Those pre-pledged delegates sure are in an awkward, embarrassing position...having

[silvershadow]

Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

prematurely pledged to the weakest candidate, and unusually early at that. Now that we are here, she still hasn't closed the deal, and he is polling far better- wow. Plus her trend lines compared to his are polar opposites. This cycle has shown those pledged delegates it is best to wait. How awkward!

[HooptieWagon]

1. They're probably well compensated for their trouble.

[silvershadow]

2. I wish I could pretend that didn't have some basis in fact. nt

[George II]

72. Well, you seem to be pretending that it DOES have "some basis in fact".

[Snarkoleptic]

12. Welp, it has been well documented that several

Of them are lobbyists, so compensatation...yes.

[SidDithers]

43. Funny you should say that...

Did you know that Keelan Sanders (no relation), one of Bernie Sanders' very few superdelegates, is actually on Bernie Sanders' payroll?

Yup, he was paid more than $6.000 payroll in February, and another $5 grand in March.

It's right there in Bernie's FEC filings. You can look it up.

In this case, it's a Bernie super who's well compensated for his trouble.




Edit: Troy Jackson, of Augusta, ME too. He's been paid more than $16K by the Sanders campaign, and he's a Sanders superdelegate.

Sid

[Andy823]

93. Amazing, isn't it

Not one reply to you post, and yet if someone posted this about Hillary paying off super delegates, there would be hundreds of replies trashing her for it, and hundreds of recs by the anti Hillary crowed. Guess Bernie gets a pass because he is so "honest" and such.

[puffy socks]

105. Yep . Completely , willfully

Ignored. Speaks volumes.

[scscholar]

112. If his opponent does the same...

why shouldn't he be able to?

[rurallib]

3. I doubt they care much to be honest

[Punkingal]

4. You're right...they don't care.

We need to make them care.

[GoneFishin]

110. They don't care that she is willing to let innocent civilians die so her rich corporate sponsers can

go into other countries to steal their shit. I doubt having a conscience factors into their decision making process.

[Nye Bevan]

5. So awkward, to vote to follow the democratically expressed wishes of the voters.

What would be even more awkward is to vote for the candidate who has won several million fewer votes than his competitor.

[silvershadow]

8. And yet, there is precedent, if it comes to that. We don't elect based on raw votes, remember?

It is all based on the rules we all agreed to, so we could get there and elect Richard Simmons as our nominee if we wanted to. Just sayin'.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Yeah, lots of Bernie supporters are discounting the significance of "raw votes" these days.

You kind of have to when your guy is millions of votes behind. But I admit that your Richard Simmons analogy is a good one, as he has a similar probability to Bernie of winning the nomination.

[silvershadow]

16. I haven't seen anyone discounting their significance, rather just poignant out what their

actual significance is. It becomes important, as this cycle has demonstrated, when we get down to counting actual delegates. For example, after the massive disenfranchisement in New York, and many other states that had irregularities, we need to evaluate just exactly how many delegates *should be awarded, if the rules and traditions of the party hold.

It really is moot, right now, though. We are still trying to see who end up with the most delegates. We have a couple of great contests coming up this month!

[Arneoker]

148. No, I don't think we need to award Hillary more delegates in New York

The irregularities in her strongholds didn't seem to suppress her vote much, if at all.

[Agschmid]

29. Lol... Good lord.

[Dragonfli]

44. It is awkward, if they vote for the least electable candidate, it is their purpose to do the opposit

I was politically aware at the time and remember it's actual intent, the intent was to to quote one of the members on the committee, "We're about the business of winning again".

I know too many were not aware at the time, and so, do not, or to not wish to, see this newly tried corruption of the rule by using the party delegates by means of purchase or threat to steal ones way into an unfair advantage even if that one is far less electable (turning the rule change on it's head and reversing it's purpose), so I spent a day in the library looking up old newspaper articles to prove what those of us that were around when the rule change was adopted was meant to be used for. I also happened later to stumble upon an Amy Goodman interview/discussion on the matter and so will add both relevant bits of information below.

All Bernie needs to do is close the gap considerably to prove they are close and he is more electable (and she may well lose in a GE) for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories are designed, like them or not!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.

Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for their existence via reporting at the time:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

"Victory Is the Objective"

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democatic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections. ''There was a strong feeling,'' he said.

[That Guy 888]

113. What voters? Most of them pledged Hillary before any other candidates entered the race.

At least one of them said he wouldn't change his vote from Clinton even if Sanders won the most pledged delegates.

[msongs]

6. you mean the candidate with a 3 million vote lead? who has wider demographic support?

who has one more actual primary elections than undemocratic caucuses?

[silvershadow]

9. The one whose poll numbers are atrocious? And whose platform is weak compared to what we

are up against? The one who still hasn't released the transcripts?

[annavictorious]

77. Or the person who still won't release his taxes

Maybe Sanders should take the first step by releasing the transcripts of his remarks to the big-dollar, financial sector donors that he hosted at the DSCC retreats in exchange for party funding.

We get it...you want the only woman in the race to do something no one else is required to do because less qualified, but somehow "more deserving" men want the job.

[pacalo]

10. The candidate who has to have a stacked deck in order to win, dear.

[annavictorious]

79. If by "stacked deck"

you mean more support from both the voters and the party she's worked hard for during the last few decades, so be it.

After all, one of the candidates publicly stated that he became a member of an organization simply in order to exploit its resources.

One of the candidates is just another white man who feels entitled to something he didn't earn.

[pacalo]

120. A stacked deck is having the DNC doing your campaign structuring

for you so that no other candidate running against you could have a fighting chance. Superdelegates, which are made up of Democrats with the most clout on down, are instructed on whom to support; Hillary had those locked up before any other Democratic opponent began a campaign. News media follow the same narratives & freeze out anyone but Hillary. I could go on, but it's not like anyone who supports Hillary Clinton would care about corrupt practices, anyway.

[Arneoker]

149. Yes, you could go on

Saying things which simply aren't true.

[pacalo]

155. What wasn't true about what I wrote?

[Trust Buster]

7. Sanders lost on his own merits.

[pacalo]

14. Really? Why is Hillary continuing on in the primaries?

[Trust Buster]

15. Because she has a general election to win, unlike Sanders.

[pacalo]

17. You said Bernie already lost, so you better tell Hillary.

Using your logic, she should skip the primaries & declare that she will only participate in the general, since she has already "won".

[Trust Buster]

19. She doesn't even mention Sanders any more.

[pacalo]

21. I'm glad the lies & misinformation about Bernie have come to an end!

[Trust Buster]

22. To the victor go the spoils.

[pacalo]

23. Bless your heart.

[annavictorious]

84. No one does

Even Weaver and Devine are MIA.

[Zynx]

18. There is the formality of locking up her proportionate share of the remaining delegates.

She'll get it. It's just a matter of time.

[KingFlorez]

11. I'm sure some Sanders delegates won't be wasting airfare to Philadelphia

What would be the point?

[silvershadow]

26. Oh no way. I'm still angling for a spot...ready to go! nt

[beltanefauve]

143. Airfare?

We'll be riding our unicorns, silly!

See you in Philly!

[JaneyVee]

20. Drop superdels. Popular vote count should get nomination.

Feel better?

[stone space]

53. It's not going to be either one. The supers will follow the pledged delegates.

Any potential embarrassment will have to await a change in those numbers.

And in that event, any supposed embarrassment will be rather minor.

[Jitter65]

68. Haha...nt

[rhett o rick]

24. They were bought and paid for by the DNC. Clinton funds via super pacs are given to

them for campaigns. They are beholden to the DNC/Clinton campaign. Isn't "democracy" fun. We need a fracking revolution.

[fun n serious]

34. Prove it!

Prove your spew. If not you're lying

[TexasTowelie]

54. Give him some credit.

He managed to write one entire post without mentioning the 99% or the Oligarchy.

[Dragonfli]

45. The original intention of SDs was to step in in if an unelectable candidate won the vote but $$$$$$

I was politically aware at the time and remember it's actual intent, the intent was to to quote one of the members on the committee, "We're about the business of winning again".

I know too many were not aware at the time, and so, do not, or to not wish to, see this newly tried corruption of the rule by using the party delegates by means of purchase or threat to steal ones way into an unfair advantage even if that one is far less electable (turning the rule change on it's head and reversing it's purpose), so I spent a day in the library looking up old newspaper articles to prove what those of us that were around when the rule change was adopted was meant to be used for. I also happened later to stumble upon an Amy Goodman interview/discussion on the matter and so will add both relevant bits of information below.

All Bernie needs to do is close the gap considerably to prove they are close and he is more electable (and she may well lose in a GE) for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories are designed, like them or not!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.

Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for their existence via reporting at the time:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

"Victory Is the Objective"

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democatic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections. ''There was a strong feeling,'' he said.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. Money changes everything.

[-none]

80. This bolded part is the real reason

who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election.

The will of the people cannot be trusted to vote the way the party leaders want them to. And that is what is fundamentally wrong with the Democratic party now. The party leaders have lost sight of the will and the welfare of the people.

[brush]

109. The will of the people is reflected in the vote and delegate count

[-none]

111. Assuming the vote count is honest.

There is too much evidence something is not right with the count, in too many places.

[brush]

115. Ever voted in a caucus? There are way more ways to manipulate vote count in poorly . . .

attended caucuses with inexperienced workers than in primaries.

And there would have to be some major miscounts to make up the three million votes Sanders is behind.

[CrowCityDem]

25. Yeah, picking the winner sure was stupid of them.

[MADem]

27. Those 39 delegates are welcome to flip their vote ahead of the

convention--and they likely will, most of them.

[silvershadow]

28. We will see. If they do, I will know the takeover of the party is complete. From that point

on, I guess I am a free agent.

[MADem]

31. I will say this about those 39--I don't think any Clinton supporter

will stalk them to their homes, track down their addresses, emails, and phone numbers, and write/phone them with threats, abuse, harassment and harsh commentary if they don't flip their vote.

And that's the difference, really.


References:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-democrats-accuse-sanders-supporters-of-harassing-convention-delegates/2016/04/12/0dd97d60-fff4-11e5-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html


http://www.mediaite.com/online/superdelegates-who-back-clinton-reporting-harassment-threats-from-sanders-supporters/

[silvershadow]

35. Well, I myself contacted every Super I could identify in my state's delegation...online. Then

I wrote them a nice, polite email outlining my position. As did most of the Bernie supporters I know locally. I have no comment about unveiled material from anyone at this point. Hard to say what motivation, or on whose side they are, being that are corporations. I suspect many protesters are actually rogue free agents for hire to anyone for any political reason. They should not reflect on, and in fact do NOT reflect on, any candidate, as much as the other side would like to conflate things.

[MADem]

49. I'm sure your "nice, polite email" made them see the light--not.

They aren't Low Information Voters, either.

They've weighed the candidates and announced how they intend to vote at the convention. Your emails, polite or not, won't sway them.

Nor will the not-so-polite emails of others, or the late night phone calls, or the bullying of minor children.

But, as I said, the "big diff" is that no one is writing to Sanders' few dozen delegates, demanding that they follow the Correct Path and see the Way and the Light.

[silvershadow]

50. Funny how you don't even admit they are neck and neck, and he is due some respect. nt

[MADem]

58. They are not "neck and neck." Clinton has defeated Sanders--his path

to nomination is a rocky, overgrown, crumbling goat path straight up Mt. Everest. He will not prevail. Everyone knows this.

No one is disrespecting him by saying this, either. Facts are facts and math is math. But he IS done.

He can go out on his own timeframe, as fast or as slow as he'd like, but no amount of money, wishing-and-hoping, or insulting his opponent or her supporters is going to change this one essential fact: He's finished. It's all over but the sobbing.

[Corporate666]

65. Yes, Sanders has her right where she wants him LOL!!!

His plan all along was to be over 770 delegates down going into the final races.


But it illustrates the mind of the BS supporter.... where Clinton being ahead by 50% is "neck and neck", meanwhile Bernie is mathematically eliminated from winning the requisite nominations. We're just waiting for him to realize this (math was never his strong suit).

[JDPriestly]

56. The super delegates put themselves in an awkward position when they accept that kind

of undemocratic, authoritarian position in a party that claims to represent the people.

We shall see what happens after Oregon and California.

[MADem]

57. See? You do not understand their role. They don't "represent the people."

They are chosen to REPRESENT THE PARTY. Their loyalty is to the Democratic Party, to help choose a standard bearer whose goals match well -- and most closely -- with Democratic Party ideals.

It's a personal decision, and they're free to make it as THEY (not you) see fit. They aren't required to accede to the demands of mischief makers and "Pick the weakest candidate" party line crossers, even if that is what you'd like.



smh.

[JDPriestly]

59. They will do that at the risk of offending voters who resent or reject the party system.

I'm campaigning now and meeting a lot of those voters.

The super delegate system may have been appropriate at a time when there were fewer unaffiliated or independent voters. But today, so many voters are suspicious of the two-party system, the super delegates may diminish the likelihood that the Democratic candidate (if Hillary) can really attract enough votes to win.

She is likely to have a few big scandals to deal with between now and November.

Fortunately, Oregon and California have yet to vote. If the vote goes overall narrowly to Bernie, the super delegates may turn out to be a big headache for the Democratic Party in November. But then, I'm talking to voters, not to party big-wigs.

[MADem]

62. Well, voters who resent or reject the party system should find a home elsewhere

in the political sphere, rather than gate-crashing into an established party with a well-known platform and try to tell those people that they're doing it all wrong. If it seems like a rude and bone-headed idea in one's personal life, then it's a rude and bone-headed idea in political life as well.


If the Democratic Party is not a good fit for those voters, they need to look for a political home that is more to their liking. I know there are more than a few Sanders supporters who are COMPLETELY comfortable voting for Donald Trump. I don't think those people have any "right" to impose demands on those of us who have worked for/grown the party over the course of decades. No harm, no foul--if it's not working for you, move on. Go with (insert deity or some happy/optimistic emotion) and best of luck. But don't expect DEMOCRATS to "grow" their party by adding on people who don't subscribe to their core ideals.

The Republicans did this with the Tea Partiers, and it destroyed their party. Democrats aren't going to make that mistake--we learned our lesson in 1972.

Your "resenters" and "rejecters" need to work and grow a party of their own that best represents THEM, not try to bully us out of our home that WE built.

[JDPriestly]

64. Sorry, but a party that is more interested in maintaining its established power structure

than in welcoming new members and new ideas is on the decline. It won't get anywhere. Hillary might actually get elected in 2016, but if she does, her presidency will be a misery for all concerned.

I'm out here talking to voters. Lots of them are sick and tired of the party structure that cements the status quo into place.

Here in California, what I am hearing over and over is that Obama has deported more immigrants than any prior president.

The Democratic Party needs to return to the Party it was when, rather than personify, represent, strengthen and apologize for the status quo and conservative views, we stood up to them.

[MADem]

108. You can say that until the cows come home, but the Superdelegates are there to

prevent us from enduring another 1972.



That said, the candidate who will get the Democratic nomination has earned MILLIONS more votes than anyone else running, so at this stage, it's a moot point. She is the nominee in all but name, even if those who haven't yet come around do not realize this.

[immoderate]

106. OK, the rulers' interests are covered, but what about the PEOPLE?

--imm

[MADem]

107. That's why there's more than one type of delegate.

Both factions are represented. The superdelegates weigh in for the party, the pledged delegates weigh in for the voters.

In the old days, it used to be fat guys with cigars and fedoras who made the call in those "smoke-filled rooms." Primaries--the very few that there were--were "Beauty Contests" so you could get a look at the likely contenders. They weren't deciders by a long shot.

[okasha]

142. Or threaten to cut out their tongues.

[HassleCat]

30. They were chosen for a reason.

They're loyal to the party, and are unlikely to break ranks. A few of them, darn few of them, may be uncomfortable with going against the will of the voters they represent. but most of them will not feel awkward at all.

[Renew Deal]

32. Just because Bernie is loitoring doesn't mean the deal isn't closed.

Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

And they couldn't care less about your trend lines.

[sadoldgirl]

96. That means in my purple state that I

don't have to vote for my Senator. Thanks, great to
know that.

[Demsrule86]

152. I am so sick of the threats to

blow up the elections if you don't get your way Bernie voters. I don't think you have the power (couldn't even win a primary) but if you did, you only hurt yourself, and you literally would help a dangerous,unqualified racist win the presidency. The bitterness and hatred towards Hillaryis simply astonishing. No demonstration of such hatred is over the top ...from scaring kiddies to using right wing propaganda.

[fun n serious]

33. Bernie is the weakest

NOT Hillary. Look at the VOTES.

[silvershadow]

36. I'm looking at the general election polls, which indicate Bernie would absolutely crush Trump

and Hillary might not even win.

[fun n serious]

37. Oh POLLS that have been wrong all year...

NOT votes. ROTFLMAO.

[silvershadow]

39. Yeah, the historically accurate exit polls stopped being so the exact moment HAVA was implemented.

That WAS odd.

The rest are due to the Great Coast to Coast Disenfranchisement Tour we conducted this cycle.

[fun n serious]

41. Exit polls were wrong in Gore/Bush

They have actually been 50% accurate.

[silvershadow]

42. Yeah, that was pre-9/11. We were a different kind of country back then. nt

[redstateblues]

38. Bernie can't even win the nomination of his own party!

Bernie is like the back up quarterback that is popular but never wins.

[oasis]

46. Hill beats Trump by 13 points. Good enough.

thanks for your suggestion.

[Skwmom]

40. Just wait until the elected Democrats have to defend what they endorsed when endorsing Clinton.

[silvershadow]

47. They had better be careful...a lot of

people are misreading this election

[Agschmid]

127. Yes including you.

[silvershadow]

129. Says you. Enough said. nt

[Agschmid]

130. ;)

[Tarc]

48. Oh, your grapes. They are so, so sour?

The supers should support whichever candidate wins the most pledged delegates. That happens to be Hillary, so they're already behind the right candidate.

[-none]

81. That is the problem.

The Democratic party should be backing the Left candidate, not the Right one. Let the Republicans back the Right candidate.
That is why I support Bernie.

[Tarc]

85. protip; Hillary is left-wing too

Not quite as much as the Bern, but that's the problem with some of his supporters; the slightest deviation, they think that person is a raging neocon.

[-none]

89. Really?

Then why did Bernie Sanders bother to run against her? Why is Hillary now courting the Republicans for campaign money?
Hillary is not Left wing to the Democratic base. She is over Center to the Right politically.

[Tarc]

97. The problem is people that are so far left that everyone else looks right-wing

[-none]

98. Only to the Right-wing

[Tarc]

99. WHOOSH

[-none]

100. WHOOSH indeed.

[stone space]

51. It's not that awkard. If Bernie wins on pledged delegates, enough will switch to give him the win.

[silvershadow]

52. Well that's what I thought, but the Hillarians are acting like I slapped their baby

or something, so...

[stone space]

55. In the context of delegates, it is probably best not to use the word "pledged" for...

...supers who have endorsed a candidate.

They're not pledged delegates. They are just supers with a publicly stated opinion.

It is confusing.

And any talk of embarrassment is probably best left until after Bernie pulls ahead in actual pledged delegates.

Just sayin'...

By the way, in 2008, some supers did switch.

How many of then have claimed to feel embarrassed about it?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

92. Obama was ahead, however

It is virtually impossible for Bernie to tie or pull ahead of Hillary at this point.

[Waiting For Everyman]

60. They don't vote until the convention, "commitments" are bullshit.

They're free to change their minds, and I think many will. They'll stay in her column until the last minute in order to avoid the Clinton Hit List until then.

That's what I would do if I were in their place and thought the way they think, wouldn't you? Then they can say, "well see, I supported you as long as I could, but...". They can say they supported her without putting a target on their backs before it's necessary to cast a vote.

[Ino]

82. I agree...

I'm sure many of them were bullied into supporting her, way back when it seemed no one could possibly beat her, or even try to beat her. There is NO advantage to them to be on her shit list if she became president. They'll stick as long as practical.

[pdsimdars]

61. Here's a Hillary Super Delegate

.

[Betty Karlson]

63. Indeed.

[HereSince1628]

66. The problem of not having anywhere else to go. Rahm-ian principles applies

at that level too.

But I think it was an outcome of a strategic play and they were willing players, I doubt there's any remorse on their part. Getting angry about it is sort of like people getting angry at Arthur for his radical way of playing Jeopardy.

Clinton sought to lock up what she believed really mattered in a campaign. So before campaigning really formally started she made the play to corner the big donors and superdelegates. Her success with that is what the 'inevitability' argument was built upon.

The SDs remain free to do whatever they wish. But, as marketers know, once a customer has chosen a brand they don't need much reinforcement to stay loyal to it.

[beachbum bob]

67. so discount the 3 MILLION MORE VOTES for hillary too?? Dream on and weep

Clinton now has 94 percent of the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination

[rhett o rick]

86. I will be weeping for the 2.5 million homeless American children put there by a status quo that

is sadly supported by people calling themselves Democrats. Making sure the Wealthy amass more wealth at the expense of the poor. 16 million children living in poverty, yet Goldman-Sachs can buy a president.

[yourpaljoey]

117. The Hill 'selection' is guaranteed to flush the Third Way down the t-bowl and tear the Party apart

[DrDan]

69. funny how they are still committed 523-39 - how awkward

guess there was, and continues to be, no doubt as to who is better qualified

[George II]

71. No they're not. As a matter of fact, under all of the many scenarios that the Sanders campaign....

....has presented, Hillary Clinton will STILL have more "pre-pledged delegates" than Sanders.





In states that have voted, here's how it would be:

Current commitment - - Clinton 389, Sanders 33 (Clinton +356)
Winner take all - Clinton 374, Sanders 156 (Clinton +218)
Proportional - Clinton 279, Sanders 244(Clinton +35)

Even the new idea thrown out by Sanders this week, that superdelegates in states won by some unidentified "landslide" (by how much?)

"Landslide" > 60% - Clinton 386, Sanders 95 (Clinton +291)
"Landslide" > 65% - Clinton 387, Sanders 73(Clinton +314)

Considering the fact that Clinton is still ahead by about 290 pledged delegates, NONE of ever-changing schemes made up by the Sanders campaign will enable him to catch up.

How awkward indeed!

Finally, Sanders is "polling far better"? Where does that come from?

[JoePhilly]

73. I love these fantasies. Great way to start the morning with a laugh.

[NCTraveler]

74. We should have a HOF for these OP's.

Impressive.

[MineralMan]

75. Really? How many of them have you talked to?

I talked to my House representative at our DFL Party senate district convention. She's glad to be supporting Hillary Clinton as a superdelegate. She's Betty McCollum, Minnesota CD-4.

Get back to me after you actually ask a superdelegate what he or she thinks. They aren't in an awkward position at all. They're backing the winner of the majority of pledged delegates.

Seeya!

[silvershadow]

88. Florida? 'nuff said. nt

[MineralMan]

90. That's not an answer in any way, I'm afraid.

It's a diversion from my question.

[Sancho]

76. None of the super delegates that I know feel awkward or embarrassed...

Is there a poll of super delegates?

Most of them who have publicly said anything have said they support their candidate for good reason. Many more of them believe the good reasons support Hillary.

Bernie is the weakest candidate according to:
-voters
-unions
-Democrats who have worked with him
-donors
-newspaper editorials
-resume (experience and training)

Pledged super delegates have almost no reason to support Bernie. They certainly don't feel embarrassed.

[NewImproved Deal]

78. Maine Dems voted to abolish the Super-Delegate racket yesterday...

May the other 49 states soon follow suit. Our party shouldn't be stuck with mediocre Establishment candidates because of this moronic rule...

[link:|

[annavictorious]

83. Many Clinton supporters wanted the super delegate rule changed after the 2008 primary.

but for some reason, no one listened.

What a cute sexist picture you posted. It's amazing that when a woman wins, it's a coronation, and when a man loses, it's a gross injustice. Imagine the outcry if Clinton had tried to pull this crap on Obama in 2008.

Clinton trounced Sanders. The Democratic Party is going to nominate the woman who won, not the man who lost. Get over your entitlement.

[eastwestdem]

87. Perhaps you should take a look at presidential polls done in the spring of election years?

You will find that they are historically unreliable. Aside from that...

Is it possible that the super delegates you speak of are life-long Democrats who would not, under any circumstance, hand their party over to a brand-new member who had never bothered to commit to the party until he needed them to run for president?

For Sanders to have ever had a chance, he needed to plan his 'revolution' with more than 10 months lead time. TIP FOR ALL REVOLUTION PLANNERS OUT THERE...it might take at least a few years of work to overthrow the status quo. (First step would be to become enmeshed in whatever political party you feel would provide the most votes, or take several more years to create your own party, slowly building it from the ground up with local elected positions, increasing to national positions as you have the support. Warning, the second approach as not seen much successful in the past.)

[silvershadow]

95. I don't honestly believe they will move her forward under the circumstances

and taint my good Democratic name with her candidacy. But, dumber things have happened, I suppose.

[anotherproletariat]

121. The problem is, what you may consider "tainting" may to most super delegates be

thought of as right wing propaganda unsuspectingly thrust upon Sanders supporters.

[silvershadow]

124. Or, they may view it as it actually is. nt

[anotherproletariat]

131. That's why so many super delegates are for Sanders? nt

[silvershadow]

132. No. But that pesky investigation continues... nt

[anotherproletariat]

133. Not pesky to anyone on the Hill side...since the State Department did approve the server. nt

[silvershadow]

135. Pesky to me, and millions of other good Democrats who believe their DNC would not taint

their good names with a fatally flawed candidate.

[anotherproletariat]

136. I'm sorry you think she is flawed. Please do your research and you will find that almost every

attack against Hillary is fabricated. I just wrote a research paper for my poli sci class on this, and got an A.

[silvershadow]

137. I will go with my own instincts on this one. That wonky stuff belongs in a class, especially

with her public opinion polls being in the tank.

[anotherproletariat]

140. The lowest opinion polls are always seen right after the primary ends. Particulary in a

aggressive campaign.

[silvershadow]

141. Oh they've been in the tank for months now. It has been all over DU. nt

[Demsrule86]

153. Useless polls six months out from the election?

When one of the candidates is not vetted and has plenty to cause concern in his background (Bernie) such polls are meaningless. I can promise you Supers don't use polls as criteria... the candidate with the most delegates wins.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

91. Clinton HAS "closed the deal"

Bernie has been mathematically locked out of the nomination and he is refusing to leave the race until the convention, which isn't something that Clinton has any control over.

[silvershadow]

94. Seems to me, that once the wheels fell of the bus months ago, Bernie is the actual

front runner, who has mathematically locked Hillary out. Once those Supers take a look at her tanking trend lines compared to Bernie's rising ones, it will be no contest. Those Supers surely won't taint my good Democratic name with her candidacy- but, dumber things have happened, I suppose.

[CrowCityDem]

128. Only with Bernie is being way, way behind somehow winning.

[Metric System]

101. Are you posting from bizarro world?

[silvershadow]

104. Yes I am...from one in which the Supers pledged themselves to the weakest candidate

prematurely...extraordinarily so, in fact. When they pledged it was not even clear who all may enter the race. In this case, Bernie did enter the race, and is 10 times more in line with my traditional, FDR, Union-labor views than she is. She ran in the wrong primary.

I am living in a bizzaro world where Debbie-gate will go unaccounted for due to The Truce, and one in which the world's most obvious and blatant irregutlatires occurred. Had Arizona and New York not "gone down" the way they had, the actual true front runner, Bernie Sanders, would not be in dispute.

She should have bowed out when the wheels fell of the bus months ago.

Instead she is forcing a contested convention.

As if.

There is NO way those Supers will smear my good name by forwarding a nominee who is under active FBI investigation. They just will not do that to me, and to the entire party.

I absolutely believe that.

[Metric System]

116. More people have voted for Hillary than Bernie. Millions more.

[silvershadow]

123. Yes I know. The party has turned its' back on its' roots. nt

[MariaThinks]

102. even your logo is a swipe from hillary. Is there any original thinking on Bernie's support team?

[anigbrowl]

103. Thanks for your concern

It's great that you spoke up about this because none of these people are able to do it themselves because...er...oh.

[Drunken Irishman]

114. lol holy shit this place has gotten crazily delusional.

I mean, I'm actually in awe at how far off the deep end this place has gotten. We used to mock Free Republic for how out of step they were with reality but damn, DU is right there with them. I don't post much on DU anymore, or even really check up on it, so as I interact with people in the real world, actually live in the real world, coming over to the site is like a mind fuck.

On DU, Bernie is really winning and it's Hillary who's struggling.

In reality, in the real world, where people go to work, pay their bills, go to softball and baseball and t-ball games, the general election has already started and it's between Hillary and Trump.

Crazy to think there is such a disconnect between DU and real life. It's sad, too. Really, really, really sad.

[silvershadow]

125. I think the disconnect will be much clearer soon. It appears we are throwing Union Labor

completely under the bus. Good luck with that strategy.

[beltanefauve]

144. That became clear

when the DNC held the last convention in a right -to -work state.

[silvershadow]

146. +1 nt

[Uncle Joe]

118. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, silvershadow.

[justiceischeap]

119. I find it ironic that when Democratic candidates have won the popular vote

but lost the electoral college, all we hear about is how the candidate with the most popular votes should have been elected. However, when we have a Democratic candidate in the primaries with a 3+ million lead in the popular vote, we should disregard the popular vote in favor of the person with fewer popular votes.

Clinton even leads Trump in the popular vote count at this point but we should ignore that too, I guess.

[brooklynite]

122. Funny...none of the SDs that I get to talk to want to change ship...

...and as Russ Feingold said: "If Sanders wins, we're in trouble".

[silvershadow]

126. The reckoning will reverberate for decades, I'm afraid. nt

[elleng]

134. Right, and she prepared for this eventuality for a long time,

calling in all her/their chits accumulated over many years, making this process not about NOW, but about THEN.

[senz]

138. They declared before she even had policy positions.

Before Sherrod Brown had written her up some.

[silvershadow]

139. Oh I didn't realize she had any policy positions even yet..I will go look them up.

All I saw were generalizations and platitudes on the trail and in the town halls.

[synergie]

145. The weakest candidate has no hope of sealing any deal, it's why he's losing

on the popular vote, the pledged delegate count and why SuperDs who know him and have worked with him, want nothing to do with him.

Yes, it's sure awkward for that weak, weak candidate that after all he and his followers have said about superDs that he's had to flip flop hard, and STILL has not path to "sealing the deal" since everyone knows he's far too weak a candidate and can't even answer simple questions.

It's super awkward, but he seems to enjoy making awkward statements that point out just why he's such a weak candidate.

[Arneoker]

147. You mean the Sanders delegates?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

I wouldn't worry though, as Hillary looks to be getting the nod anyway.

[Demsrule86]

150. Oh please

She is the nominee...they will support the candidate with the most delegates, and it won't be Bernie...no embarrassment at all...last time when it was shown that Obama had an insurmountable delegate lead they switched to him. She had the delegates at the beginning of 2008 too...popular in the Senate. Bernie simply has not won the primary, and you all can cry about it, but he had a chance just like Obama. Millions of voters have chosen Hillary. Bernie lost and the sooner this is over the better for our chances in the General to defeat nutter Trump.

[Fast Walker 52]

151. they can switch... we shall see

[leeroysphitz]

154. It would only be awkward for them if Clinton supporters had any shame... n/t