Sanders' only path to victory is to flip super delegates who have already committed to Hillary ...

[salinsky]

... not bloody likely.

Bernie Sanders has a problem.

Remember those superdelegates, the Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who can vote for the candidate of their choice? The ones Sanders' supporters have been complaining about for months? It turns out, to have a shot at beating out Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, he needs them.

A lot of them.

He needs the ones who remain uncommitted, as well as more than 200 of those who have already publicly endorsed Clinton. Mathematically, Sanders cannot win the nomination without that support.

On Saturday, Sanders netted more than two dozen delegates over Clinton in Washington state after the party released vote data broken down by congressional district.

But his math remains dire.

Clinton won the Guam caucus on Saturday and now needs just 17 percent of the delegates at stake in upcoming contests to clinch the nomination. That means she could lose every single contest by a landslide and still be the nominee if all of her superdelegates continue to support her.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sanders-superdelegates-race-clinton

[KPN]

1. Hillary's only path to victory in the GE is ...

oh, wait, she doesn't have one.

[salinsky]

3. Pffft ...

All she'll need is Florida where she's polling 15 points ahead of the Trumpster fire.

[Baobab]

26. What if people find out she's the biggest liar in US history and that her healthcare "plan"

was and is a cover up of a trade deal scam that traps- or tries to trap the US and other countries into a known to be broken model forever.

[SFnomad]

2. If BS did flip enough Superdelegates to secure the nomination, he would be going against

the "Will of the People". I remember BS cheerleaders early on saying how if Secretary Clinton did that with Superdelegates that she would be tearing the Democratic Party apart. I've read enough of those BS cheerleaders supporting this tactic now that they either didn't mean when they said then, or don't care now.

[bvf]

5. Did Sanders himself say that

"will of the people" thing? I'd like to see a citation.

Thanks.

[SFnomad]

6. I clearly stated in my post that it has been the BS cheerleaders that said that, not BS himself

I remember BS cheerleaders early on saying how if Secretary Clinton did that with Superdelegates that she would be tearing the Democratic Party apart.

[bvf]

8. No, your post on that particular point

was somewhat ambiguous.

You used the phrase "will of the people" in your opening sentence, and the follow-up was kind of disjointed.

So no, you didn't "clearly state" much of anything at all, really, except to whine about "BS cheerleaders," going so far as to include the phrase in both remaining sentences.

[SFnomad]

9. I'm sorry you have reading comprehension problems. But I'll go over this slowly with you

I stated a fact:

If BS did flip enough Superdelegates to secure the nomination, he would be going against the "Will of the People"

And that is a fact. BS will not have the majority of pledged delegates. BS will not have the majority of votes.

I then began talking about what BS cheerleaders said early in the primary season:

I remember BS cheerleaders early on saying how if Secretary Clinton did that with Superdelegates that she would be tearing the Democratic Party apart.

I then finished up with how hypocritical those BS cheerleaders are:

I've read enough of those BS cheerleaders supporting this tactic now that they either didn't mean when they said then, or don't care now.

You'll notice nowhere did I say BS ever said "Will of the People". I believe he has said it, but if he has or hasn't in no way changes what I have written. Is that clear enough for you now?

[bvf]

13. No, my comprehension is fine.

You were clearly telegraphing an implication which could have easily been avoided with a couple of words.

But now you're saying you "believe he has said it"--a belief which probably led you to overlook your carelessness.

[SFnomad]

14. No, but thanks for playing ... we have wonderful parting gifts for you

It was intended for emphasis all along. If you were at all confused, the second and third sentences should have cleared it up, there was no ambiguity in them.

[bvf]

15. Oh. "Intended for emphasis." Right.

First, you talk about Sanders. Then, you talk about his supporters. Therefore, you weren't ever talking about Sanders.

At all.

OK.

[highprincipleswork]

4. We have a problem. The likely Democratic candidate will not protect the economic future of many/most

working class or middle class Americans. She also has an acknowledged taste for war.

[synergie]

16. Indeed, Bernie supporters don't seem to wish to do their homework, learn how

math works, the rules of the primary process or the background of either candidate. They are content with repeating RW smears, and false beliefs about.

Bernie has voted for more wars than Bernie has, thus per your own standards, he's the one with a "taste for war" and "blood on his hands", this includes votes for sanctions, wars, bombings and regime changes.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

It's even from a site that you guys like when they're abusing HRC. Ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make them go away.

[highprincipleswork]

19. I've done plenty of homework, oh condescending one, and will look forward to saying "I told you so"

when and if the artificially anointed Hillary actually shows up as nominee and/or POTUS.

You have to be blind not to see it, but many appear to be willfully blind.

[Demsrule86]

22. Personally

I think Bernie would destroy the economy and China would end up being the world's banker. Bernie has no idea how to govern so as to support an economy. This would lead to the GOP winning every election.

[highprincipleswork]

31. You probably only think Republicans know how to run an economy, huh?

[Baobab]

27. Also, she's committed to a globalization scheme thats likely to throw open the gates

to foreign firms that will displace Americans from innumerable jobs and undercut wages by a lot. It could be the worst economic mistake ever. When Hillary talks about building infrastructure or fixing health care, the way she plans to do it is by irreversibly globalizing those areas which will irreversibly lose a lot of jobs. Basically creating guest worker programs that are often compared to slavery when they operate in other countries.

The Americans hurt by them will not be able to find new jobs, because those fields will be thrown into a race to the bottom on wages. Her husbands 1990 trade deal is the main force behind massive privatization of the public sector which has been happening and which will accelerate in the near future due to the US joining the WTO GPA. Quasi public entities down to the municipal level will have to privatize and open to competitive bidding and US firms will be put at a disadvantage.

Its likely in retrospect to be seen as a far bigger mistake than NAFTA, it will impact a lot more people.

She's in the pocket of these outsourcing firms and has been for decades.

[tritsofme]

7. The delusion maintained by so many here, is utterly pathetic.

SDs are not going to overturn Hillary's lead of hundreds of pledged delegates and millions of votes to endorse Sanders, the loser.

The sooner these people accept reality, the quicker will be their road back to sanity.

[hrmjustin]

10. The will of the people should prevail.

Second place candidates should not become the nominee.

[realmirage]

11. Baghdad Bob agrees, Bernie can still win

[link:|

[NurseJackie]

12. It's not going to happen. Bernie has NO PATH. It won't be long before...

... he and his campaign and his supporters wake up from their dream.

[Lucinda]

17. Not gonna happen. And I'm pretty sure he knows that. n/t

[Sheepshank]

18. He has lost, he knows it.

He can never flip enough delegates to beat Hillary.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. The basic problem with that is that 'Superdelegate' is not a term of DNC regulation, 'Superdelegate'

is our slang or nickname for delegates the rules call 'Unpledged delegates' and 'uncommitted delegates'.
This means that any verbiage of promise such delegates make is rhetorical and not in any way legally binding or even meaningful. Their vote does not even exist until it is cast, it can't be cast until they are a delegate and they are not officially delegates until the convention is convened.
So in short, delegates who are defined in the rules as being unpledged and uncommitted can't also be casually said to be committed and pledged. They literally can't pledge. They literally are not yet delegates. They are allowed a vote at the convention, if in attendance and they can vote as they wish. If they do not attend, they have no vote and there is no replacement delegate created to cast that vote. That vote just vanishes. No proxies, no replacements.

A pledged delegate gets sick or drops dead, another person takes that part. When an unpledged delegate does not cast a vote, that vote is not replaced.

I think the unpledged delegate system would be less contentious and grating if those delegates followed the spirit of the rules and simply did not offer words of promise until the people have finished voting. If my role is to be a free agent but I rush to deny that agency and commit to a decision I am not being a free agent but rather attempting to influence others by using my position in a way it was not really intended to be used.

[Demsrule86]

23. they switched to Obama

before the primaries were over. Of course...Bernie needs special rules or he takes his ball and goes home...so sick of the Bernie type threats to ruin the GE

[Vinca]

21. If nothing else has come out of this primary, it's the realization that superdelegates

disenfranchise rank and file voters. One super can equal tens of thousands of average voters. Not very democratic of the Democratic Party.

[Demsrule86]

24. And here is what will happen

You will end up with less democracy because the party elite will run as delegates and beat everyone else. The supers had nothing to do with Bernie's loss...they vote for the candidate with the most delegates. Bernie simply lost. Also, state parties can pretty much do as they choose.

[Vinca]

29. They couldn't have voted as you suggest because hundreds pledged to Hillary

before Bernie had gotten into the race and before one vote had been cast. This makes it totally impossible for a candidate other than whoever the party bosses want to get the nomination. The average voters are at their mercy.

[Demsrule86]

30. And the same was true in 08...however when Obama won, they switched.

Had Bernie won the pledged delegates, they would switch yet again. But he did not win. He lost and the supers will not switch to a losing candidate,overturning the will of the voters, for questionable polls as Bernie and some supporters have suggested.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. They could enlist the help of the mystical witch Melisandre.

[oasis]

28. No way Bernie can cajole Hillary's SDs to flip for him. They've

done their homework already. They were convinced Hillary was the most qualified Democrat when the nominating process began, and since then, she has solidified her position.