Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado, New Hampshire and Oklahoma resoundingly

[JDPriestly]

Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado, New Hampshire and Oklahoma resoundingly voted for Bernie on Super Tuesday!

Let's see how "democratic" the Democratic Party really is. Will these superdelegates either relinquish their superdelegate votes and let the people decide? Or will they switch to vote for the candidate their constituents want?

This is the test of the century for the Democratic Party.

Will the superdelegates from states that solidly vote vor Bernie switch to support Bernie in this campaign and at the Democratic convention?

After all, we Bernie supporters are being told that we should vote for Hillary if she wins the primaries?

Democratic for me is democratic for the superdelegates isn't it? Doesn't the majority wins and you vote for that candidate work for all Democrats equally?

Let's see......

How democratic is the Democratic Party?

Here they are.

Vermont: Bernie won in Vermont by something 86.1% of the vote. Surely that should move these superdelegates to support Bernie.

Richard Cassidy
James C. Condos
HOWARD DEAN --Let's see how democratic the founder of Democracy for America is.
Dottie Deans
Bill Gosh
Tim Jerman
Patrick Leahy
Peter Shumlin
Peter Welch

Minnesota: Sanders won 61.6% of the vote.

Mark Dayton
Al Franken
Marge Hoffa
Amy Klobuchar
Ken Martin
Betty McCollum
Walter Mondale
Javier Morillo-Alicea
Rick Nolan
Collin Peterson
R. T. Rybak
Nancy Schumacher
Lori Sellner
Rick Stafford
Tim Walz



Colorado: Sanders won 59% of the vote.

Michael Bennet
Diana DeGette
Anthony Graves
John Hickenlooper
Blanca O'Leary
Lisa Padilla
Rick Palacio
Ed Perlmutter
Jared Polis
Mannie Rodriguez
Roy Romer
Beverly Ryken

New Hampshire: Sanders won 60.4% of the vote.

Raymond Buckley
Martha Fuller Clark
Joanne Dowdell
Maggie Hassan
Ann Kuster
Billy Shaheen
Jeanne Shaheen
Kathy Sullivan

Oklahoma: Sanders won 51.9% of the vote to Clinton only 41.5%

Jim Frasier
Mark Hammons
Connie Johnson (already for Sanders)
Betty McElderry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primary+results+vermont&eob=m.07_f2/D/2/short/m.07_f2/

https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primary+results+Minnesota&eob=m.04ykg/D/2/short/m.04ykg/


https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primary+results+Colorado&eob=m.01n4w/D/2/short/m.01n4w/

https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primary+results+New+hampshire

https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primary+results+Oklahoma&eob=m.05mph/D/2/short/m.05mph/

As I post this, I am reminded of the margins by which Sanders won in states with contested Democratic contests.

Feel the Bern, and let's contact these superdelegates and ask them whether they agree with the fundamental democratic value of one person, one vote or whether they think they deserve to vote at the convention many times more than ordinary voters.

Why do we have superdelegates anyway?

I'll tell you why. To keep the status quo safe and happy.

Cross-posted in the Bernie group.

[madfloridian]

1. Very good post. Dean won't switch..look how public he's been for Hillary.

So he will likely go against the people of VT.

[Samantha]

8. Leahy already said he will vote for Hillary regardless because he "promised"

Think about that - he is willing to vote against Bernie Sanders who 86 percent of the voters selected in order to keep a promise. Whatever happened to serving the will of the majority? If he sticks to this, if I lived in Vermont I would looking up the rules for recalling a Senator.

The Governor of Colorado already came out and said he would be voting for Clinton because he believes she is the best qualified. So while the majority of those who voted chose Sanders, their preference does not matter because it is all about him (the governor) and he knows best...and once again, the will of the people is superfluous.

Sam

[madfloridian]

14. So all those folks will stick with Hillary even if Bernie wins the popular vote.

That is absolutely unreal.

[Samantha]

22. It was just a couple of days ago I heard this

and I could not believe it. I knew he had not endorsed Sanders, but to in light of the numbers Sanders received, endorse her instead is to me mindboggling. And the Governor of Colorado is like-minded.

Sam

[delrem]

57. Yah, these guys are making it crystal clear.

Can I ramble with probably unrelated thoughts?
Because I don't always think linearly.

I think there's something corrupting about the system, the process, the apparatus, because these guys can sound so good when nothing is at stake and they aren't expected to produce - but in the end the Republican right always wins. In the end the Dems are just windbags who always find a set of "centrist/moderates" to put the Republicans over the top. Always.

Odd that the Republican party doesn't have that problem...

So there has to be a reason. It can't be just that Dem voters are clueless. There has to be something that drives the results to be this way in the system itself, in the way the system is designed. I'm thinking of the coup leaders of the country Columbia who, after their coup not that long ago, decided that they needed the facade of "democracy" and so designed a two-party system where the tweedles traded off power in charade "elections". They designed the process so their people, whether "good cop" or "bad cop", always won, because nobody else was running. There's something of a classic pattern to it.

At this time there're few issues that distinguish the Republican right from the Democratic Party leadership (DLC/Third-Way/New_Democrat) position.
Hillary is against Universal Health Care - and puts on a pretense of being in support of it, providing that it's done under investor capitalist defined private health care insurance dictates. She seeks to enforce these investor defined schemes in "Free Trade" agreements that establish investor's rights, not just for health care issues but for all issues that an investor can imagine. So the only difference is that the extreme rightwing R's are openly against socialist programs like universal health care, pharmacare, and the like, whereas Hillary pretends not to be but in fact is just as against them. And that's nothing but a Republican twist - to put a lying face on it for the Dems.
Hillary is a neocon. Enough said. Hillary is well-funded by the big investment banks, by corporate interests who win big from no-bid gov't war contracts. An enormous amount of money is funneled through the US MIC. Just enormous, and nobody on the Republican side or on the DLC/Third-Way/New_Democrat side would even think about opening that budget to question. On military/war matters Hillary Clinton is way on the right wing extreme of what seems to be wrong with the Republicans - e.g. Cheney's ties to Halliburton are on Hillary Clinton's scale. Not greater, IMO. The same.
So there's no difference there, either, so far as I can see.

So where is the difference?

There's something about it, where the Democratic Progressive Caucus might be the biggest, but it's also the meekest thing that I've ever seen in politics. When the DLC/Third-Way/New_Democrats came in with all their money and connections, their "think tanks" and their insider top-level MSM connections, it took them no time whatsoever to claim total and absolute control over the Democratic Party. Where was the push back? They took control over all discussion, debate, and direction. And this huge Democratic Progressive Caucus was worthless to stop it or even put in a word edgewise, except for being used as decoration for a false front that Hillary Rodham Clinton is now appropriating as facade for her run for president.

How many of those Democratic Progressive Caucus members have endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is as far removed from progressive politics and progressive ideas as is possible to be? A lot. Way too many.

So I think there has to be something structurally wrong, that allows big money to come in and like "the blog" absorb it all,

[JDPriestly]

58. Thank you.

[green917]

47. they will vote for whoever has more pledged delegates

When bernie overtakes her, they will switch their votes at the convention because if they don't it would destroy the party.

[JDPriestly]

68. So much for Democratcy for America. Not very democratic. 86% vote for Bernie there.

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. Sounds like a good plan.

[msongs]

3. if bernie were winning most states you would be happy as a clam for superdelegates. nt

[JDPriestly]

12. If Bernie were winning most states, the superdelegates would not make any difference.

[hack89]

4. Super delegates will not be factor this year

Hillary will get the delegates she needs without them.

[longship]

10. As the Zen Master said:

We'll see:

[JDPriestly]

13. California has 546 delegates. We are going to win it for Bernie -- and big time!

[hack89]

16. And how many of those delegates will Hillary get?

even if Bernie wins (which is questionable) he is not going to blow her out. He is going to be in a big hole by then - a 20 point victory wouldn't even erase his present deficit much less his deficit in June.

[JDPriestly]

20. Very few.

[hack89]

28. 50 point victory for Bernie? 60? 70?

how big a victory do you predict?

[brettl]

29. California Bernin!

A little over 3 months until we vote out here in CA! I'm going to be working harder than ever to encourage more and more voters to "feel the Bern!"

[dpatbrown]

41. I'm here in Sacramento,

trying to get behind the Kings, and I too will double my efforts. Sanders will win big here. Bring it on. I don't know one friend who is for Clinton. We feel it.

[RobertEarl]

56. Welcome to DU

Lay low for your first 100 posts. Ok? Trust me. They already have their eye on you as a Berner.

[GoneOffShore]

37. Cool story.

I sincerely hope not, because otherwise it's hello President Trump or Cruz or Rubio.

[hack89]

44. Honest question

have you taken the time to look at any of the delegate trackers that show the margins of victory in each state Bernie needs to win? That's the issue with delegates being awarded proportionally- once you fall behind you need to win future states by even bigger margins to win. And right now he is under performing in the early states. Primary math is not complicated but it really hurts to fall behind early.

Take it for what it's worth but I just want you to understand that I have put thought into my posts.

[JDPriestly]

59. See my post #51.

Hillary is going to have a tough time winning in November if Trump is the Republican candidate. It's the enthusiasm gap that hurts Hillary.

She has the loyalty of old-timers, the folks who voted for her husband in 1992 and 1996.

But the millenials and other young voters are loyal to Bernie, not to Hillary or the Democratic Party.

Democratic numbers are down in the primaries and caucuses. If a good portion (not all) of the young Bernie supporters don't switch to Hillary, and why in the world would they, then we could be in big trouble and will be in big trouble if Hillary is our nominee.

Bernie has been attracting a huge number of erstwhile "independent" voters. Those too could just not vote if Hillary is the nominee.

[lunamagica]

77. Blacks. Latinos, GLBT, Muslims, jews, most women will more than make up for the youth vote -which is

not showing to vote anyway. Relyin g on them was one of Sanders biggest mistakes. They are just not showing up to vote, as usual.

[Garrett78]

61. Bingo. Superdelegates are not relevant in 2016.

Clinton is going to win an overwhelming number of pledged delegates. It's not going to be like 2008 where she wins the popular vote battle by a hair but loses the delegate war by a hair.

[angrychair]

5. Which is it then SuperDelegates??

The will of the voters of your state or the will of the your master?

[hill2016]

6. Sure

as long as all the uncommitted Superdelegates of states that Clinton won go for her.

That means Elizabeth Warren, who is a SuperDelegate, will endorse Clinton as she won MA!!!!!

[JDPriestly]

15. Clinton won Mass. by only one point.

Elizabeth Warren can vote as she chooses.

[Agschmid]

24. ...

[liberal from boston]

42. Bernie Sanders

Senator Warren has not endorsed Hillary or Bernie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-and-elizab_1_b_9185022.html

[senz]

50. So is that why Bill shut down MA polling places on election day?

[Darb]

7. Not as "resoundingly" as Hillary won in the south.

Jussayin'.

[JDPriestly]

18. I'm not questioning the support of the superdelegates in the South.

I'm asking whether the superdelegates in states in which Bernie won from 51-86 (51 to Hillary's 41) percent of the vote will switch to support Bernie.

Do they think their superdelegate status gives them the right to cast their supervotes for a candidate that lost big in their state.

[Darb]

19. OK. Fair enough. Don't know though, have never understood the

Super-Duper Delegate thing. I think it is stupid.

[JDPriestly]

51. Hillary's wins in the South do not help us win in November.

Those states don't vote Democratic.

Neither do Nebraska and Wyoming.

Democrats will miss the votes of Bernie voters in November if they nominate Hillary, but that will be especially true if they nominate Hillary and the superdelegates in states that Bernie won vote for Hillary.

Hillary voters can in good conscience vote for Bernie. But it does not work the other way around.

There are many reasons that Bernie voters won't vote for Hillary. Campaign finance is a big one. So is the environment. Social Security. Trade. And above all breaking up the big banks and the economy.

Hillary is not a candidate who can satisfy in the least Bernie voters.

I personally cannot vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is too weak on the issues, one after the other.

Hillary is a figment of the past, a ghost.

Bernie is the future. His support among young voters is proof.

The Democratic Party would be best off backing Bernie, not Hillary.

Trump will probably win over Hillary if he is the candidate.

I should add. I will not vote for Hillary as a matter of conscience. (Kissinger??? No way. Had to read him in college in the 1960s.)

But young people will not vote for Hillary out of lack of enthusiasm.

The turn-outs for the Democratic contests have been relatively low -- compared to the turn-outs when Obama was running..

Fact is, more Hillary voters will turn out to vote for Bernie than Bernie supporters will turn out to vote for Hillary.

Polls should be done on this. The DNC should commission them.

Because this is a major issue that superdelegates and the DNC should consider.

They aren't getting the numbers of voters they got in past presidential primaries. They should be getting more. If Bernie weren't running, how would the Democratic primary numbers read. A lot lower is my guess.

[beachbum bob]

9. So how many delegates did Bernie get in these resounding victories??

[SCantiGOP]

43. Delegates?

In the 4 contests Sanders won Tuesday he got 28 more delegates than Sanders. In Texas alone Clinton picked up 95 more delegates than Sanders.

[JDPriestly]

69. California has 546 delegates. It ain't over until California has voted.

[Major Hogwash]

73. The way things are going on now, I think it will be over before California holds their primary.

And I think that it will be over by then.
In other words, I think Bernie will have more than a 546 delegate lead over Hillary by the time California holds their primary.

[Major Hogwash]

63. They're almost tied now.

Hillary didn't pull out of the gates fast enough this time, Bernie is rounding the corner and is projected to overtake Hillary around the middle of the month, on St Paddy's Day!!!

[SCantiGOP]

64. Almost tied now? very apt screen name, Hogwash

Latest count, without the superdelegates, is 577-394, or about 60/40. That is what in an election is known as landslide numbers. Put another way, would you consider a basketball game with a score of 60-40 to be "almost tied?"
Clinton had a larger margin of delegates won in each of 4 races Tuesday (a margin of 95 just in Texas) than Sanders did in all 4 of his wins combined (28 combined).
Argue your case, but please acknowledge reality along with your optimism.

If Sanders somehow wins I will be doing everything I can to get him elected, but I am preparing for a Clinton vs GOP race in November that has staggering implications for this country's future.

[JDPriestly]

70. Clinton will lose in November.

Democrats are not voting in the primaries in the numbers that Republicans are.

And the young people who are amassing and fighting and voting for Bernie are not going to switch to Hillary. She is weak on trade, the environment, education, vague on health care. Her foreign policy errors are catching up with her. And on the really big issues like family leave and the environment, people trust and believe in Bernie more than in Hillary -- for good reason.

The quality and numbers of jobs are big issues for young people, college age through to 40, and Bernie is trusted and strong on those issues.

He is strong on family leave. He is strong on the student loan issue.

Hillary gives young people utterly no reason to vote for her.

The young voters are not party loyal like their parents were.

My generation (72) was raised by FDR parents, WWII parents. We were taught to be party loyal.

The younger generations are not so solidly party loyal as we are.

Hillary does not appeal nearly as much to the younger generation as Bernie does. Look at his crowds. Look at hers.

Hillary may wrangle the nomination, but in November, everyone is going to be asking what happened to her support?

[Blue_In_AK]

74. That's what I'm afraid of, too.

Hillary may win the battle, but lose the war.

[lunamagica]

79. The younger generation are not showing up to vote.

[lunamagica]

78. Berniemath

[WillyT]

11. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[ConsiderThis_2016]

17. It's only logical.

Howard Dean

[gcomeau]

21. Ugh... no.

There is one and only one thing every single superdelegate in the country should be doing. And that is keeping their fucking mouths shut until the primary voting is over in the entire country then... barring the winner of the pledged delegate count being caught on video torturing kittens or something between then and the convention... endorsing. that. winner. As representatives of the party, not the voter, their sole interest should be in saying "yep, we accept the outcome of the nationwide vote because that's how this is supposed to work".




(Actually what they should be doing is not being superdelegates... but if we're working with the system we have...)

[JDPriestly]

23. Thanks. Great post!

Bernie will win some and lose some. But he is winning with much larger margins than the polls have suggested, so superdelegates should keep their mouths shut if only to avoid Howard Dean's position in Vermont facing an overwhelming vote for Bernie in spite of Dean's foolish endorsement of Hillary.

If Dean's endorsement of Hillary was supposed to help her in Vermont or elsewhere, it clearly failed big time.

[erlewyne]

31. I'm going to feel so good when I vote for BERNIE SANDERS on March 15, 2016 !!!

Bernie has done so much for us and I sure like my
Social Security and Medicare !!! which I paid for.


Thanks JDPriestly and I always watch for your posts.

[xloadiex]

40. I can't wait to vote for Bernie either!

I could vote now but they don't offer paper ballots and I don't want to vote on a machine.

I'm in Chicago "Vote early, Vote often:

[mountain grammy]

32. Agree!

I'll be speaking to a few super delegates at our county assembly where I'll be an alternate delegate for Bernie. I'll be asking the super delegates to do the right thing for the Democratic process and all the voters who turned out on March 1st.

[delrem]

60. I think the actual purpose of the superdelegate idea

is to secure the establishment from dissenters.

That's just my opinion, but I do base it on some reading.

IMO it does make some sense.

On the other hand, when some superdelegate pledges her/himself to some candidate, then says that s/he's honor bound to fulfill that pledge - offering no other reason - I think that superdelegate is being a cunt/prick/do-rag of a person. I'd expect a bit more from someone I'd vote for.

[BainsBane]

25. I read that the goal

was to turn the superdelegates so that Bernie could win with a minority of the popular vote, 41 percent as a reposted thread the Bernie group insisted. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280131139

Bernie did indeed win those states above, but he still trails greatly in the popular vote. There are of course upcoming elections and Sanders supporters could be working now to turn out voters in those states. Yet I haven't seen calls to do that. Instead, we see calls to harass superdelegates, overturn elections with an overwhelming majority for Clinton, and/or disenfranchise great swaths of the country because the voters didn't vote the way people here insist voters must.

If you want superdelegates to support Sanders, he needs the overall majority of the popular vote in the country and with it the earned delegates. This determination to fight for superdelegates in states that have already voted is ridiculous. Moreover, the threads insisting that Democratic votes in states that Clinton won shouldn't count at all suggests to me that the will of the people isn't exactly a priority.

Besides, even if all the superdelegates in the states Bernie won switched to Sanders, it wouldn't be close to anywhere enough to catch up to Clinton's delegate lead since those states have far fewer delegates overall. Count the names listed in your own OP and compare that to the current delegate spread.

If your point is to hold, that would mean that Sanders' superdelegates from states Clinton won should switch to her. Will you also be advocating for that?

[JDPriestly]

52. Please see my post number 51.

We haven't officially begun to campaign in California. We are just barely starting. Our efforts, our organizing is focused on other states.

We are going to win by huge margins in California.

As I explain in my post Number 51, the problem for Democrats is the lack of enthusiasm among voters. The lack of turn-out in the primaries especially compared to large turn-out in the Republican primaries is a warning.

Who is turning out?

The old diehards who back Hillary cause after all she is a known entity. This was especially true in the Southern states. Older voters who watch TV and don't know what is going on on the internet. Those are Hillary's voters.

And then who is turning out? The excited young people who are out TO VOTE FOR BERNIE.

The young voters in our primaries are not out to vote for a Democrat. They are not there to vote for Hillary.

They are out to vote for BERNIE because he has inspired them to vote.

If Democrats nominate Hillary, they will lose those young voters. They are not loyal to the Democratic Party. They are free thinkers. They see how hard it is to get a good, decent-paying job. They want to be marrying, starting careers, maybe opening a business, having children. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE REPAYING STUDENT LOANS WHILE WORKING JOBS THAT PAY LOUSY WAGES AND LEAVE NOTHING AFTER THE LOAN PAYMENT, FOOD AND A PLACE TO SLEEP.

The Democratic Party needs to do some polling and research on what happens to the number of voters that actually bother to go to the polls if they nominate Hillary.

Because that is where the rub is.

Although we have not really started to campaign in California, I, being stubborn and opinionated as I am, have been out there talking to voters. The young voters I meet are Bernie-loyal, not Democratic-loyal.

I will not vote for Hillary but because my conscience just doesn't allow it.

I'm not talking about voters like me. I'm 72. I am talking about the young voters who come out to vote for Bernie, not for the Democratic Party.

Beware November. Even if Hillary wins a lot of primaries, she is not a strong candidate for November. She will bring out some young voters, but not enough to win in November.

[JDPriestly]

54. Hillary supports the Goldman Sach's of this country.

They store and stash money. They foreclose on properties and buy them up to resell at higher prices that put people who can't afford the mortgages into even more debt.

Hillary's vague promises about growing the economy are useless.


What we need, what our young people need is economic policy that ends the terrible economic disparity between rich and poor.

Hillary has no clue as to how to do this.

If elected, she will be a second Herbert Hoover, clueless, paralyzed and hung up by economic dogma that does not work.

We need Bernie Sanders in the White House.

[Kalidurga]

26. That is a really good list of people to primary if they decide to go against the will of the people.

[TipTok]

27. Jury Results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Posting the names of superdelegates to encourage their continued harassment is taking election bullying to new levels. This should not be encouraged, particular when the candidate trails so greatly in the overall popular vote.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:18 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Those superdelegates deserve every bit of pressure that folks can muster. They are the real firewall to make sure that no one outside of the establishment rises to the top. Just ask DWS
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? How touchy can you get? A la tRump maybe?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good Lord! The silly alerts!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[NRaleighLiberal]

30. .

Pathetic alert...Hall of fame pathetic!

[TipTok]

33. Honestly...

How dare someone try and influence the leadership of their party...?!

The gall...

[sarge43]

45. Desperation alert. Sad really. n/t

[mountain grammy]

35. Alerter: you've got to be kidding!

Some of these people are my elected representatives and party officials. If they're going to support a candidate, I will damn sure let them know how I feel.

[GoneOffShore]

39. The alerter's comments are just silly talk.

But then we're used to that from Camp Weathervane.

[Duppers]

49. Sadly, that's the truth...

"Used to that from Camp Weathervane."

[Logical]

55. Wow, what a stupid alert. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

76. Oh, man, that is just sad.

Wow...

[Duval]

36. K&R. nt

[Jitter65]

38. They are picked to use their best judgement for the party. They may or may not switch.

How many switched for Obama?

[jeff47]

53. Tons.

Clinton was far ahead in superdelegates early in the primary. By the convention, she was far behind.

[JDPriestly]

72. They are picked to protect the spoils and corruption system.

All votes should be the same.

Let's say a state has a population of 12 million. Let's say 2,300,000 people vote in the Democratic primary and there are 29 pledged delegates. Each pledged delegate represents about 79,300 voters or votes.

Let's say that in addition, there are 12 superdelegates. Each superdelegate is given the same voice, almost the same number of votes as 79,300 voters in that state Democratic primary.

These numbers are very arbitrary. In fact, I will admit they are quite inaccurate. so don't take them at face value. They are just to give DUers an idea as to how extremely undemocratic the concept of superdelegates is.

It makes our democracy at the primary level a bit of a joke quite frankly. If Howard Dean and Patirck Leahy and the rest of the superdelegates really believe so much in democracy, they should loudly and clearly denounce the superdelegate system and relinquish their delegate status provided their superdelegate votes arenot assigned to some other party bigwig.

[CdnExtraNational]

46. Bernie Sanders supporters will all be waiting outside in Philadelphia...

if the SuperDelegates are used to swing the primary to Hillary Clinton.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, JDPriestly.

[Major Hogwash]

62. Plus, Bernie tied her in Massachusetts!!!!

Bernie is on his way to the White House!!!!

[jillan]

65. Save this. IF it comes down to the convention, we will need this info. As for right now - it doesn't

matter.
Superdelegates are uncounted at this point - unless your a Hillary supporter.
Ha - they even tried to claim she won Colorado because of her superdelegates

[Gwhittey]

71. Was this a news article

Or just rambling of Hillaombies .

[Chelsea2032]

66. MN

Where is Keith Ellison - Bernie supporter?

[JDPriestly]

67. Yes. He is already a Bernie supporter do I did not list him. Thanks.

[ecstatic]

75. Didn't Bernie know about the superdelegate process before he joined the Democratic Party?

When Bernie became a Democrat to run for president, this is what he signed up for. He knew the rules. They were in place before he was a Democrat. And now that he's a Democrat, he doesn't get to dictate new rules in the middle of primary season.

Don't get me wrong, the process probably should change, but not right now--not in the middle of the primaries for Bernie's convenience. To be fair, it would have to be changed in an off year--well before the next democratic presidential primaries.

At the end of the day, as un-democratic as this process appears to be at times, this is the process that made Barack Obama's nomination possible. And he's by far the best President of my lifetime. So I can't complain.