Super delegates exist to help PREVENT someone under threat of indictment from getting nominated.

[thesquanderer]

Not just for that reason, of course, but in effect, that kind of thing is part of the reason they exist.

By making it hard for any candidate to become the nominee through pledged delegates alone, the super delegates provide a way for the party to make sure that the Dem nominee is not someone whose candidacy will blow up in their faces.

So for all the talk about how the SDs rig the system in favor of the establishment or whatever other complaints people--typically Sanders supporters--have about them, ironically, if Hillary gets the wrong news at the wrong time, the super delegates may be the way she loses the nomination. If the nomination were simply granted to whoever has the most pledged delegates (which, if always true, would obviate the need for super delegates at all), Hillary is almost a lock. The fact that the supers can look at the big picture and override such criteria is a threat to Hillary's winning the nomination, and the SD's ability to do that is the very reason they exist. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but if the FBI recommends indictment between now and the convention, the SDs could decide she's too risky a bet for November, and then basically justify their raison d'etre.

That doesn't mean that Sanders is necessarily the beneficiary, though... but that's another thread.

[bigtree]

1. the several hundred that are STILL endorsing Hillary apparently don't think that's happening

...or constitutes a real threat.

Maybe they should read DU.

[kpola12]

3. The Supers don't count til the convention.

A lot of things could still happen.

[scscholar]

8. Exactly, AG Lynch could announce...

no charges will be filed then the whole thing goes away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Or she could announce charges

With long legal exposure. I bet you did not consider that

And anyway. The FBI is the one recommending charging or not charging. One step at a time.

[rhett o rick]

5. The Super-Delegates supported Clinton before the race began because they are chosen

to maintain the Establishment that they are so deeply entrenched in. They are rewarded by special consideration from the DNC.

If we want to regain our democracy from the corporate-oligarchy, we must throw out the corp-owned politicians. Sadly there are Democrats willing to sell their souls to Big Business at the peril of those struggling.

[LuvLoogie]

37. You can't throw them out. You have to elect alternatives.

[Garrett78]

15. Along with newspaper editors.

Occam's Razor suggests relatively few people think the email-server story will keep Clinton from winning.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Oh the irony of it all. n/t

[Gothmog]

4. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”

[k8conant]

6. Expecting NO indictment?

Don't hold your breath!

[Gothmog]

11. The Indictment fairy is not going to grant your wish

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Princess Weathervane's Ostrich Army to the rescue!

[rhett o rick]

7. Clinton most likely won't be indicted because the Establishment takes care of their own.

And their number one goal is to keep progressives out of power. The corporate-oligarchy that Clinton represents favor big corporations over the People. 2.5 million homeless children and there are DEmocrats that will still support the corporations and ignore the children.

[quickesst]

9. Why not ask Tad Devine...

Maybe he can clear all this super delegate stuff up, why it was such a wonderful thing then but not now, and tell us why he was so involved in its creation.

[thesquanderer]

18. Tad Devine suggested revisiting the SD system years ago, long before the current campaign.

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html

Based on the date of that interview, his desire to take another look at the delegate system had nothing to do with the prospect of a Sanders campaign. Sometimes people see something a little differently 25 years later, after they see how their ideas have been working out..

[quickesst]

38. Like, for example....

... Hillary Clinton being a Goldwater girl when she was still a teenager but is still constantly used here to denigrate her? I should give a full grown man a pass when a teenager won't be forgiven? We get it. If it favors Bernie Sanders it's okay. If it favors Hillary Clinton it's not okay.

[thesquanderer]

44. I don't get your point

You asked a question, I pointed you toward a video interview to help answer it, that's all.

As for the rest, I've never taken Hillary to task for being a Goldwater girl as a teenager. I haven't said whether I think Super Delegates are a good or bad thing nor asked you to give Tad Davine a pass. That said, if something you put together 25 or 30 years ago looks a little different now than it did then, then I don't see where revisiting it is necessarily a bad thing.

[quickesst]

48. The point I was making...

... was simple. Tad Divine helped create the superdelegates system which after many years he has altered his opinion of it. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl when she was a teenager. After just a few short years she has altered her opinion concerning Republicans. As for the rest your commen on not being one of those who used the Goldwater girl meme, I never said you did it in particular but that doesn't cover the many who have used it. The super delegate system he helpef to create is still in place, therefore his revisiting has not had much of an impact on changing it. One thing is for sure. If the super delegate system had favored Bernie it would be a great thing to have. Any denial of that would be silly.

[thesquanderer]

58. If you actually care about TD's thoughts about the supers...

...the video and discussion about it is posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512098764

[MFM008]

10. Pretty sad

Supposed democrats on the floor with republicans praying for her to be indicted.

[thesquanderer]

17. There are Republicans equally unhappy with Trump.

People don't always fall into line.

Personally, I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.

[workinclasszero]

56. Republicans and Berners united in faith to the Indictment Fairy

Pray harder dead enders, It ain't working.

[Tarc]

12. Superdelegates exist to essentially rubber-stamp the will of the people

i.e. supporting the winner of the pledged delegate vote.

The Sanders camp has been screaming about Emailgate for months; the voters have rejected it as an issue to be concerned with.

[thesquanderer]

16. I don't agree with the rubber stamp premise, but regardless...

...it's hard to be sure what "will of the people" in July is, when many people expressed their preference in Feb and March.

You can say "The Sanders camp has been screaming about Emailgate for months" but outside bubbles like DU, that's not true at all. Sanders himself famously dismissed it as a relevant campaign issue, saying that the process will play out, and in the mean time, there are much more important things to talk about.

And if the worst to come out of it is last week's report, I don't think it will derail things for Hillary. The question is a hypothetical one, what if a heavier foot drops between now and convention time, like a recommendation for indictment. The people who expressed the will of the people in March were not necessarily expressing a preference for someone who the FBI said should be indicted. But we're not going to run all the primaries again.

[morningfog]

20. Things have changed and the FBI hasn't rejected it.

That is all that matters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Foolish. Anyone with the tiniest shred of critical thinking ability knows that this is not true.

There is no need for SDs at all unless they are expected to override the pledged delegates when necessary.

[Tarc]

33. That is the role that they have performed in every primary since their inception

So, you can go pick a fight with history, bro. Many supers endorsed Hillary in 2008, then switched when Obama became the clear pledged delegate winner.

The only conceivable case/person I'd ever entertain the doomsday scenario would have been if that fascist shitweasel Lyndon LaRouche had ever somehow wound up as a pledged delegate winner. That would've truly been a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.

Not liking Hillary, or still holding out for a bogus Indictment Fairy to land, is not an emergency scenario.

[KingFlorez]

14. Sanders' only chance at the nomination

Poor Bernie.

[seabeyond]

19. Can't win fairly so you all will take anything.

[thesquanderer]

22. As I said above...

I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.

[geek tragedy]

21. Sanders fans hoping for indictment so they can steal nomination despite losing the

vote.

Another 14 days of this.

[thesquanderer]

23. As I said above...

I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.

[geek tragedy]

24. that's fair enough, nt

[Dem2]

26. OK

Fair enough. We'll all just sit back and wait for an indictment.

[merrily]

27. Super delegates exist to prevent liberals who are not beholden to lobbyists from being nominated.

[tonyt53]

28. Those supers are not stupid people. They understand what is happening. Bernie can forget getting 'em

[riversedge]

29. Silly silly.

[Skink]

30. To be clear an indictment would come due to her money laundering

The email issue is a different matter.

[Lil Missy]

31. No, that's not why they were created. And no, she's not under any credible threat of indictment.

The Indictment Fairy is pure right-wing created propaganda. Berners who "believe" that fantasy would be better described as wishing it to be true, for nakedly partisan reasons or irrational Hillary Hatred.

[thesquanderer]

35. They were created to help block any candidate who they consider a liability or otherwise undesirable

which in the abstract would include a candidate under serious threat of indictment. I'd agree that threat is not that substantial today, but that could shift depending on the FBI report. I don't think it is "pure right-wing created propaganda" as no one is denying that the FBI is still investigating.

[gollygee]

36. What I see

Is that people are slinging stuff at Hillary left and right, looking for any reason at all to keep her from becoming the candidate, even though she has more votes. Coming up with conspiracy theories every time she wins a primary, finding a zillion things that supposedly show she's unfit and will have to be dragged off to jail, blowing anything at all negative way out of proportion, whatever.

I voted for Bernie and I wish he had gotten more votes. But the fact is that Hillary is winning, and she will almost certainly win. She isn't going to be indicted for anything. The superdelegates are going to follow the will of the voters. If they were going to swing the election, they'd swing it toward her rather than away from her, because they exist to keep non-establishment candidates from having much chance of getting the nomination. Which is totally unfair and I think we should get rid of them, but she'd win regardless so that's beside the point in this particular election season.

[JesterCS]

39. IG and FBI are participating in CS's?

Who knew....

[pdsimdars]

40. You mean someone under the threat of indictment who doesn't have the common decency to

step aside for the good of the party and country? Someone like that? Are there really people like that?

[Demsrule86]

41. No

They exist to stop someone like Bernie and McGovern from stealing the election ...and losing.

[thesquanderer]

45. McGovern was accused of stealing the nomination?

I'm not familiar with this. Link by any chance?

Either way, as I said elsewhere, they were created to help block any candidate who they consider a liability or otherwise undesirable. That includes your scenario, but many others as well.

[anotherproletariat]

42. So, the supers must believe that there is no credible threat of an indictment.

Seems logical given what we know.

[thesquanderer]

47. I agree... they don't see the issue as that serious, and are not withdrawing their support.

The question is one of what happens if what has happened so far turns out not to be the worst of it for Hillary.

[onenote]

43. Not really. Superdelegates exist to give the Democratic Party establishment a degree of control over

the nominating process that they might otherwise not have. It's not a throwback to the cigar filled, closed room decision making of yore, but rather an intentional check on the process to make sure that the Democratic Party nominee is someone who the party's leaders feel would make the best candidate.

[thesquanderer]

46. You say "not really" but you basically agree, when you say they are...

..."an intentional check on the process to make sure that the Democratic Party nominee is someone who the party's leaders feel would make the best candidate" which is not far from how I summed it up in the OP, "to make sure that the Dem nominee is not someone whose candidacy will blow up in their faces." "Best candidate" may be hard to define (or hard for everyone to agree on), but however you see it, it can look different in July than it did in February.

[Attorney in Texas]

49. Superdelegates exist to protect the lobbyists in control from grassroots Democrats. The lobbyists

have issues that they are paid to push ahead of any non-paid-for advocacy so they prefer a candidate on the take over a straight up candidate because the candidate on the take can be controlled to support the paid-for issue.

These people are not likely to save the party from an indicted nominee; they want a nominee who is as dependent upon them as possible. A strong, independent candidate is anathema to the superdelegates.

[randome]

50. That's 715 people you allege to be part of a conspiracy. Right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Attorney in Texas]

52. No, a conspiracy is hidden. This is out in the open. Here is how DWS described the role of the super

delegates:

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.

[randome]

53. It's clear what she meant, though: "spurious grassroots activists".

That's the only explanation that makes sense, not that she was announcing that the DNC is now done with activists of all kinds.

There are such things as 'good' and 'bad' activists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Attorney in Texas]

57. It is clear that DWS meant the party elites need protection from the grassroots Democratic voters

[valerief]

51. It's a private party. Why not just make a rule that says if you're under threat of indictment,

you can't be the nominee? And if you get someone under threat of indictment you want as the nominee, change the rule then.

That's just as much bullshit as SDs.

[reformist2]

54. I disagree - let the pledged delegates break rank on the first vote. If they don't, it's over.

[thesquanderer]

55. That's not a disagreement.

If the pledged delegates break rank on the first vote, that would be an example of what I was talking about, SDs exercising their power to avoid a candidate who they think will have too many issues in November. The remaining question would be, would they necessarily switch to Sanders, or could they abstain to allow the DNC to maneuver another option on a second ballot. I *think* they would go to Sanders, but I'm not certain. As Merrily said in post #27, they may not be so thrilled with him either, but OTOH, it would be hard to get anyone else to get the required number of delegate votes. But at this point this whole scenario is still unlikely to happen anyway.