a volunteer outer-circle strategist and advisor pushing 30 years of age in 1983) to give one an appreciation that certain ugly realities we were taught in better universities “can’t happen here” most certainly can and do:

    “History is written by the victors” and “Stalin and his henchmen tried to erase all evidence of their party adversaries’ existence” are two that come to mind relative to Senator Hart’s considerable achievements. At the risk of slightly exceeding typical comment length, here is one participant’s (I believe objective) “second draft” of history in a proverbial nutshell:

    Hart’s 1984 campaign did what no one thought possible. By STRIDENTLY opposing President Reagan, Gary provided a political antidote to the hemlock of arch-conservative ideology that had poisoned the American body politic. By going ahead of President Reagan in all national polls for the 4 1/2 month period between his breakthrough victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 28th through the July 18, 1984 Democratic National Convention roll call, Hart demonstrated beyond any reasonable cavil that the country had NOT moved sharply to the right during the Reagan Administration’s first term, as conventional wisdom had it.

    Hart’s galvanizing anti-Reagan July 1984 speech to the Democratic National Convention and all its other progressive (NOT neo-liberal) content perfectly articulated to his fellow Democrats “what we are for” and previewed powerful general election themes that would likely have confined Reagan to one term if only the (mainstream) Democratic delegates and super-delegates had nominated Hart and NOT Jimmy Carter’s (prosaic) VP, Walter Mondale. (“Mondale is mush” Gary had memorably said. And he was right.) But in tacit acknowledgment that Democratic Party super-delegates had fixed the outcome of the nomination in favor of his rival, Hart promised his supporters in the Moscone Convention Center hall (myself among them) and his millions of supporters and voters watching and listening across the land: “This is one Hart you will not leave in San Francisco!”

    I cannot capture the promise and the glory of Hart’s 1984 convention speech in a few words but last year c-span pulled it out of Orwell’s “memory hole” (at my request) and (as Mr. Goldstick has noted) it is now available online here http://www.c-span.org/video/?124439-1/democratic-national-convention-day-3 (beginning at the 5 hr. 36 min. mark preceded by a 15 minute floor demonstration, one I ardently participated in). Especially at the end, as the Chariots of Fire theme song comes on, there was hardly a dry eye in the house, and Hart had appropriately established himself as THE transitional leader who would (“if not now someday”) empower the best and most practically idealistic members of the baby boom generation to create a better America and world.

    In my view, this speech was not only Hart’s “finest hour” as a presidential candidate and political leader (and recognized as such by Walter Cronkite and other journalists who covered the Convention in its immediate aftermath), its substance provides an essential context for understanding the “hell that broke loose” in 1987-1988. As a minor adjunct, I also humbly refer folks to 3 letters to the editor of the NY Times in 1984-1985 where I attempted to synthesize the promise of Hart’s emergence in 1984:




    (Today’s Democrats and their super-delegates in particular appear to be in the process of repeating the disastrous error of 1984 by spurning the leader that has galvanized legions of young supporters this year. And it is particularly sad to see that the same baby-boomers drawn to Hart’s idealistic 1984 candidacy support by lop-sided margins the centrist Hillary Clinton over progressive Bernie Sanders.)

    Returning to the 1980s (that, in William Faulkner’s phrase, is “not even past”): although the specific drivers of the events of spring ’87 may never be discovered, it is clear to me that the implications of Hart’s practically idealistic politics for what we today call “the 1%” (AKA oligarchy) that rules our country, did not go unnoticed. And that agents of those ruling elites went to GREAT lengths in 1987 to neutralize Hart’s political stature and potential.

    In his 1988 campaign announcement speech in Denver on April 13, 1987 Hart picked up essentially where he left off 3 years earlier, and vowed to put Wall Street rogues and enabling public officials “out of business.” See here (at 17 min. 13 sec. mark): http://www.c-span.org/video/?3307-1%2Fhart-announceme .

    The Miami Herald, published by conservative Republican partisans, almost immediately thereafter began plotting with an anonymous informant who sought Hart’s political demise. An informant Herald reporter Tom Fiedler has (strangely) never identified in the interim 29 years. Fiedler has said the caller described herself as a “liberal Democrat” and that the second of the calls lasted 90 minutes and covered a wide range of topics in the manner of a political sophisticate. The purportedly admitted tipster Dana Weems was not a “liberal Democrat” in 1987: She was not even registered to vote at the time! Mr. Fiedler, who is to character assassination what Lee Harvey Oswald or still unknown others were to physical assassination, is evidently determined to keep this confidence indefinitely.

    I do not mean to be maudlin but whenever the subject of Senator Hart’s 1984 and 1987-1988 campaigns come up (and there were three very different ones) I cannot help but recall the semi-doggerel, semi-profound lines of John Greenleaf Whittier: “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.'”

  18. Harvie Branscomb Says:

    I attended the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Party conventions. Outside not inside.

    Since then I have learned the powerful influence that the “club” of elected officials has on its membership. It is a self-entitled special interest.

    Elected officials ought not have special access to participate in the determination of who will become elected officials. Ever. The mere fact is a formula for a self replicating special interest.

    Superdelegates are only one example. A relatively easy one to remedy – and the State Assembly of the Colorado Democratic Party has recently voted in favor of a remedy.

  19. Elizabeth Miller Says:


    >>>>The initial confusion of Ms. Miller, an admirer of the host of this forum, alas is typical of most members of today’s politically engaged class.

    I resemble that remark.

  20. Elizabeth Miller Says:


    Thanks very much for the link!


    What might have been indeed, it is Senator Hart , not ever ,actually , even becoming the official candidate to win or lose later for the Democratic party , that is the real and deeply felt regret for the party and for the USA ,of the era ,and since , perhaps , too.

    I believe the so called super delegate system , as an interested outsider looking in, is flawed , but as Senator Hart explains , it was added for a reason .Processes like it become arcane after time passes and disenchantment sets in.It is evident that the Democratic party shall not have a stitch up this year , though , it seems Hillary Clinton is on the go to the nomination.

    Senator Hart is not a spent force , having left the front line of active party politics long ago , he has shown how much can be contributed to the greater good of society yet .

    Senator Sanders has had a good run of it .His voice shall be heard again and often, and no doubt , it is a welcome one ,at least a necessary one to hear .His “democratic socialism ,” in many countries ,would be called social liberalism or social democracy, but , whether of the centre left or left , he is not going to be left out .He, like former Secretary for Labour , Robert Reich , who backs him in this race , is at best , a voice fr the voiceless at times .

    Super delegates cannot fix this thing, this year, if ever .A terribly flawed Republican candidate, makes a partially flawed Democratic process, seem like small potatoes! Only the people of the wider electorate can fix this, this year .And elect anyone except Trump or Cruz !

  22. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    Elizabeth: Since one good “resemblance” deserves another I wanted to elaborate on your keen observation that “the resounding impacts of that 1988 campaign effectively obliterated the one immediately before it.” For those of us who lived it in real time, it was the damnedest thing you could imagine, as a short anecdote will illustrate:

    On April 13, 1987 (following Hart’s Red Rocks and Denver public square announcement events) my girlfriend at the time (screenwriter Rose-Marie Turko) and I attended a reception for Gary and his wife Lee, at which I was startled to encounter Russia’s poet laureate (or functional equivalent) Yevgeny Yevtushenko, who happened to have a poetry reading and book signing event in Denver that early evening. Medium-length story short, after Rose-Marie and I attended the bookstore event he inscribed a copy of his book we purchased, titled “Almost at the End”: “With a brother’s feelings.”

    I believe “Zenya” felt the same fraternal way about Hart (as did Mikhail Gorbachev with whom Gary had held important meetings in the Kremlin in late 1986). Three short weeks later, ALL of the political capital collectively earned during Hart’s 1984 campaign vanished and the entire course of American and world history changed literally overnight!

    Lorenzo: You packed a lot of meaning into that wondrous first sentence. My only quibble with it is that with the benefit of historical hindsight there is no “perhaps” about the long-lasting baleful effects of Hart’s non-ascendancy to the presidency. Since the host is too modest to inventory them himself I hope he will permit an amateur historian (someone who 4 decades ago earned a mere BA in history from UC Berkeley) to elaborate a little more on his second draft of history:

    Hart was the overwhelming favorite to stop the Reagan revolution “cold” beginning in January 1989. But instead of a political war with Reagan’s vice-president George H.W. Bush, during the first seven days in May 1987 we got what we would today call a “flame war” between Hart and a few asinine journalists and editors (led by the Miami Herald’s Tom Fiedler and the Washington Post’s Paul Taylor) who used tabloid methods and interposed themselves between the voters and the candidate.

    The press and Hart’s toxic interaction caused the Democrats to field a hapless substitute candidate (Mike Dukakis) and effectively forfeit the 1988 general election to the Republicans. Vice-president Bush wiped out a 17% polling deficit in a matter of weeks and won by a comfortable margin. This, in turn, institutionalized the Reagan Revolution to the present day. Only in 2016 have Reaganite conservativism and its counterpart: (what I call) the Democrats’ “unbearable Republican lite-ness of being”, both exhausted themselves. Other currents and leaders (Trump and Sanders) are finally taking over both parties or coming very close to doing so.

    Gary Hart was martyred politically in 1987-88, but the public has since rejected tabloid journalists as morals police and self-appointed gatekeepers of who can- and who can’t run for president and have their views seriously considered by the voters. (This explains the mainstream media’s current avoidance–with a 10 foot pole–of the National Enquirer’s puke-inducing rumor-mongering about Ted Cruz’s alleged affairs.)

    In fidelity to his stirring 1984 Convention speech pledge — “This is one Hart you will not leave in San Francisco!” — following his exile from presidential electoral politics Hart started a non-fiction writing, academic and (essentially non-partisan) public service career in which he foresaw (in essentially every particular) the world that has emerged in 2016, one plagued by the cataclysmic aftermath of the sordid war in Iraq (a war that Hart adamantly opposed), a new nuclear arms race, terrorism, mass migration, environmental catastrophes, the massive corruption of the political process by monied and special interests, and related crises of governance and public morality as far as the eye can see. See eg.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/20/1386345/-Gary-Hart-was-right-on-Iraq-then-and-now (Jon Perr’s reprise of Hart’s staunch opposition to the Iraq War).

    Hart also kept his public service commitment by virtue of:

    • his work as an appointee (of President Clinton) on a national commission – one that anticipated a 9/11 type terrorist attack; and

    • most recently his diplomatic work as an appointee of President Obama to serve as Secretary of State Kerry’s Personal Representative in Northern Ireland, where Hart has been assigned the difficult task of shoring up a tentatively established peace between the rival camps of Irish Catholics and pro-British Protestants that have a long bitter history of enmity. There Hart has built upon his Senate colleague George Mitchell’s original work and made any thought by the parties of re-igniting “the troubles” essentially unthinkable. See: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249612.htm (Secretary of State Kerry’s statement of Nov. 17, 2015 praising Hart’s shuttle diplomacy between the rival factions sharing power over Northern Ireland’s devolved institutions.)

    In sum, as a sidelined “George Baily” figure in American politics Hart has contributed to- and participated in the public policy debates of the past 3 decades during his interesting and productive post-Senate/post-“downfall” years. The more important point here though (I doubt Hart would disagree), is that the nation and its people have NOT had a “wonderful life”:
    Instead of quickly recovering from 2 poisonous terms of conservative Reaganism, the country drank a “kinder and gentler” version of the hemlock for a Bush (Sr.) term, followed by 2 Republican-lite terms under a triangulator-in-chief, Democratic Leadership Council co-founder Bill Clinton. The rest is history.

    An America that could have become Bedford Falls became a vice-ridden dystopian continental Pottersville instead. Just think of the nightmare dream sequence in that classic film, and the parade of horrible’s that occurred because “George Baily wasn’t there…”

    Well, thanks to his character assassins, “Gary Hart wasn’t there…” to stop extreme inequality, deteriorated race-relations, mass incarceration, global warming activities, etc. at home, and abroad: a new Cold war instead of a peace dividend, NATO expansion instead of dissolution, the Persian Gulf war, the Balkans war, lethal Iraq sanctions, unrecognized vulnerability to terrorism by embittered Islamic militants we recruited to eject the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and on and on right up until the dangerous and chaotic “mad, mad, mad, mad world” of today.

    But of course, “none dare call it conspiracy”.

  23. Colorado Says:

    Senator Hart- Great peice as always. The premise is spot one. I am curious though, have you spoken with Senator Bennett and Gov. Hickenlooper about their decision to support Clinton, as opposed to Senator Sanders who won the great State of Colorado?

  24. Ken Cody Says:

    Senator Hart,

    I was always curious about how the super delegates voted in 1984. I could never find the number (at least on the internet). I am stunned that all 800 supported Walter Mondale. What was more frustrating is that you won 25 primaries & caucuses – only to have the majority of delegates in only 13 states during the actual roll call during the convention. Without the super delegates Mondale would only have less than a 200 delegate lead at the convention – which would have been a brokered one. It appears that too much weight is put on the super delegates then and now.

    I recall also that Mondale after the final day of the primary season was still short about 40 delegates after his loss in California and he was calling up super delegates to clinch the nomination.

    Either way Senator Hart you ran that campaign on the issues and is something you should always be proud of.

  25. Gary Hart Says:

    In response to Mr. Cody, it is my recollection that everyone of the 800 “super” delegates voted for Mr. Mondale, even those from States whose primaries or caucuses I won, and even though the polls clearly showed at convention time that I had a much better chance against President Reagan. Mrs. Reagan is reported to have said that I was the only Democrat they were worried about.

  26. “Has Anybody Here Seen My Old Friend Gary?” - LA Progressive Says:

    […] in mid-July 1984. Approximately 800 unelected (essentially illegitimate) “super-delegates” (who unanimously voted for the former “veep”) provided Mondale’s wide victory margin on the first […]

Leave a Reply

All comments are reviewed by a moderator prior to approval and are subject to the UCD blog use policy.