FFS! I am tired of reading this S***

[sheshe2]

Bernie Sanders rails against himself. Bernie Sanders IS A SUPER DELEGATE!

Every sitting Senator is a SUPER DELEGATE!

[DanTex]

1. The voters should elect the nominee. Not party insiders. It's not complicated.

[blm]

4. The majority of voters WILL elect the nominee

[DanTex]

5. Well, I sure hope so. Because if the superdelegates choose someone who didn't get the most votes,

then we're probably looking at four more years of Trump.

[blm]

8. Majority. Not plurality.

[DanTex]

12. And, if there is no majority, then whoever gets the most votes.

It would be not just undemocratic, but also electoral suicide against Trump, to give the nomination to someone who got less votes.

This is obvious.

[George II]

28. Funny how that has changed over time.

[sheshe2]

107. CNN just had a segment on just that!

[Midnight Writer]

40. No. If 70% vote for someone else, then how does the guy with a 30% share get all the marbles.

That ain't right.

I strongly disagree with you on this.

[Celerity]

47. 30% is not the problem level, it is when you are talking 40% and especially higher

and even more so if no other single candidate gets above 30%

A denial of Bernie at say 45% with the next closest is at Biden at 29% will rip the party apart.

We all had better hope the numbers get nowhere near that scenario.

To be honest, ANY Bernie plurality outcome, where he is top, even if the next is only 3 or 4% behind him is going to be bonkers, but Sanders will have a FAR less legit claim to the nomination if he only is top with a mere 32% or so and you have a one or two others very close to him

[Laelth]

70. Quite reasonable. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[thesquanderer]

71. re: "then how does the guy with a 30% share get all the marbles."

That's a reasonable point. But by the same logic, how do you justify giving all the marbles to someone who got even LESS than a 30% share? Or perhaps someone who didn't run in the primaries at all?

It's easy to find things that are unfair. It's determining what IS the fairest thing to do that gets more complicated.

[sweetloukillbot]

86. They won't give it to the person with 25%

It goes to a vote again. Delegate assignments wiped clean and they can vote for whoever they want. And the person who has 50%+1 on the second round gets it. It would probably behoove Sanders people to not trash those other delegates if they want their votes on the second round.
Very simple really.

[thesquanderer]

88. re: "the person who has 50%+1 on the second round gets it"

Yes, of course. The question is who the delegates vote for on that second round to get to the 50%+1. in the end, they have to select someone as the winner. It will either be

(a) the person who got the most delegates in the primaries/caucuses
(b) a person who got something less than the most delegates in the primaries/caucuses
(c) a person who didn't run in the primaries/caucuses

So yes, the process is simple, but determining what is fairest is more complicated, and determining what is best for the party may or may not be the same as determining what is fairest.

[relayerbob]

49. No, no, and no again

A majority.

If no one gets a majority, then they will work it out. It's not a mystery process, it's called a negotiation. Sanders can be part of that decision making team, and possibly (If he actually ends up with the most votes) be the team leader, eg President, or can choose not to be involved, which would be self-defeating and divisive. It's his choice, if he does outright win a MAJORITY of the votes.

That's how democracy works. Not rule by enthusiastic minority.

[ehrnst]

131. Hear, hear!

[dchill]

53. Majority:

...the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority)

[ehrnst]

62. It certainly hasn't been obvious to everyone...

With the potential of a contested convention on the horizon for Democrats, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday staked out a notably different position on delegates during the ninth Democratic debate.

Asked if the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the Democratic nominee — even if that candidate did not have a majority of pledged delegates — Sanders said, “the will of the people should prevail, yes. The person who has the most votes should become the nominee.”

It is the opposite of what Sanders and his campaign said in 2016, even after Hillary Clinton had secured the majority of pledged delegates.

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said on May 1, 2016. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

[DanTex]

63. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[Tweedy]

94. Not really

In a plurality, the candidate who had the most votes still has a majority of the party voting against him, or her.

Then that candidate needs to try and pitch woo at those delegates who represent folks who did not vote for the candidate.

If a candidate earns more than half of the vote, then I agree with you.

Yet, if a plurality candidate wins without any woo pitching, the majority of voters get dissed. That is no good.

Senator Sanders, his campaign and his supporters could help themselves here by ceasing attacks on "the democratic establishment." False equivalency ticks off many democrats. Looks like Senator Sanders is trying to moderate to unify now. That is a good move.

Four states does not a winner make. Let's see where this goes. Have faith in the wisdom of the American people. It is difficult to see how right now, but this will work out and we will defeat the unindicted co-conspirator in November.

[sheshe2]

9. I read here today that all Super Delagates...

are Corporate Lobbyist's.

So all are Dems and I's are Corporate Lobbyists?

[yellowdogintexas]

48. super delegates are simpley unpledged delegates

who do not have to compete to be seated as a voting member of the Convention. If I wanted to attend the DNC, I have to go to my local county convention and become a voting delegate to the State convention and at that convention I have to be selected by the Convention as a voting delegate to the DNC from Texas. In other words I have to compete for that voting seat at the National Convention. Superdelegates do not.

In American politics, a superdelegate is an unpledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for themselves for whom they vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates (who make up slightly under 15% of all convention delegates) include elected officials, party activists and officials.

Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with pledged delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. On August 25, 2018, the Democratic National Committee agreed to reduce the influence of superdelegates by generally preventing them from voting on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, allowing their votes only in a contested nomination.

This is from a Wiki article here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate There may be some lobbyists, but most of the superdelegates are elected officials, former presidents/vicepresidents/ state and local party chairpersons, national committee men and committee women (who are elected at their state conventions), activists, union officials........

[ancianita]

78. THX. It's an important read.It also says supers only compromise 15% of DNC delegates. Here's more:

... superdelegates fall into four categories based on other positions they hold, and are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[5] (unpledged PLEO[a] delegates) consisting of

1. Elected members of the Democratic National Committee: "the chairs and vice chairs of each state and territorial Democratic Party; 212 national committeemen and committeewomen elected to represent their states; top officials of the DNC itself and several of its auxiliary groups (such as the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the National Federation of Democratic Women and the Young Democrats of America); and 75 at-large members who are nominated by the party chairman and chosen by the full DNC."[4] Most of the at-large members "are local party leaders, officeholders and donors or representatives of important Democratic constituencies, such as organized labor."[4] There were 437 DNC members (with 433 votes) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[4]

2. Democratic Governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia). There were 21 Democratic Governors who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[4]

3. Democratic Members of Congress.There were 191 U.S. Representatives (including non-voting delegates from Washington, D.C. and territories) and 47 U.S. Senators (including Washington, D.C. shadow senators) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[4]

4. Distinguished party leaders (consisting of current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs). There were 20 of these who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[4]

Of the superdelegates at the 2016 Convention, 58% were male and 62% were non-Hispanic white (20% were black and 11% were Hispanic). The average age was about 60.[4] There is no bar on lobbyists serving as DNC members (and thus superdelegates); ABC News found that about 9% of superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention (67 people in all) were former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level.[6]

This lobbyist inclusion can mean that a lot of money can be quid pro quo offered to supers and state delegates at a brokered convention. Even for candidates not on the nominee short list.

The RNC doesn't use a superdelegate system.

[thesquanderer]

83. re: "I read here today that all Super Delagates...are Corporate Lobbyist's."

Don't believe everything you read. (Personally, I haven't seen someone say that, but if you say you've seen that, I believe you. I miss a lot of posts here...)

[sheshe2]

108. Oh trust me, I don't believe it.

Yet I read it on DU, I just don't know where.

[pnwmom]

10. There's no reason for them to help a nominee 60 or 70% of D's dislike. n/t

[DanTex]

14. There is no such candidate in the field.

Certainly not Bernie Sanders, he's got the highest approval rating with Democratic voters.

[pnwmom]

18. And most of them prefer someone else. He's never broken 34% in raw vote totals. n/t

[MisterFred]

20. So?

That's better than every other candidate. By your logic, every other candidate is a WORSE disaster party leaders should reject.

[DanTex]

21. Most of them prefer Bernie to any other candidate.

[mopinko]

26. most of them prefer someone other than bernie.

but what matters is who has the votes at the end.
so, this is just divisive.

[MontanaMama]

22. This.

Thank you.

[TexasTowelie]

29. Just because a candidate has a high approval rating

doesn't mean that the voters think that candidate is best suited for the job as president. It's probably best not to conflate approval ratings with actual votes.

In the event that none of the candidates have a majority and the delegate spread is reasonably close, I think that the candidate that is also showing momentum at the end of the primaries should receive more consideration than a candidate that racks up a lead at the beginning and fades at the finish line. It's not how you start, it's how you finish. Additional information about the candidates may not be revealed until later in the primaries so why would we want to nominate a candidate that has a flaw (character issue, revelation of criminal investigation, health issues, etc.) that would make them unelectable?

[DanTex]

33. OK, but in this case, the voters do think that Bernie is the best candidate for the job.

[TexasTowelie]

36. In two and a half states.

Let the other 54 contests (47 states, six territories, and Americans Abroad) take place before declaring Bernie as the best candidate for the job. Once the field narrows down, we will have a much better idea who the voters think is the best candidate for the job.

[pnwmom]

99. I think we should listen to Bernie 1.0, the 2016 version.

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

He was very clear that if Hillary only had a plurality, then the supers should decide (and pick him.)

She did get a majority of pledged delegates, however, so the issue was moot for 2016.

Afterwards, as Warren pointed out in the debate, he was the one who pushed for the rule change. Now he needs to live with the consequences.

[Tweedy]

106. +1000

[sheshe2]

39. It is late and I am exhausted.

However I had to comment on your post.

Thoughtful, polite and well said.

Luv ya, TT

[thesquanderer]

75. Ok, but polling shows that 65% of D's LIKE Sanders (even though he may not be their first choice)

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 12:51 PM - Edit history (2)

and perhaps more importantly, EVERY other candidate is liked by even FEWER Dems.

By "liked" I mean the number of people who are comfortable with or enthusiastic about the prospect of that person being our nominee. Though another measure would be what percentage of Dems view him favorably. There again, Sanders leads the pack, with something like 70% IIRC. But I think the first measure is more important. One can view someone favorably but still not be comfortable with that person being the nominee (for example, if you don't think they can win). So the number of Dems who would be content with someone as our nominee seems to me to be the more important metric.

If you want to see where these numbers come from, check the thread at https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287569533 or for the underlying data, check https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/200085NBCWSJFebruary2020Poll.pdf

(ETA: corrected link)

[pnwmom]

133. Where do you get that? Your second link says 44% would be "very uncomfortable" with Bernie

and another 16% would have some reservations. That adds up to 60%. (Page 8, the WSJ poll.)

So I don't know how that fits with 65% liking him. Apparently liking him doesn't mean being comfortable with him as President.

[thesquanderer]

135. You looked at the wrong page

re:

That adds up to 60%. (Page 8, the WSJ poll.)

Page 8 is ALL registered voters. Since we were talking about who DEMs would be comfortable with, the answer is found on page 9, not page 8.

re:

Apparently liking him doesn't mean being comfortable with him as President.

That's true! Actually MORE Dems like him than are comfortable with him as nominee, so that figure (favorability) is even higher than 65%. That's why I said:

By "liked" I mean the number of people who are comfortable with or enthusiastic about the prospect of that person being our nominee. Though another measure would be what percentage of Dems view him favorably. There again, Sanders leads the pack, with something like 70% IIRC. But I think the first measure is more important. One can view someone favorably but still not be comfortable with that person being the nominee (for example, if you don't think they can win). So the number of Dems who would be content with someone as our nominee seems to me to be the more important metric.

I was actually being more generous to your side of the argument by using the lower "comfortable with as our nominee" figure rather than the higher "favorability" figure which more literally corresponds to "like" - basically because I felt that YOUR use of "like" (in the post I was replying to) was really closer to "would be comfortable with his nomination." If you really want to know about what percentage of Dems merely LIKE Sanders (i.e. view him favorably regardless of whether or not they are comfortable with his being our nominee), here's good info on that:

Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential field, at least according to surveys of ordinary Democrats. A Monmouth University poll last week found not only that Sanders’s favorability rating among Democrats nationally—71 percent—was higher than his five top rivals’, but also that his unfavorability rating—19 percent—was tied for second lowest. Sanders’s net favorability rating was six points higher than Elizabeth Warren’s, 16 points higher than Joe Biden’s, 18 points higher than Pete Buttigieg’s, 23 points higher than Amy Klobuchar’s, and a whopping 40 points higher than that of Michael Bloomberg, whom more than a third of Democratic voters viewed unfavorably. (By contrast, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—whom Sanders’s critics often cite as a cautionary tale—enjoyed the support of only 56 percent of his own party members in the months leading up to December’s British election.)

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this month found similarly favorable results for Sanders. Among Democrats nationally, only Warren enjoyed higher net favorability ratings; on that measure, Sanders outpaced Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. (The pollsters didn’t ask about Klobuchar.) And according to a recent USA Today/IPSOS survey, Sanders is the candidate who Democrats say best shares their values.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/regular-democrats-arent-least-bit-worried-about-bernie/606688/

[ehrnst]

57. You mean like they have been pressured to do before?

[George II]

7. Super Delegates are not "party insiders". Jimmy Carter is a "party insider"?

[Me.]

13. Considering That Members Of Congress & THe Senate Are Delegates

I find there is more true representation than caucuses where a small number of voters are given such a big voice.

“It’s a relatively small number, right? It’s the size of a sort of medium-sized town,” said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Delaware and an expert on the Iowa caucuses. “In congressional elections, winners normally have more than 100,000 votes.

We still don’t know what the 2020 turnout will be, but ultimately, a small sliver of Iowa’s population participates in the caucuses. About 171,000 Democratic caucus-goers participated in 2016, just 15.7 percent of the overall population. That’s about a quarter of the population of Washington, DC. When it’s over, millions of campaign dollars and hours spent campaigning in Iowa will all be spent to win the hearts of a small number of American voters.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/13/20953263/what-it-takes-to-win-iowa-caucuses-explained

[lapucelle]

128. Nina Turner is a superdelegate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

[Me.]

136. It Just Keeps Getting Bettter And Better

and you know, given how much hypocrisy guff has been shoved at us from the dump admin, I really don't think I can stand having those in the Dem primary who also think it's ok to do the same.

I did not know this and thank you for the info...

[TwilightZone]

16. "Party insiders"

All of Congress are superdelegates. Officials in the Young Democrats and the National Federation of Democratic Women are superdelegates. State campaign chairpersons are superdelegates.

You think they're all "party insiders"? Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are party insiders? Leaders in the Young Democrats are party insiders? Some woman in Iowa named as a state chairperson is a party insider?

Please. Simplistic assertions are rarely accurate and this one is just silly. If all you have for assertions are vague platitudes and talking points, you're not making much of an argument.

[DanTex]

17. Party insiders, yes. I gotta be honest, I do not understand the aversion to letting voters decide.

It just seems bizarre to me that anyone even tries to justify this flagrantly undemocratic system. How is it a good idea to not let the Democratic electorate decide who to nominate???

Very odd.

[radical noodle]

30. Donald Trump is a perfect example

of letting voters decide. They got an angry old man who yells at everyone and tries to get revenge on those who cross him.

[Mad cow]

56. Donald Trump is a monster

But letting republican voters decide resulted in putting forth a candidate that won the election. Isn't that objective number 1 for all of us? If Trump's primary win is the corollary, then we also need to look at the fact that he won.

[radical noodle]

92. I don't think we can count on the Russians helping us

against trump in the general election. As you know, there were a lot of things that went into trump's "win."

[yellowdogintexas]

50. it is not an aversion to letting voters decide. We have already voted in our primaries

and caucuses and each state's delegate points will reflect those votes. If the nominee is decided after 1 round of voting, then it's done and superdelegates will not have had any say. They are not pledged, so there is no guarantee all of them will vote for the same person if they even do get to vote.

I am a member of NFDW by virtue of being a member of my local Democratic Woman's club; I am also a member of the Texas Democratic Women. We work hard to raise money for Democratic Women who will be on our local ballots in November. If I were involved enough to seek leadership positions in NFDW, I could conceiveably be a super delegate. My state Democratic chair is a superdelegate.

The national presidents of every grassroots organization may be super delegates.

Texas's delegation will be pledged to candidates according to the percentages in the primary. Some states are winner take all after the primary. SO it is a toss right now as to how those votes would play out. If Joe takes 40% of TX and Bernie takes 40% and Warren takes 20% then that is how our vote will go down on the first round. We have 261 total delegates of which 33 are unpledged or SuperDelegates. If it goes to a second round, then those 33 can join in and the whole delegation will vote again. We will know more after our primary March 3.

Super delegates are not evil people they are people who have worked hard within the party or as elected officials and should not have to compete for a voting seat at the convention in my opinion.

[ehrnst]

58. "Sanders Campaign Now Embraces Superdelegates As Key To Nomination"

Despite badly lagging in the delegate count, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager told NPR the campaign believes Sanders can and will be the Democratic nominee by winning over superdelegates at the 11th hour.

"If we can substantially close the gap between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders in terms of pledged delegates," Jeff Weaver told NPR's All Things Considered, "he can go into the convention with a substantial momentum from having won the vast, vast majority of states at the end of the process."

It's a sharp contrast from earlier in the campaign when Sanders supporters called superdelegates "undemocratic" and petitioned for them to support the candidate who has the most votes by the Democratic convention this July.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

(Not fighting anything, just sharing reporting from 2016, citing facts about the Sanders campaign)

[DanTex]

59. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[MineralMan]

93. The voters decided to elect most of the super delegates

to become their representatives, House members, Senators and Governors. Are you implying that those people are unreliable Democrats who should have no vote as delegates? Really?

You might remember that Bernie Sanders tried his best to get those same super delegates to vote for him and throw the nomination to him instead of to Hillary Clinton. It seems he had no problem with the super delegates back then.

You want to change the rules of the convention to make a person with less than a majority of delegate votes the nominee. Why? Why do you want to make the selection undemocratic? Please answer that question.

[Tweedy]

109. If a candidate fails to when a majority

The voters did not decide. That is how the GOP operates

The voters did, however, pick delegates to represent them. Those delegates would represent us, along with super delegates (our congressional representatives, former presidents and VPs, state party chairs), at a contested convention.

The voters are represented every step of the way. Without a majority, there is no bullying your way to the nomination.

The candidate who builds the majority coalition wins in a contested convention, as it should be.

[spooky3]

19. As Sen. Warren pointed out, Sen. Sanders was

The one who proposed the current rules on voting. He didn’t like the 2016 rules.

[DanTex]

23. That's completely incorrect.

Bernie's supporters wanted to get rid of superdelegates, but they were outnumbered, so they weren't able to.

[spooky3]

24. You are incorrect. Look up the video that someone posted

On DU. Sanders tried to persuade the superdelegates to support him even when H. Clinton had far more non-superdelegate votes. Guess his opinion about the rules depends on who is in the lead.

Saving you the trouble of looking for it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/27/warren-puts-least-one-bernie-bro-his-place/

[DanTex]

25. LOL at the Jennifer Rubin article. You know she's a Republican, right?

[spooky3]

27. How many times do people have to tell you and others that

She is a Never Trumper and

She has written excellent columns for more than two years about reality?

Further, your attempt to provide an ad hominem attack fails to deflect from the FACTS shown in the video itself, which have nothing to do with Rubin.

Watch the video.

[DanTex]

32. She is a *Republican*. She likes Republican things like tax cuts for rich people

and invading random countries and deregulation and cutting Social Security. It's not surprising that she puts out anti-Bernie propaganda, because she's opposed to everything that Bernie stands for.

I have no idea how she suddenly became a go-to source here on DU. It's bizarre. She hasn't become any less right-wing since she decided to go on an anti-Bernie crusade.

[ehrnst]

61. The goalpost move didn't work so now, a sad, despearate attempt at an ad hominem.

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 09:56 AM - Edit history (3)

Another tactic you use when something you can't refute is very uncomfortable.

[sheshe2]

110. CNN just had a WHOLE segment on just that, including a video.

They are not Republican, however my guess is you will come back and tell me they are just "Corporate run media", beholden to Billionaires and out to get BS

Funny, a video of BS in his own words is fake news now,

[ehrnst]

60. Nice try at a goalpost move... we're talking about the Sanders campaign. Not their supporters.

You do that a lot when you have been shown to be wrong about something.

Despite badly lagging in the delegate count, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager told NPR the campaign believes Sanders can and will be the Democratic nominee by winning over superdelegates at the 11th hour.

"If we can substantially close the gap between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders in terms of pledged delegates," Jeff Weaver told NPR's All Things Considered, "he can go into the convention with a substantial momentum from having won the vast, vast majority of states at the end of the process."
..................................................

"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates," Weaver continued, "but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

[spooky3]

98. +1 FACTS!!! Ouch, my eyes! :-)

thank you, ehrnst.

[ehrnst]

101. I know. Not that it sinks in, but I know that others reading are

validated...

[spooky3]

102. Yes!

[AGeddy]

34. Actually, the DNC rules say specifically that only DELEGATES elect the nominee.

Those are the rules of the Democratic Party.

If Bernie Sanders doesn't like those rules, he is free to run for President in a different party or to run as an independent.

If he is going to join the Democratic Party for a few months every four years in order to take advantage of the party infrastructure, then he is required to abide by the rules of the party.


It's not complicated.

[DanTex]

35. And the delegates should respect the electorate, and nominate whoever gets the most votes.

Because, obviously.

[AGeddy]

37. On the first vote, all pledges delegates ARE required to respect the electorate that voted for them

If no candidate gets 50%, then by definition no candidate has the "will of a majority of the voters".

"Most" has no meaning, with respect to the will of the majority of the voters. Majority means majority. If you don't have a majority, you don't have the "will of the people".

At that point, the delegates are free to horse trade until some candidate gets over 50%.

[ehrnst]

64. "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is

best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said on May 1, 2016.

Asked if the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the Democratic nominee — even if that candidate did not have a majority of pledged delegates — Sanders said, “the will of the people should prevail, yes. The person who has the most votes should become the nominee.”

It is the opposite of what Sanders and his campaign said in 2016, even after Hillary Clinton had secured the majority of pledged delegates.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates," Weaver continued, "but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

[DanTex]

65. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[ehrnst]

66. Nice try. Not re-litigating, reviewing. By your definition it's 'relitigating' to point out that HRC

won the 2016 primary by a large margin.



It's very frustrating when a complete flip-flop by one's candidate is pointed out, but this is the primaries, Hon.

Not everyone is going to get selective amnesia because a candidates' past words (along with the words of their campaign) are coming back to haunt them.

I see you have no rebuttal to the factual basis of the campaign's complete reversal on the "morality" and "duty to defeat Trump" of a contested convention now that one would benefit others, and not them.

[DanTex]

73. 2016 was a different circumstance, things happened, best to not re-litigate and move forward instead

[R B Garr]

84. It's the double standards and hypocrisy, which we know

still exists today. So we know past positions will be reviewed when the self-serving smears on Democrats start.

You should review Warren’s current comments about the hypocrisy of shifting positions only because it benefits him.

[ehrnst]

89. Getting desperate, Dan... Same candidate, 180 on their statements on the role of superdelegates.

Documented flip-flop. Any other candidate would be called a hypocrite for that, and you would be among the loudest.

Facts matter, even if they make you uncomfortable. That's why you are avoiding defending your side...

[MineralMan]

96. Nobody's "re-litigating" the 2016 primary.

It is history. However, history is very important when it comes to presidential nominees. Everyone should consider it, including the delegates at the convention. And they will.

At no time has a Democratic convention chosen a nominee who wasn't elected by a majority of delegates to the convention. Each candidate who has delegates will have them because voters voted in their primaries or caucuses for delegates for a particular candidate. At the convention, Bernie Sanders and every other candidate will have delegates at the convention pledged to that candidate. On the first ballot, almost every delegate will vote for the candidate he or she is pledged to.

On the second ballot, things change. For example, Amy Klobuchar will come to the convention with most of Minnesota's delegates pledged to her. That's almost certain. What is also almost certain is that after the first ballot, Klobuchar will not be viable and will not appear on the second ballot. Her pledged delegates will be free to vote for a different candidate. Most will not vote for Senator Sanders, if they were pledged to Amy. They will vote for a candidate with similar views and plans to those Senator Klobuchar stood for. Most of them will vote for a viable candidate who represents those views.

And so it goes, state by state. Delegates will do their best to vote as they believe the candidate they are pledged to would vote. Amy Klobuchar will probably indicate to her pledged delegates who she would like them to vote for, and most of them will follow her lead in the matter.

Why would any pledged delegate for any candidate who does not make it to the second (or third) ballot do otherwise? Why would they not listen to what the candidate to whom they were pledged requests them to do? They will follow that lead, because that was the "will of the voters."

You are being unrealistic here.

[Hekate]

42. Oh, okay. Do you object to your candidate being a super delegate? Or only the...

...others? Because your candidate had a big hand in writing the rules for this year. Is it not working out for him?

[peggysue2]

55. Is it not working out for him?

Apparently not since he's reversed his 2016 position. Then, he lent a hand in rewriting the rules. Only to out-fox himself offering up another reason to whine and howl displeasure.

Poor baby!

[DanTex]

82. I object to all superdelegates.

Bernie had nothing to do with the rules, the DNC wrote them. Bernie and his people on the committee were against superdelegates, but they were in the minority, so they didn't get what they wanted. Trying to blame Bernie the existence of the superdelegates that the DNC refused to get rid of is the height of absurdity.

[ehrnst]

100. Why don't you answer the question instead of trying to deflect....

Trying to blame Bernie the existence of the superdelegates that the DNC refused to get rid of is the height of absurdity.

No one did, Hon. They're just pointing out that Bernie helped write the rules, and Bernie agreed to abide by those rules when he decided to run on the Democratic ticket.

You're welcome.

[rzemanfl]

80. Hoping for five. n/t

[Me.]

2. Exactly

I posted that in another thread...and let me add that after he and his supporters threw a fit last time around HE HELPED WRITE THE RULES that are in effect now!

[sheshe2]

11. That is correct Me.

He helped write the rules. Now he wants to change them again.

[betsuni]

6. Add to the Railing Against Himself list: establishment, elite, millionaires.

[sheshe2]

31. That fits.

The shoe fits.

[Cha]

41. Brilliant!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Holy cow! Unhinged reaction!! Take a breath! Follow calm Mayor Pete!

[sheshe2]

38. Excuse me?

I am unhinged?

Fact. BS is a SD.

Fact. Person here called SD's paid Corporate Lobbyists. I corrected them and said neither Warren and Bernie were. The poster did not seem to understand who SD's are. Every sitting Senator is a SD.

Please Laura, do me a favor and do not call me unhinged ever again. That was rude and uncalled for.

[Hekate]

43. Maybe the poster meant BS is behaving unhinged?

Not sure now.

[sheshe2]

45. Perhaps.

However they have made it clear how they feel about me.

[Cha]

54. And, it's only our Democracy, Country, and oh yeah.. Our Planet

on the line.. so yeah I think we can react accordingly without being called names.

[sheshe2]

111. Yes.

I thank yo, Cha.

[Cha]

114. You're Welcome, she..

[ehrnst]

67. Ironic...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. Yup..been thrown at me multiple times. Ironic is right.

[ehrnst]

69. Calling someone else "Unhinged?"

Careful with the frantic namecalling... that hasn't turned out well for you, has it?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. Nope. Post unhinged.

[MrsCoffee]

74. Response was a bit unhinged.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. Yup

[sheshe2]

112. ;)

[ehrnst]

91. Posts don't write themselves, Hon.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

95. Now you finally got it!!

[ehrnst]

105. Now when will you?

[sheshe2]

113. ...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

124. Already have. Bullies can't take their own medicine. Don't you agree?

[ehrnst]

125. You tell us...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

129. Ha...know you've won an argument when people pull

out the infantile emojis !!

[ehrnst]

130. Got nothing?

[Cha]

104. smh..

[Cha]

103. De verdad.

[Warpy]

44. Antipathy to candidates is registered with a yawn

Having been here through two Hillary Wars, one against Obama (she lost) and one against Sanders (she won, having learned things from losing) and I am not ready for a third round of rhetorical fisticuffs because the same old people hate Sanders.

Enough, already. Tell me why your favored candidate is great. I'll read it.

Tell me why Sanders or Warren or Buttigieg or anyone else is terrible, I'll give it the consideration it deserves.

Yawn.

(No, I'm not talking about you, sheshe2. I'm grumbling about the current climate and agreeing with you.)

[sheshe2]

115. ...

[rwsanders]

46. Diversions to avoid comparisons on issues.

[William769]

52. Don't worry my dear shshe

This to shall pass.

I have confidence in our Super delegates.

[sheshe2]

116. As do I, Bill.

You ready to vote Tuesday? I am!

[William769]

118. I don't get to vote till March 17th.

[Squinch]

77. Really, it's just one guy honing his ability to be obtuse in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Even he doesn't really mean it anymore.

[Walleye]

79. Nobody wins elections by whining about unfairness

[thesquanderer]

81. FFS, Sanders has nothing against Super Delegates as individual people,

he is only "railing against" (or more precisely, raising questions about) the role they play in the system. Silly to say he's railing against himself.

[sheshe2]

117. Whatever.

He liked them before disliking them.

[thesquanderer]

120. In all fairness, he never liked them.

In 2016, when he was given power to influence the rules going forward, he wanted them abolished altogether. He wasn't able to make that happen, but the compromise position is what we ended up with in 2020, which is they effectively don't exist for the first ballot, but they kick in after that. If he'd gotten what he wanted then, today we wouldn't have them at all.

[sheshe2]

121. Well.

Video shows that he wanted them to break ranks and vote for him in the GE.

[thesquanderer]

122. That's true as well. He didn't like the idea of SD at all, but since that was the system,

yeah, he tried to find a way to politically play it to his advantage. Then when it came to writing the rules for 2020, he tried to get them eliminated, but was only able to get them eliminated for the first round.

[ehrnst]

127. Yes, he's certainly gone back and forth on the topic.

One could get whiplash...

[R B Garr]

85. Amen, she. This ish is tiresome.

[Peacetrain]

87. I know I know.. you just cant make it up

[MineralMan]

90. Once again, you are absolutely correct.

Every Democratic Senator and House member is a super delegate. Those are the people some are worried about not voting for their favorite candidate for the nomination. They have earned their seat at the convention by being elected by the people in their own states and districts.

It seems like some are implying that they are somehow less qualified than other delegates. That is simply not true. They are unpledged delegates who will use their best judgment and their long experience in choosing which candidate to support. One of them is Betty McCollum, my house representative. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, my state's Senators, are also super delegates at the convention. I trust them to vote for the candidate they thing is the best choice as our party's nominee.

[sheshe2]

119. +1000

I trust them to vote for the candidate they thing is the best choice as our party's nominee.

Thanks, MM.

[The Mouth]

97. I think one solution would be this:

All super delegates MUST vote for whoever has the most delegates on the first ballot. That gives a -fair in my opinion - advantage to whoever has the most votes and increases the chance of a first ballot decision, while still leaving open brokering and consensus building if no one candidate dominates but doesn't get a majority.

The purpose of supers is to prevent a repeat of 1972, where the brokering and bickering went on so long it was a joke.

Actually, exactly as with one of the main purposes of the Electoral College- to create the appearance of much more consensus than actually exists.

[we can do it]

123. BS is full of BS.

[lapucelle]

126. BS is a superdelegate. He hired superdelegate Nina Turner to run his campaign.

Superdelegate Ocasio Cotez has already endorsed BS before she knows the will of the people she represents.

And just this month, superdelegate Rashida Tlaib (who has also already endorsed BS before the people she represents expressed their will) led a crowd booing our 2016 general election candidate Hillary Clinton, who is not a superdelegate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

[betsuni]

132. +1

[aikoaiko]

134. Yes and he opposes having superdelegates vote.

What’s the problem?