2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSuperdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States
This is how Superdelegates work. They have been party members for years, they are the Establishment, they are the ones that one candidate is railing against; while the other works with them and appreciates their support. I have no idea why people think that online petitions and a bunch of angry messages and phone calls will change their minds.
But I can understand the WANT to pressure them to switch, but I sure hope the METHODS used are respectful. That vote is THEIRS. To do with as they please.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/140894-what-does-a-superdelegate-do-the-democratic-partys-rules-could-spell-trouble-for-bernie-sanders
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)It's good for people to see what exactly a super delegate does.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Mike__M
(1,052 posts)to Inslee, Murray or Cantwell. They can try to earn it if they want.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Liberty Belle
(9,535 posts)That if they won't support the candidate who gets the most popular votes and delegates overall or at least in your state (whether that's Sanders or Clinton) you won't be voting for them in their next election.
If the Democratic party doesn't stand up for democracy, and respect the will of its voters to choose a progressive candidate (if Sanders is the leader) then its super delegates deserve to be voted out and replaced with new officials who will respect a democratic process, not a coronation by the party elite.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Expect to be VOTED THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK 'EM!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The super delegates are serving the DNC, in the capacity of super delegate they are not serving their constituents.
Liberty Belle
(9,535 posts)Wait until all the votes are in, and then let's see who has the most.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Or understand it?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...we're talking about the Democratic Party's primary system. The Democratic Party is free to choose their candidate however the hell they want to. If they wanted to do it via direct democracy there is nothing to stop them from doing it that way.
As it is, they did not used to have Super Delegates at all. And also as it is, the media has latched onto the Super Delegate totals as a convenient way to skew perceptions of how the primary race is going.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Right now I don't even want to hear about them, certainly not as part of the delegate count. I'll be interested in them when one candidate has a mathematical lock in elected delegates, not before.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Tad Devine made the super-delegate system, and he's running Sanders' campaign.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)I've seen plenty of it from his supporters, but not from him. But I may have missed it.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)They're formerly elected officials, who are supers because of their many years of service to the Democratic party.
The "we won't vote for you" threat won't work on them.
Sid
LiberalFighter
(51,104 posts)There are automatic delegates that are included because they are either current Governors, Senators, and Representatives. Others are included because they are DNC members representing the state at DNC meetings.
There are also Party Leaders of which some of them are former elected officials. Only a few of the DPL are former elected. Most have top leadership position.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)I as a DUer and Sanders supporter will do just that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)Sanders wins the popular vote you will join me in asking President Clinton as a super delegate to support him?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Right now I'm tired of seeing them lumped in with elected delegates.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it's when it gets to the convention that I really care about it.
That said, I am all for superdelegates switching their endorsements during the primary to reflect the outcome in their state, or to agree among themselves to make their endorsements match the percentages in their states as closely as possible.
But that is not how it works nor how it was designed to work. The supers serve as an Establishment cadre who state their preference and retain that preference until the convention, in hopes of influencing the primaries and preventing "extreme" candidates from winning. Once at the convention, however, they have always given their votes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention.
Should Bernie arrive with the most pledged delegates, and should the supers decide not to change their votes at that time -- then I'll care, and I wager a lot of us will care. We'll see how it plays out.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)This whole "vote the way your state did" literally only applies if your state voted for Bernie. If your state voted for Clinton, then the super-delegate is to ignore their voters and cast for Bernie anyway.
In other words, complete and utter hypocrisy from Mr Integrity.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We see the different standards applied constantly
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that he will vote as he sees fit, not according to the popular vote in Vermont, where Hillary Clinton was shut out entirely. So this is not all one-way, ya know.
Also, are you really implying that Sanders is responsible for that person's position? Your last sentence implies that, but I do not believe that to be the case. And if you are implying that, then presumably you also believe Clinton lacks integrity due to Dr. Dean's stance.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"vote the way the state votes" hypocrisy.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and I am not in the least bit hypocritical with this. I don't care who they endorse now; but once at the convention I expect them to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, regardless of how their own stated voted.
Also: the poster I replied to was implying that Bernie has a direct hand in that superdelegate's position. If we are to assume that, then we can assume the same thing about Dr. Dean's position. If we cannot make that assumption (and I believe we cannot), then it is disingenuous to try and pin it on Bernie absence any evidence.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but there are plenty of examples of those that it would.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Screw that guy.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)I have not seen Sanders come out against superdelegates. I've seen it from lots of his supporters, but not from him. I may have missed it though.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)
You can work for future changes. Bernie knew the DNC Primary rules whe he jumped in the race. He too is attempting to create a false narrative, to change the rule mid way through th cycle. Really, super bad timing on that call for change.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)This isn't a Bernie issue for me. It is a democracy issue, just like voter suppression.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)DNC is not a government agency, and as such can make their own rules. For so much wailing and gnashing of teeth and calling for some implementation of democracy rules, it is plain silly.
Fwiw, GOP removed that individual unencumbered vote from their SuperDelegates. They changed the rules for Mittens (I think). I'd bet a million dollars they wish they had the DNC rules right mow.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)And I guess it doesn't represent democrats? What we want doesn't matter?
beedle
(1,235 posts)Like how they couldn't change the contribution rules? But did.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I have not known either one to be changed mid way though an election cycle. Do you have an example and a link?
I guess there is a 'law' against changing things that might harm Hillary, but it's only an 'operational policy change' if it's changed to help her?
Very convenient how that works.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)That guideline was clarified and back to original policy almost a year ago, but Bernie is only recently complaining about it.
It was never a law to be changed or a formal operational policy. Your snarky comment attempting to rephrase the reality of changing laws on a whim, doesn't make it so.
beedle
(1,235 posts)because it was done on the hush, and no one other than DWS, in-the-know lobbyists (ie: Hillary supporter lobbyists) and her cronies knew about the change until recently.
And as for the super delegates, you do realize that with the debacle that happened in 2008 that there were all kinds of delegate rules changes right up until Aug. So this tripe about delegate "rules" being set in stone, is just that, tripe.
The biggest change came on May 31 as a result of the meeting of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which lessened the penalty initially imposed on Michigan and Florida. The party had excluded all delegates (including superdelegates) from either state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all these superdelegates (as well as the pledged delegates from those states) but with half a vote each.[25] That action added 55 superdelegates with 27.5 votes. The total number of superdelegates could continue to change until the beginning of the convention (Call to the Convention Section IV(C)(2)). On August 24th, the Democratic Party, at the request of Obama, awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida full voting rights.[26]
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)will more than likely be our nominee, regardless of the super delegates. I have been voting since 1972 a good ten years before the emergence of super delegates. I have yet to see them go against the popular vote. There has always been speculation but that is all it is speculation.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)kinda hard to know the true voter count of a state when only one name is on the ballot.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clintons win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the states violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obamas margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clintons name was on the ballot but Obamas was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clintons total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigans "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, hed have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/seating-floridas-and-michigans-delegates/#
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thanks.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"O",this person is just a troll.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,929 posts)You got alerted on for calling Obama O?
Hell!!!! I have posted his name as BO. I sure wasn't talking about Body oder. I adore our President.
?
Dear Goddess Bravenak, stalked much????????????
I loves ya babe!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sometime's you'll get a 7-0 leave when the jury did not agree. See it differently. But the alert made no sense at all.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Sounds familiar to a member that was trying to get me a hide. They said the same think "O" ....will try to find it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Should send it in so they can cross check.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Will get back to you.
sheshe2
(83,929 posts)Will post you elsewhere.
Very similar. Hmmmnm.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)and also timed out from alerting
On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"O",this person is just a troll.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The popular vote has nothing to do with it.
Sid
shraby
(21,946 posts)system.
That's not how a democracy works.
I never liked the idea of having them since I learned about them. They were set up specifically to thwart what the voters want in a candidate which in my mind is totally wrong.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It keeps the party from doing itself too much harm
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)so they need to give up that little experiment.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)over Practical liberalism. We lost very badly trying to play oh so pure.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)We don't have the Senate, we don't have the Congress, we lost a lot of state houses and state legislatures. It isn't about purity, by the way. It is about the standards of the Democratic party, which no longer seem to exist.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We had HELL. That's what the establishment is preventing.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Republicans have taken all that since the Clinton takeover of the Democratic Party.
I knew you were a self-admitted troll and am looking forward to your big reveal on election night. But I did not realize you were so unknowledgeable.
George II
(67,782 posts)Stallion
(6,476 posts)nm
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and VPs and Congressional Leaders, not simple Members. Those people have a vote that is their vote and they stand for no election. They fill no 'slot' allocated to such persons, so the passing of one does not cause the appointment of another.
The rest are all elected either to Governors offices or to the US Congress or to positions in the Party. All of them stand for election, each of them fills a slot that would be filled by anyone holding that office and anyone in that slot gets 'their' vote.
20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have you written to Alan Grayson and the Nevada super-delegate to "follow the way the people vote(d)"?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And our votes are not owed to them. Works for me.
beedle
(1,235 posts)their votes can be taken from then at any time. It's allowable and has been done before:
remember 2008?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#In_2008
So if 'rules are rules', the "ALL rules are rules' .. right?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)They did the same for Obama AGAINST Clinton last time.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Their interests are not those of the American people.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Samesies. Depending on the issue.
rachacha
(173 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Voters are likely to remind them of unpopular endorsements.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe not. They are party loyalists who will have establishment backing and assistance. Helps them to win if they have support.
hack89
(39,171 posts)especially with a "revolution " that can't even turn out to vote for their candidate.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I imagine the superdelegates in WA, AK, and HI are aware of that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets not forget that simple fact.
Henhouse
(646 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)He is a incumbent in the Senate. He is a losing candidate in the national primary that is ongoing. He will have no influence over super delegates after the convention. Neither will his supporters.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for the advantage of another politician and they might do that. They also might all swear off money and become wandering balladeers. Could happen.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AND wanting the super-delegates to do so for a politician that has, throughout his career, not shown them an ounce of loyalty or respect.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)candidate nominated by the people in the primary process. I think they generally do so for the reasons I have explained.
People yap about the superdelegates every cycle, few understand how it words and a quick review of opinions on them from 2008 will of course demonstrate great reversals of opinion because in 2008 it was Obama challenging her massive Superdelegate lead. There is lots of material from Obama and his staff stating that the winner of the primary allotted delegates should be the nominee. Obama said "The American people are tired of politics that is dominated by the powerful, by the connected."
I agree with Obama.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/obama-memo-to-superdelegates/
radical noodle
(8,013 posts)just as we do. Not only that, but Bernie has super delegates in states won by Hillary, do some of you really want them to support Hillary instead? There is a reason for these rules as Brave has so correctly stated.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)radical noodle
(8,013 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)A drum roll for you
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Vinca
(50,310 posts)It seems they can just about nullify a popular vote in a state if they want to which leads to the question, why bother having a primary? Just round up the superdelegates in a room and have them vote. At least be honest about not having a democratic vote.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was set up like this for good reason I think. The best candidate will win the most delegates. Supers are pretty much tie breakers. The party decides the rules. If they see a candidate that they feel will not HELP the party, then they can try to put a stop to any damage they may cause by getting charge of it.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)You may think one candidate might hurt the party and I might think another. Democracy is democracy is democracy. The funny thing is that I'm sure you would be arguing my point if Bernie had all the superdelegates.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that superdelegates should ignore the electorate in their own states. They were created specifically to tamp down insurgent candidates. It must be really irritating that it doesn't appear to be working this go-round.
As you should already know, historically superdelegates vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, once they get to the convention.
If this year's bunch of SDs chooses to go against that, guaranteed there will be hell to pay. Like it or not, that would be an extremely divisive choice for the SDs to make, and it would tear the party apart IMO. Let's hope they choose wisely.
Of course, if Hillary arrives with the majority of pledged delegates, I would not want to see Sanders winning due to superdelegates either -- although that is not only unlikely but preposterously unlikely. Still, process is important. Surely you can agree with that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to make your thoughts known?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I really don't care who they endorse up until the convention. Given that we have superdelegates, they will endorse whoever they please, up until that time. Once a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, then I expect them to fall in line as they always have before and vote for that candidate. That includes the likely scenario where Hillary is the one who has the most pledged delegates -- at that point I do expect Alan Grayson and all the others to do the right thing and vote for Hillary.
I'm torn on whether we should have superdelegates or not. On the one hand, it is a way for the party establishment to put their thumb on the scale. It has allowed the MSM to skew the primary narrative by quietly including them in delegate totals. Only recently have they started being a bit more honest about pledged vs. unpledged delegates. On the other hand, I see what is happening in the Republican party, where Trump is almost certain to win the primary. It does seem prudent for a party to have some way of preventing an extremist demagogue from becoming that party's nominee.
But then one has to ask, if the party's voters really have expressed a preference for an extremist demagogue, WTH is wrong with the party in the first place? In the case of the Republican party, we know it has encouraged this sort of divisive, nasty discourse for many years, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Let's hope that whoever we nominate wins!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)*shrug* If the message is my vote doesn't count, I will read that loud and clear.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)If you don't want to listen to people NOT praising the anointed one, maybe you should stop worrying what we think?
Seriously? Why do you give a shit about people whose opinion you consider worthless?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You can respond to my ops or not.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)have the right to hold those SDs accountable if they vote against their wishes. And they should be held accountable.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)PufPuf23
(8,839 posts)Superdelegates should represent the will and best interests of their constituents over and above maintaining their own privilege and power.
If not, they have a problem in character.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)For example even in the deep red states, raising the minimum wage polls well and thus can be seen as the will of the people, who then vote for Republican candidates who run against raising the minimum wage, thus indicating that the people don't really care about the issue. Likewise, Congress as a whole has an abysmal approval rating, but everybody gets reelected.
And who defines what is in somebody's best interest? Can the super delegates decide it's in the people's best interest to vote for a particular candidate?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Have you always been drawn to establishment, plutocratic governance, or did you abandon your previously held belief that democracy was generally a pretty good idea because it was incompatible with support for Clinton?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I've always thought that autocracy was incompatible with being a democrat. Either that wasn't true, or something about Clinton is so compelling that it inspires people to abandon their beliefs.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Such desperation.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)But if they ignore Bernie and he is the rightful winner in the end, they will be the ones to blame when she loses.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Some myths are difficult to extinguish.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The prevailing false talking point is that the SD vote the way of the majority of voters/poll participants. the primaries are so much more of a poll than an election.
One moe time: the SuperDelegates represent their own desires and reflect the desires of the DNC not necessarilymthe people casting a ballot. It very nice and much less messy when they align however.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Nobody cares. They will not listen.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The best thing for the Democratic Party to Republicans is to appear to be the undemocratic party.
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)We even have that kind of dynamic here in WA state.
Few years ago, WA voters passed a binding voter initiative to go to primary elections. The state Repubican party honored the vote and went to the primary, while the state Democratic party establishment sued for the right to go back to caucuses, and won.
So now we have to listen to state-level Rs bloviate about how the Rs are more democratic than Democrats, and thanks to the idiocy and self-serving impulses of the Democratic party apparatus, they almost have a point. Blech.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)My sons girlfriend volunteered to run for delegate out of 8 for Hillary Clinton and many people probably keep this pledge in mind
They don't want to blow it off because someone elses supporters want them to.
Our group elected 3 delegates and 2 alternates, people expect them to represent our votes.
No its not the VOTERS in general, but 70 some people showed up for our district for both sides yesterday, the only people howling about delegate distribution were Sanders people even when 4 HRC voters were turned away for not making the 11AM cut off. If their votes would have been counted she would have won the district. She lost the 28th by 2.
Can you >>> I M A G I N E<<< the screeching if those had been Sanders voters??
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I watched them act the same way yesterday and try to get some of H's voters struck from the count after it had been certified.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)eom
AzDar
(14,023 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)It's obvious most of your "representatives" are woefully out of touch and could care less about the will of the people, unless they're corporate lobbyists. Let the people pick their candidate, not these establishment dinosaurs.
George II
(67,782 posts)...of the Democratic Party.
With Sanders berating and fighting THEIR party for decades, and essentially pointing out in each and every stump speech and rally that "the establishment is bad", I can't see many, if any, who have come out in support of Hillary Clinton changing at any time to support the candidate who has been insulting them since his campaign started.
As the old saying goes, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", and Sanders has gone through gallons of vinegar while is supply of honey is still in his cupboard unopened.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And this method I see recently to get them in his side is not any better than what he has already been doing.
George II
(67,782 posts)....I'm happy to see that behavior. It means more delegates for Hillary Clinton.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)So you're in favor of giving disproportionate power to white males?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Vote until recent history.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Meanwhile, Bernie got 70% of the vote in Hawaii, which is about 11% white males.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The Democratic establishment ignoring the will of we the people
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)I've been on record before as saying that if Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, and supers give it to Hillary anyway, the party will have a 1968 problem on its hands.
It'd be hypocritical of me to demand that my local elected supers switch to Bernie at this point in time, before the full pledged delegate results are in.
So I'll wait for CA, and the other states that vote that day, to have their say before I revisit these arguments.
I did find the petulant demands from Hillary supporters that Bernie drop out during his best week of the primaries thus far amusing, can we please all get a chance to vote first!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We can just wait until somebody hits 2383
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)This discussion really only becomes an issue if the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates doesn't get to 2383 on the pledged delegates alone, which has been my biggest fear this whole primary.
I've always dreaded what would happen if Bernie won the pledged delegates, but supers gave it to Hillary, but now with other Bernie supporters trying to flip the supers early, I must now consider what happens if the shoe is on the other foot.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Any supers still there at 2383 are not switching. But with all the closed primaries coming up, I am feeling confident that that day will come early.
Cha
(297,723 posts)President.. those who are pledged to Hillary know her and know she will be the best.
Mahalo, brave~
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They do not deal well with demands. They are there to help us win against reoublicans. Not many here seem to get that.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)I do not see Sanders being able to flip many super delegates.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...which is why Superdelegates suck and should be banned from our party.
The PEOPLE should decide the vote, not a bunch of party mucky mucks.
I mean, Jesus--can the Democrats at least have their elections be as fair as the Republicans?!?
Pretty sad, that this is where we are.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think you know that better than I.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Super delegates are a stupid idea.
Nothing we can do about it this cycle, but maybe we can all use common sense and become as fair minded as the Republicans.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I prefer "badass" myself.