WSJ - "Saved by the Superdelegates: Sanders keeps beating Clinton, who looks weaker against Trump"

[TomCADem]

As Bernie said, it is undemocratic to pronounce this race as over. Voters do not pick the nominee. Delegates do. This is why Jeff Weaver hit the nail on the head when noted that superdelegates will ultimately decide nomination.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/saved-by-the-superdelegates-1463008755

If you think the 2016 presidential campaign is already wild, imagine where we’d be without Democratic superdelegates. Bernie Sanders might be the next President.

The 74-year-old socialist won West Virginia’s primary on Tuesday, his 19th victory and second in a row. He still trails Hillary Clinton 1,719 to 1,425 in bound delegates, by CNN’s count, but he’s won a majority of the delegates since March 1. If he sweeps the final 10 primaries and caucuses, he might take the lead among bound delegates heading into the Democratic convention in July.

But then there are the superdelegates, the Democratic officeholders who can vote their preference and who overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Clinton. Of the 712 superdelegates, CNN counts 516 for the former first lady and 41 for the forlorn Senator from Vermont. This means she needs only 148 more delegates to clinch a majority for the nomination. As the primary season ends, Democratic voters are exhibiting a profound case of buyer’s remorse about Mrs. Clinton as their nominee, but she’s being rescued by the establishment.

* * *
Mrs. Clinton has proven to be a lousy candidate, unappealing even to millions of Democrats. Mr. Trump is probably the weakest candidate Republicans could nominate, yet could Mrs. Clinton be the one Democrat who could lose to Mr. Trump? Maybe Democrats should consider a contested convention.

[synergie]

1. So you paid Murdock to read that? Interesting.

[msongs]

2. so the WSJ wants bernie. big deal. not too good on math tho nt

[DLCWIdem]

25. Apparently the WSJ didn't get the new talking points memo

That was the old message when Bernie thougjtbhe could pretend that he was the one with the votes. When she started saying hey I'm millions votes ahead and hundreds of pledged delegates ahead then the other outposts could not pretend any longer. The new message is SD are good now that Bernie needs them to overturn the votes.

[coffeeAM]

3. She may just be the most unelectable candidate in history when you factor in all her baggage.

[synergie]

4. If you enjoy RW manufactured baggage and hate math and do not know Trump

you might actually believe that. If you knew of Bernie and Janes's baggage, even that wouldn't help.

[grasswire]

6. I know the Sanders' baggage.

Two suitcases from J.C. Penney.

Nobody believes otherwise.

[Jitter65]

11. His baggage has not been talked about by either Hillary or Trump. She is more decent than he is.

He has used every RW talking point against Hillary and continues to trash her. His whole thing about huge rallies at this point is just to plant the optics in the minds of the supers that he would be a better pick than Hillary. He going for huge rallies in CA for just this reason. He knows he will lose but he wants to take Hillary down as far as he can. He is a mean, nasty old man who is enjoying trashing Hillary and the Democratic party at the same time. If the polls in OR are correct, real Dems see through his act.

[grasswire]

13. Nobody believes that.

I don't know why you bother,

[AgingAmerican]

19. So his crowds are a ploy to trick superdelegates into picking him?

lol

Like a conspiracy or something?

lol

[riversedge]

29. Nah, Sanders uses the rallies to feed his ego, which grows by the day!

[AgingAmerican]

33. Ah, so the tens of thousands come just to feed his ego!

It's a trick!!

[riversedge]

37. You got it -- Bernie is tricking so many--donate those $27!!

[AgingAmerican]

41. Yeah, that must explain it! Trickery!

[lastone]

28. Good lord

You actually wrote this and hit the post button!

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

[rhett o rick]

43. Wow, I can't believe that a rational person can actually say that. Hillary supports wars

that kill a million innocent people and she loves her cluster bombs.

Bob-Bye

[oasis]

15. What's in those J.C. Penney suitcases? His tax returns have the answer.

[grasswire]

16. J.C. Penney boxers, socks, and pajamas.

To think anything else is just ludicrous.

[riversedge]

30. hey---shssssssssssush--You are telling everyone Jane's hiding place!

[CoffeeCat]

32. LOL!!! Zing!!

One of the best retorts I've ever read on DU.

Succinct. Spot on. Hilarious.

Thank you, grasswire, for the wonderful laugh you provided with my Saturday morning coffee.

[rhett o rick]

8. She betrayed her own Party and the people of the US and the people of Iraq and why?

She recognized the "business opportunity" in the invasion of Iraq. The MIC profited greatly and they showed her their appreciation.
It's corruption but her followers don't care.

[Andy823]

24. Did you vote for Kerry? nt

[rhett o rick]

42. Time for "Guess the Point". If you want to give me a lecture, go ahead without the questions.

Homey don't play THAT game.

I will tell you that in 2002 while I watched the DINO's acquiesce before Bush, the Idiot King, I was sickened. Where the Frack was our Balance of Power. This was where they should have told the American people what a disaster an invasion would be. Well in fact Tom Daschle did, he went on and on about what a bad decision this would be, but voted for it anywayz. Anyone with more than half a brain knew Bush was lying, knew that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The Germans and French governments both said it out loud. There was no stinking evidence of WMD, but Clinton had the audacity to stand before the Senate and, almost word for word, repeat the Republicon lies. It was a betrayal of our Party, our citizens, our troops, and the Iraqi people. Up to one million dead and some can brush it off as a "mistake". Shame on them. It destroyed our economy. It took away freedoms we've had for centuries. It accomplished everything the Republicons wanted and those damn DINO's enabled it.

I made a pledge that night that I would never support any of those DINO's that acquiesced before Bush.

It's my opinion that those that can ignore the damage done by the Iraq War, don't follow Democratic Principles.

[phleshdef]

9. A lot of it is right wing bullshit, some of it is self inflicted though.

[LWolf]

23. She's going to be a party disaster in November,

should she get the nomination.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Downballot cancer.

There is no more hated politician than HRC for the far-right, with the possible (but not certain) exception of the president. The GOP base, even those not at all thrilled with the vulgar talking yam, will turn out in droves to vote against HRC. On the other hand, HRC will depress liberal turnout, to the detriment of our chances of recapturing the Senate.

[LWolf]

35. Yep. nt

[amborin]

5. "buyer's remorse" re: HRC; if she's the nominee, there will be more than that

[CentralCoaster]

7. Media loves Trump, Clinton's under investigation, has tons and tons of baggage.

And people just want something different.

This is Trump's race to lose.

Unless we put our progressive in there, Bernie Sanders.

[Dragonfli]

12. Do you know the "supposed" purpose of superdelegates? I do, and it isn't so they can be purchased or

threatened by a candidate to vote for them. Nor is it as some are now trying to spin, "so they and regular people can both feel warm and fuzzy by being part of the convention."


You see the superdelegates are supposed to support the one that will win the GE and not lose it, current trends show that Sanders would be that guy, of course in order to keep the people fooled that believe they are supposed to vote mostly as tie breakers, (that is not their actual intended purpose)

Sanders will have to bring down that 250+ pledged delegate deficit to a much smaller margin, one in the single digits or double digits perhaps depending on just how unelectable Clinton is in the GE at the time of the convention.

The superdelegates really do have a purpose and it is not a "feel good, I get to be involved!" purpose. It is "about the business of winning again" to quote one of the Committee members that formed the rule change that brought the Superdelegates into being.

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.

[font size="1"]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.[/font]

Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for there existence:

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 Democratic 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.

One should also not count one's chickens before they are hatched and the MSM is using fraudulent numbers despite being told directly not to by the DNCs Communications director, them counting the superdelegates before the vote at the convention is akin to doing a phone survey of votes in California now and adding their numbers to the count on the big board.

And just recently told by DWS herself not to include superdelegates in their counts on election coverage (I apologize for not finding that clip yet)

[TomCADem]

14. Exactly, There Is This Misconception That Voters Chose The Nominee

This not the case. Delegates do. This is why it is well within the rules for Bernie to make his case to the superdelegates.

[99th_Monkey]

18. I see no need to make this an either/or. it takes BOTH Supers and Pledged to win

or some combination thereof; and it does decidedly take a majority, and is this
"democratic" in that sense. Yet it's true: Supers are establishment "hacks and/or corporate
lobbyists, i.e. willing slaves of the Billionaire Class,i. e. The 1%.

So it isn't this rosey picture of real grass-roots democratic populism at work. But it is a vaguely
"democratic" process of Class collaboration, to find common ground, if possible, which is often a
big IF.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. The Iron Triangle prevails, lobbyist delegates will support the candidate protecting their interests

.


Corporations don't lecture congress, they buy them the fuck off. Each one has a price.

That's how the IRON TRIANGLE works - Lobbyist => Legislator => Bureaucrat (The public is shut out)!

In the United States, power is exercised in the Congress, and particularly in congressional committees and subcommittees. By aligning itself with selected constituencies, an agency may be able to affect policy outcomes directly in these committees and subcommittees. This is where an iron triangle may manifest itself. The picture above displays the concept.

At one corner of the triangle are interest groups (constituencies). These are the powerful interest's groups that influence Congressional votes in their favor and can sufficiently influence the re-election of a member of Congress in return for supporting their programs. At another corner sit members of Congress who also seek to align themselves with a constituency for political and electoral support. These congressional members support legislation that advances the interest group's agenda. Occupying the third corner of the triangle are bureaucrats, who are often pressured by the same powerful interest groups their agency is designated to regulate. The result is a three-way, stable alliance that is sometimes called a sub-government because of its durability, impregnability, and power to determine policy.

An iron triangle can result in the passing of very narrow, pork-barrel policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency's constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of consumers (which may be the general public) are passed over. That public administration may result in benefiting a small segment of the public in this way may be viewed as problematic for the popular concept of democracy if the general welfare of all citizens is sacrificed for very specific interests. This is especially so if the legislation passed neglects or reverses the original purpose for which the agency was established. Some maintain that such arrangements are consonant with (and are natural outgrowths of) the democratic process, since they frequently involve a majority block of voters implementing their will through their representatives in government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29



.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Ok this is by my count the third news organization going there

Huffpost, CNN and now WSJ.

[riderinthestorm]

26. I'm really surprised. I guess even they don't think its over yet...

Pretty incredible its the WSJ going there though.

Nice!

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. There is an element of trump fear as well

Foreign media, and very elite media, said it months ago...she is a very weak candidate. It is not over, but it is a very steep hill. So no pun, they need every voter, so they are trying to manipulate the process. They should have not taken obvious sides months ago

[99th_Monkey]

17. Whaa! The Wall St. fucking Journal? nt

[pampango]

20. "... it is undemocratic to pronounce this race as over. Voters do not pick the nominee. ...

... superdelegates will ultimately decide nomination."

Don't you just love 'democracy'. How much do they pay WSJ journalists.

[LWolf]

22. "Mrs. Clinton has proven to be a lousy candidate, unappealing even to millions of Democrats."

Yep.

[redstateblues]

27. Further proof the Republicans would rather face Bernie

[emulatorloo]

31. Just curious, who is the author of this editorial?

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so the link you gave doesn't let me see. Thanks!

[Beacool]

36. Ahhh, I see that the WSJ is trying to roil Democratic waters.

Anything to cause strife in the Democratic contest is good for them.

As for the Sanders' strategy to dissuade the super delegates from nominating the candidate with the most pledged delegates, it's not going to work. The party leaders don't even want him in the first place, they are not going to subvert the will of the people and nominate the losing candidate. It has never happened before and it will not happen this year.

[bigtree]

38. lol, any port in a storm

... 42+ recs?

[BootinUp]

40. Yes Democrats Listen to the Wall Street Journal - A real Beacon of Truth!!! /sacrcasm