What some people don't understand about the super delegates.

[onenote]

There are essentially three categories of super delegates:
One group consists of elected officials: governors and legislators who are Democrats.
The second (and largest) group consists of members of the Democratic National Committee who are highly regarded within their state party organizations.
The third (and smallest) group are former presidents, vice presidents, DNC chairs, or Senate/House leaders.

In other words, the super delegates are basically Democratic party insiders. And that's why there is such confidence that the super delegates who have committed to support Clinton won't be switching allegiance as long as she is a candidate. If you run a campaign as an outsider, if you attack the Democratic establishment -- which is what Sanders and his supporters have done -- you have very little sway with the folks you are running against and are attacking.

You may not like the way it is, but it is that way.

[tazkcmo]

1. I agree with this assesment.

I have been very consistent in saying that the supers will vote in the best interests of the DNC. They are a safe guard against The Little People nominating a candidate that runs counter to the DNC's best interests but that wasn't the stated reason for creating them. They supposedly were created to prevent The Little People from nominating a losing candidate. Big difference.

Still, I agree with you. They will support anyone in the Democratic Party besides Sen Sanders.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. Good, concise analysis.

You succinctly described what the superdelegate system is: a way to ensure the party establishment prevails (or is at least able to prevent a "rogue" candidate). It's doing the precise job it was designed to do. No, I don't like it, and I think it will be massively revamped after this shitshow of a primary...but those are the rules in place.

[Skink]

3. The Super delegates last stand

The once mighty democrat party now in shambles.

[onenote]

10. Maybe. Maybe not.

I imagine there will be calls to revise or maybe scrap the system, but I doubt there will be significant changes.

The SDs have never decided the outcome of a nominating process and they aren't deciding it this year. Put another way, if there were no SDs and just the pledged delegates awarded proportionately Clinton would need one half of the pledged delegates and Sanders would need over 67 percent in the remaining contests to deny her that number.

The other option would be to award superds on a proportional basis. But that's simply the same as saying there are no superds -- that all delegates are pledged and all are awarded on a proportional basis. Again, under such a system, Clinton would be on the verge of capturing the nomination and Sanders would be in the same deep hole he is now.

[Skink]

11. Or maybe there would have been a competitive field

Without the SD'S and Hillary would have faded like Bush did. Not only did she buy the SD'S but she limited her competition in the process.

[Garrett78]

12. Without SDs, the winner would simply be the person with the most PDs.

And that would be Clinton. As onenote said, the SDs aren't determining who the nominee will be. The SDs have never been responsible for nominating someone who didn't win the most PDs.

[onenote]

19. You're entitled to believe what you want to believe

But the claim that Clinton "bought" the SDs is nonsense. She was the establishment candidate. They are the establishment. They identify with her and not with Sanders.

Think of it this way: a great many of the SDs have been SDs in prior years. In 2008 there were eight SDs from Vermont, including Rep. Welch and Sen. Leahy, both members of the Democratic party. Bernie was not one of the eight because he wasn't a Democrat. Indeed, he has never been a Democratic SD. Clinton didn't need to "buy" SDs to get there support. They knew her. She was one of them. Sanders was not.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Plus the fundraising and positions for relatives with the Clinton Foundation.

Granted, that looks like "buying support" to most people, but it's about the relationships, and how nice they are when checks are attached...

[onenote]

24. Please provide more information

identifying which SDs got "positions for relatives with the Clinton Foundation"

As for fundraising, the largest number of SDs (well over half) are not elected officials. They are members of the Democratic Party establishment. And if you think helping to raise money for the Democratic Party is "buying" support, then I guess the posts I've been seeing about Sanders helping to raise money for certain candidates is to buy their support?

Bernie has never lifted a finger to help the Democratic Party before this election. Of course the Democratic Party was going to prefer one of their own to a latecomer who not only refused to identify with them but is now attacking them.

[IdaBriggs]

25. Go to linked in and do your own research. Or use google.

I'll help a little -- here is a list of the super delegates:

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

And yes, I am aware that a large number of the Super Delegates working as lobbyists, more than one funded by the Clinton Foundation.

Spread the wealth, and all. Can't rock the boat when your paycheck depends on it!

[onenote]

30. Since you're the one claiming payments were made, the burden of proof is on you, not me

I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out which of over 700 superdelegates, a majority of which are not even elected officials, received campaign contributions from Clinton or friends of Clinton or friends of friends of friends of Clinton or wherever you think some line should be drawn.

As for SDs that are lobbyists, that's another fact of life. Former members of congress etc often become lobbyists. Former members of Congress also often raise lots and lots of money for the Democratic party and Democratic candidates. Someone who doesn't raise money for the party isn't nearly as likely to be a superd as one who does, whether or not they're a lobbyist.

[IdaBriggs]

32. Really, I don't have to anymore. I have provided links

In post after post, and at this point, if you want to prove me wrong, GOOGLE IT.

I will give you a hint: its already been posted here.

Here is one link -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280165311

[LisaM]

27. She has gone on the stump for many of them for years.

Bernie's doing a little bit of lip service to raise money for a few candidates now, but I never knew him to come out to Washington State before this campaign season. Hillary (and Bill) have been here often, raising money for people like Patty Murray and campaigning with the state party. Hillary was in Michigan in 2014 campaigning for Rick Snyder's opponent. Her hard work and commitment earned her the support of the Super Delegates. She didn't buy them. I know that was meant as an insult, and I'm taking it that way.

[tonyt53]

26. Not even remotely.

[lagomorph777]

4. At some point, the DNC does have a financial interest in winning elections.

No wins, no money.

The SDs are in full panic right now; Hillary can't win against Trump. That's a huge financial hit. They will run to the winner.

[Trenzalore]

5. No one is in a panic lol nt

[lagomorph777]

6. Your lol has a nervous edge to it.

Sorry your candidate lost.

[Trenzalore]

7. There is no nervous edge

I fully expect Bernie to get on a motorcycle and jump a pool full of sharks next week for media coverage.

[Garrett78]

14. Wow, we're in the presence of a "lol" analyst.

I've heard they exist, but I had my doubts until now.

[lagomorph777]

21. Hillarians post LOL or smilies instead of content.

We are left to operate like Kremlin-ologists, deciphering tiny clues to see if there is any meaning at all in the pro-Hillary "arguments"

I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

[onenote]

31. Which is why they're supporting the candidate that has helped raise money for the party

rather than the one who is attacking the party.

[Lucinda]

8. Yup. I can't even begin to fathom the sort of mindset that one would have to have to think that

the people you are attacking will happily move your way, especially when you are losing by every possible metric.

But I do think they believe it....

[procon]

9. But... but... all the superdelegates secretly want to vote for Sanders.

No... really, true story! Sanders impressional fans actually believe that he can still be the Democratic nominee if he can just win over the superdelegates at the 11th hour. They are clinging to the hope that since the superdelegates don't vote until they actually go to the convention then they aren't really committed to Hillary. Sanders believes that his "charm" offensive will be enough to convince them to switch their allegiances.

[baldguy]

13. "You're a corrupt Third Way DINO corporate fascist, one step short of a NAZI..."

"...who's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people & the theft of billions of dollars from working people. You at the very least should be removed from your position of power & put in prison for life. ... ... ... ... NOW will you consider supporting my guy, Bernie Sanders?"

[B Calm]

15. Thank's for explaining who the DNC oligarchs are, but we been talking about them

for months on how they gave Hillary an unfare 500+ super delegate lead before the first vote was cast in Iowa.

[Garrett78]

16. Do away with SDs and the nominee would be the one with the most PDs.

That would still be Clinton.

[B Calm]

17. Not so sure about that, but thanks to the DNC oligarchy we'll never know!

[Garrett78]

18. But we do know that, because she does lead in PDs.

SDs had committed to Clinton in '08 and that didn't keep Obama from winning. When Obama ended up with more PDs, the SDs switched. Because that's how it works.

[onenote]

20. See post 19 and thanks for confirming my explanation

Labeling the SDs as "oligarchs" is probably not the way to get their support.

[Beacool]

23. That same scenario was in place in 2008.

The big difference was that Obama had a small pledged delegate advantage when he made it to the convention. The popular vote was almost a tie. By then, a vast number of super delegates had switched to him. Hillary was gracious and released her delegates at the convention so that Obama could be nominated by acclamation.

This year, Hillary has a much larger pledged delegate advantage than Obama had in 2008. She's also far ahead in the popular vote. There's no doubt that Hillary will be the nominee. The only argument that Sanders, brazenly IMO, has put forward is that in match-up polls he does better against Trump than Hillary. Even if those polls held, which is highly doubtful, the super delegates won't nominate the candidate who is behind in pledged delegates. They have never subverted the will of the people.

For some reason, this has to be repeated on a daily basis on this board.

[Gothmog]

28. I know a number of super delegates and I agree with this analysis

These super delegates will not be switching to Sanders

[Garrett78]

29. Apparently there's a site called www.lobbydelegates.com, and...

...a poster in another forum shared a post she made on that site. Her main point was that most Sanders supporters are not Democrats and have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. She went on to ask the superdelegates (Democratic Party insiders) to please switch from supporting Clinton to supporting Sanders."

You'd think it was satire, but she was completely serious.

[Samantha]

33. Some time ago I sat down to read the list of superdelegates for the Democratic party

I was dismayed and shocked to see names of lobbyists on that list. We have always been told these people are highly-respected Democrats, former Presidents, governors, etc., but that is not true in every case. I believe a review of this matter needs to be undertaken and changes made. But that is just my opinion.

Sam

[Garrett78]

34. I'm all for doing away with superdelegates. And caucuses, which suppress the vote.

There are other changes I'd make, as well.

[B Calm]

35. We have the best government money can buy.