This is how many Superdelegates Clinton had before a single vote was cast.

[Sky Masterson]

400 promised votes before any debate.
400 promised votes before any person voted.
I just thought I would mention it.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. The words "rigged from the start" come to mind

[scscholar]

33. Rigged implies dishonesty

This was more selected.

[Alex4Martinez]

46. Nailed it. Dishonesty is precisely what it is. nt

[annavictorious]

53. How dare people support a candidate!

How dare they rig the process so the candidate with the most votes wins!
It's an outrage!

Sanders reputation is well known among his colleagues. There's a reason why they don't support him.

[Cooley Hurd]

55. You made the accusation. Please follow up with links and information...

...telling us how hated Senator Sanders is.

[Tal Vez]

56. I think that having superdelegates makes sense.

I think that the Democratic Party benefits from having some delegates who have won a public office by election. I know that Bernie Sanders is a superdelegate and I think it's a good thing that our Senators have a role at our conventions. Has Sanders decided yet who he is going to support?

[Cooley Hurd]

58. No, please take the time to read the anti-Democratic hx of SD's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[Tal Vez]

64. History

If you go back far enough - to the system designed by the Founders - each state just picked (in a manner prescribed by each state) electors who then voted for president and vice-president. They didn't travel to any conventions and each elector was someone trusted by the bigwigs in that state.

We didn't begin with very democratic roots. Once parties developed, the process became more complicated. Over the long run, there has been a struggle to introduce greater democracy (many states now choose delegates by election) while preserving a role for the political leaders of that party. I think that makes sense. I don't think that the process would necessarily be improved by having every delegate selected in primaries. I'm really not sure what you wanted me to learn from the very limited history provided in that article, but I think that in general terms, the present system makes a lot of sense. Every four years, the parties tweak their systems.

[Cooley Hurd]

66. Something, ANYTHING from the last 2 centuries?

We're talking SD's which are a fairly-modern invention.

[Tal Vez]

67. I see. You think that superdelegates are new.

While the word superdelegates may be new, if you go back a ways, all of the delegates were superdelegates in the sense that they were party leaders and people selected by party leaders See if you can find out when the people began playing a role in selecting delegates by primary elections. The novelty, if you will, is the delegate selected by primary rather than by a meeting of party bigwigs in the states. Primary elections, voting by regular people who don't own property (or people), voting by nonwhites and women - these are the new things. If you're looking at the history of our country, the process of selecting presidents has become (in general) more democratic over time. I assume that you understand that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. a) then why are so many of them lobbyists?

b) nothing legitimate can come from encouraging them to "vote" before the convention.

[Tal Vez]

98. If I were a super delegate, I would not have committed my vote yet.

It's not realistic for us to think that all super delegates would remain uncommitted. Isn't Sanders a super delegate? Would the system be better if we pretended that he remains uncommitted?

[Gomez163]

2. They were never for Bernie. He is a loner. No one really likes him.

[KeepItReal]

7. Ever heard of the term "projection"?

[Gomez163]

11. No. Never heard of it.

[KeepItReal]

23. That's cool.

Sigmund Freud can rest easy. His theory still stands.

[senz]

30. Bernie always got along fine on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Jeff Sessions — Republican, Alabama “I’ve always respected Bernie and we’ve gotten along personally well.”

Senator Jack Reed — Democrat, Rhode Island “[He’s] a gentleman, thoughtful, a leader… If you want to have a pleasant discussion on not only policy issues but just issues of the day, he’s a pleasant guy.”

Senator Richard Burr — Republican, North Carolina “[Sanders is] one who’s willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product.”

Senator Roger Wicker — Republican, Mississippi “I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment… He’s tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and he’s not to be underestimated.”

Senator Sherrod Brown — Democrat, Ohio “[Sanders] would call them ‘tripartite amendments’ because we’d have him and he’d get a Republican, he’d get a Democrat and he’d pass things. He’s good at building coalitions.”

Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona “[While working on the Veterans Affairs legislation], I found him to be honorable and good as his word.”

Senator Chuck Schumer — Democrat, New York “He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans.”

Senator Jack Reed — Democratic, Rhode Island (again) “Frankly, without him, I don’t think we would have gotten [the Veterans Affairs legislation] done…It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. But ... That's not making the case, you think it is ...

Bernie always got along fine on both sides of the aisle.

And, yet ...none of these "got along wells" have endorsed or promised to endorse him.

[senz]

48. Back room deals, hit lists, & political fear-mongering aren't Bernie's style.

He doesn't have millions of dollars from big fancy Wall Street buddies, a famous spouse, and a reputation for revenge.

He doesn't have this:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

You can get a whole lot of endorsements with all that crap.

And those are just a few of the many reasons I value and respect Bernie Sanders.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Or, they know him and have attempted to work with him ...

and while saying nice things about him to journalists ... they just don't want him for President ... because they know him and have attempted to work with him.

[Matt_R]

99. Thanks, Bookmarking for later.

[dubyadiprecession]

78. It's true he is a loner, not one single senator is backing him..

That is sad.

[grasswire]

82. not true nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. Except voters, and we should ignore them. Besides, change agents must be endorsed by the institution

[Corporate666]

3. Wait, now I am confused

We have been hearing from the Bernie crowd that the super delegates don't vote until the convention and cannot be counted before then.

So how could Hillary "have" those votes?



It's almost like the Berners want their cake and eat it too... complaining about the number of votes she had from SD's before the convention, then turning around and saying she doesn't have anything other than pledged votes.

Which is it?

[Sky Masterson]

9. I wrote "Promised"

I know they haven't voted yet.

[TwilightZone]

12. "Promised" is meaningless.

See Obama, 2008. Clinton was up more than 2:1 at one point. Where did they end up?

[Sky Masterson]

15. I'm with you on this.

I want them to change.

[TwilightZone]

28. They need a reason to change.

They've always lined up with the candidate with the most delegates from primaries and caucuses. Presumably, we'd want them to reflect the state of the race.

In Obama's case, he had won 11 straight contests and had taken over the lead in primary/caucus delegates when the shift began. As his delegate total grew, more of the undecideds committed to Obama and some who had committed to Clinton switched when it became obvious that Obama was going to be the presumptive nominee.

It's not comparable to 2016, because there's been no comparable shift in the race. Clinton has had the caucus/primary delegate lead (not counting any of the SDs) for months and she's going to end the cycle with significantly more. There's no logical or mathematical reason for them to shift en masse to Sanders.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. LOL ... No, I know the shifting argument is difficult to follow; but, it's ...

YELLING THAT SD'S ARE UNDEMOCRATIC, SO THEY SHOULDN'T COUNT; THEN (UNSUCCESSFULLY) TRYING TO "SWING" SD'S; THEN complaining about the number of votes she had from SD's before the convention, then turning around and saying she doesn't have anything other than pledged votes, .

Stay tuned ... The argument is ever shifting.

[TwilightZone]

60. Even without all the yelling and denigrating, there's no reason for them to switch.

That's the point that never seems to get through. They've always gotten behind the person with the most delegates, and this isn't going to be any different. Hillary's been ahead in delegates for months and will finish with the most. Simple, really.

I suppose the easiest answer is too...easy?

[Thinkingabout]

4. Why did Sanders not have any of the delegates from Comgress? Because he did not establish

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

A relationship with them even after having worked with them for twenty five years, why is this.

[floriduck]

24. Your user name, please. Bernie hadn't even decided before she locked them up. It had zero to do

with Bernie and everything to do with the Clinton Victory a Fund money launder for the DNC and state parties. That wasn't even a nice try effort.

[pangaia]

25. And that is one of her more brilliant posts...

[floriduck]

26. Well thank you, pangaia, much appreciated.

[Squinch]

41. Well, why did he wait so long? It isn't a negative that she decided early and began to lay the

groundwork, as one should do if one wants to be President. It's a big job. It isn't something that you should do slapdash.

This is how it works. This is how it has worked for years.

At first BS was way too pure to actually work within the system that exists. Hillary was realistic and worked within the system that exists. Lately, BS really wishes he had not been so pure, and he had gone after some of those SD's.

BS's perpetual "day late and dollar short" methods of running his campaign are not Hillary's fault. BS was free to lay the groundwork as she did. He chose not to.

All he does is miss deadlines and get caught by surprise by long standing rules, and then run around complaining about the existence of deadlines and rules. It's actually very sad to watch.

[TexasBushwhacker]

95. Or maybe because money from Hillary's SuperPAC

was funneled to their campaigns.

[Thinkingabout]

96. Sanders has super pacs, did they miss an opportunity?

Maybe you don't know much about the super delegates. We know Sanders is influenced by donations, don't judge others by Sanders actions.

[TexasBushwhacker]

97. Sanders' PACs - $607K

Clinton's PACs - $85MILLION

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

I realize that many superdelegates are party insiders, but there are plenty who have their own campaigns to run for Congress or state offices.

[livetohike]

5. Obviously they think she is competent and the best candidate,

It didn't matter who else would enter the race. They believe in her.

[Sky Masterson]

18. That is insane.

Its like judging a talent show before watching it.

[livetohike]

37. I think all of the Superdelegates are aware of Hillary Clinton.

Who ever heard of Bernie Sanders? He wasn't even a registered Democrat. He acts very surprised about how the election process works. Has he ever attended a Democratic National Convention?

What are his accomplishments that qualify him to become President?

[JTFrog]

39. Except that she has already been judged for two dozen years.

And apparently they like what she's done.

That's just the way it is. I'm sorry that it sucks for Bernie, but politicians build coalitions for a reason.

[onenote]

69. Did you decide who to support before the first votes were cast?

What makes it okay for you to make an early, but not binding decision?

[Trenzalore]

6. Super Delegates don't vote to the convention is a standard talking point

Bernie has 12 months to convince these people they were wrong. He hasn't.

[DrDan]

8. Some feel she is better qualified to lead - no conspiracy

[B Calm]

10. This primary has been fixed from the get-go.

[procon]

13. Can you point to where it says Superdelegates are in any way connected to the popular vote?

I also never knew that the Superdelegates were somehow linked to debates, but that's why I just love DU. Now, I'd really like to know if all the news sites are wrong, or Bernie is just lying for financial gain... so where's your source?

[Dem2]

14. This is how many of those superdelegates affected how people voted:

[B Calm]

17. We'll never know.

[Dem2]

19. Supposition is the fuel used

...when one has nothing of substance left.

[baldguy]

16. A major part of being President is getting people to go along with you & support you.

Clinton is 1000x better at this than Sanders is.

[Sky Masterson]

20. Before any vote was cast

Before any debate.
so no.

[randome]

52. His own co-workers won't endorse him. Sorry but a lot of these superdelegates already knew him.

And since they're free to switch sides -and have done so in the past- this OP is simply more aimless lamentation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

57. Did you select the candidate to support before any debates?

[onenote]

70. Are you saying Bernie didn't have any support until the first debate?

Where did his money come from?

[rhett o rick]

21. You mean like when she tried to get other Democrats to support the Bush Republicon War?

Sanders is on the People's side while Clinton is on Goldman-Sach side.

[Blue_Adept]

22. I would like some historical information from past elections

Context in these matters are important.

What was it like in 08 before the Iowa caucus? in 2004? and in 2000? Surely this info is out there. If it's the same kind of disparity or very different it could make or break your case.

[valerief]

27. RIGGED is a 6-letter word. nt

[Jack Bone]

29. A 400 VOTE HEAD START

and she still hasn't finished the deal....just shows what a WEAK candidate she truly is.

#weakwithhillary

[Trajan]

31. She bought the fealty of her nobles ...

With the thirty three State Democratic Parties over a year ago ...

And for your obnoxious commentary, you get a gold star ...

Oh wait ... You are going away, I mean ...

Off my feed ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Tell me/us ... How many of those pre-debate/pre-anyone voted, promised ...

Supers know, personally, and/or have worked along side of ... both, Bernie and HRC?

Shouldn't that tell you/us something?

I just thought I would mention it.

[Sky Masterson]

34. How many are Lobbyest?

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:

Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobbied for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the Super PAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Interesting ... Now, answer the question. Thank you, in advance.

[mythology]

35. And? The super delegates switched to Obama when he won the pledged delegates

They would have switched to Sanders if he had won. But they aren't going to switch for the guy trailing badly in the pledge delegate count.

If it's so rigged, how did a black guy with a name like Barack Obama win? Oh yeah, he got more people to vote for him and had a valid strategy for winning the pledged delegates. Perhaps if Sanders and his team had done that, they would have won.

[JoePhilly]

38. Exactly.

[yallerdawg]

36. Why don't they just switch to Bernie?

They haven't voted yet, they have no obligation, 42 have come out for Bernie.

And they don't switch? Says it all.

[Octafish]

42. When Democracy needs a hand, who ya gonna call?

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves... l don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." -- Henry Kissinger on the US-backed coup d'etat in Chile.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Of course. She is a well-known , well-liked Democrat among strong influential Democrats.

[Bleacher Creature]

50. Impressive self-control!!

I'm not sure I could have said what you did, without adding "as compared to certain other people in the race."

[BzaDem]

45. It is a little strange to hear people complaining about superdelegates, while simultaneously asking

them to vote against the will of the people (given that is the only way Bernie could win).

[Tarc]

47. My god, this tired bullshit. It was the same was in 2008 too, and she lost

If Bernie had wound up as the pledged delegate leader in 2016 ,the supers would have flipped and voted for him, just as they flipped and voted for Obama in 2008.

There has never at anytime been anything "rigged" against Sanders.

[eastwestdem]

51. Everyone knew she had no real competition from a Democrat. If Biden had run,

it would have been different, so what you are seeing is entirely situational. What this really means is that the supers were leery of Sanders' loyalty to the Democratic party. Good thing he has done nothing to alienate them.

[eggman67]

54. SD should be barred from endorsing before the close of the last primary. n/t

[riversedge]

62. Can't change it now.

[eggman67]

63. No, but it can certainly be changed for future elections.

Though I'd prefer the position not exist at all.

[Vinca]

59. The scariest part is they might deliver us President Trump.

Look how easily he was intimidated by Bernie. Now he's back to talking about debating "Crooked Hillary" (Trump's words, not mine).

[Juicy_Bellows]

65. Kick

It can't be said loud enough.

And these 400 odd votes started to be included with the first primary returns showing a huge lead and disenfranchising untold numbers.

[onenote]

68. So I guess no one, including the OP, supported Bernie until the first votes were cast

which raises an existential question:
If its not okay to support a candidate until the first votes are cast, how does the first vote ever get cast?

Super delegates are not under any special stricture that they can't decide which candidate they support at the same as anyone else.

And its quite strange that you seem to think that they are.

[Garrett78]

71. Do away with superdelegates and Clinton still ends up with more pledged delegates.

I would do away with superdelegates. I'd also do away with caucuses. There are some other changes I'd make, as well.

But even if you do away with superdelegates, influential people are going to endorse candidates. You won't ever do away with endorsements, for whatever they're worth.

[Jack Bone]

75. endorsements don't count for anything, other than

advice to the voters

[Garrett78]

83. You can more or less say that about superdelegates, as well.

They're endorsements, but if the other candidate ends up with more pledged delegates, they tend to switch their support (see 2008).

Still, I would do away with superdelegates. If for no other reason than the fact that they *could* potentially help nominate someone who didn't end up with more pledged delegates (even though that's never happened).

[AzDar]

72. They were purchased well in advance, weren't they?

[Duppers]

73. Democracy?

[Scuba]

74. American "democracy," circa 2016.

[Metric System]

76. And if Sanders had overtaken her in pledged delegates, as Obama did in 2008, they would have have

shifted over to him.

[RandySF]

77. So?

I decided to vote for Hillary before a vote was cast. And she's already well ahead in the popular vote.

[asuhornets]

79. Why do you all REPEAT every word Sanders say...Do u have your own resons supporting him?

[barrow-wight]

80. I'm confused.

We're back to bashing superdelegates again? This past few weeks, all I've been reading on here is how they're all going to switch to Bernie. I need a scorecard.

[polly7]

81. Sheep. Or bought off for political favour. There's no other way to justify

pledging such an important vote before hearing every single detail about all candidates running.

[Garrett78]

84. That may be, but it's pretty standard procedure.

Many had expressed support for Clinton very early in 2008, only to switch their support to honor Obama's lead in pledged delegates.

[polly7]

85. So stupid, and unfair to all those citizens who get out to vote for someone they've

taken the time to listen to and make a decision on. How are these super-delegates paid for this?

Why even bother with campaigns if the biggest votes are already decided?

[Garrett78]

86. I'm not sure what you mean by "biggest votes."

I honestly don't think the superdelegate endorsements have much impact on what happens in the primaries and caucuses. If anything, they might backfire in today's anti-establishment climate.

[jwirr]

87. And they can knock our votes out when we get to the

convention. I hope that one thing the rules committee does at the convention is get rid of the SDs. Give us democracy back.

[Garrett78]

94. How do you figure they can "knock your vote" out?

I'm not sure what you mean.

[BuelahWitch]

88. Thanks for the info!

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. But it's Sanders who is disenfranchising voters and for whom the system is rigged.

So sayeth Clinton, inc.

[aikoaiko]

90. This undermines HRC supporters claims that SD should follow the will of the people

[Garrett78]

93. No, it really doesn't, because they're free to change their minds.

As quite a few did in 2008. Think of them as endorsements.

Technically, not even pledged delegates are bound.