Superdelegates: WTF?

[_Kevin Graham]

Im traveling using my phone so i can't really do a lot of research right now but I remember Sanders being very clear about his argument for trying to flip superdelegates. His argument was that National polls show that he is the stronger candidate to beat Trump or Cruz and beating the Republicans should be the party's #1 priority. And his numbers are only getting stronger. His rallies are only gettig larger. His wins are only getting more significant. All the momentum is on his side. Except if course, for the superdelegates who are arbitrarily picking Clinton for political reasons, no matter what the people choose. And by will of the people he is referring to states choosing him by large margins, as well as national polls showing far more prefer him over Hillary.

[_Res Ipsa]

Kevin, take a deep breath. If Bernie gets the most elected delegates, the supers will support him. Check back in when he catches up to her total.

I wouldn't count on it. The Clintons don't play fair and the establishment is in the tank for Hillary. (I don't think Bernie will win the delegate count though.)

Granted, at this point, I'd be a-okay with the (few) Republican superdelegates ignoring the will of the people in their states and diverting the election away from Trump, so I'm probably something of a hypocrite on the matter.

Yeah, I remember in 2008 when the Clintons didn't play fair and stole the nomination from Obama. Oh, wait, no I don't. The supers are there to prevent a Trump. Bernie isn't a Trump.

It's easy to throw around phrases like "in the tank." It's harder to think about why people support each other. One reason, perhaps, is that Clinton has been a member of the democratic party for decades and has actively supported and campaigned for other democratic candidates -- the ones who are now super delegates. Heck, the Clintons have even campaigned for Bernie in the Senate. Bernie signed an agreement in which, in exchange for access to the resources of the democratic party, he would raise money for down ticket candidates. He has done squat. And now he expects those same people that he has been refusing to support to do him a solid?

I thought he gave an extremely poor answer to Maddow last night on the question of raising money for down ticket candidates. He played it coy and argued about the merits of the question. The fact is, without winning down ticket races, Bernie will end up being the most ineffective president in decades and will set progressives back another 20 or more years. Not a one of his revolutionary plans will pass the senate without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. But he's not lifting a finger to bring that about. It's not going to happen by magic. It's going to require lots of hard work to get house and senate candidates from the "establishment" that he actively disdains elected in November.

I started out this campaign season happy that we had two strong candidates that were much stronger than any of the Republican offerings. As time has gone on, I've become much less confident in Bernie's ability to be an effective president.

[_Res Ipsa]

Im traveling using my phone so i can't really do a lot of research right now but I remember Sanders being very clear about his argument for trying to flip superdelegates. His argument was that National polls show that he is the stronger candidate to beat Trump or Cruz and beating the Republicans should be the party's #1 priority. And his numbers are only getting stronger. His rallies are only gettig larger. His wins are only getting more significant. All the momentum is on his side. Except if course, for the superdelegates who are arbitrarily picking Clinton for political reasons, no matter what the people choose. And by will of the people he is referring to states choosing him by large margins, as well as national polls showing far more prefer him over Hillary.

Bernie is learning the hard lesson that Clinton learned in 2008. The nomination process is a delegate race. The Obama campaign understood this better than the Clinton campaign in 2008 and leveraged that advantage into becoming the party's nominee. Bernie is now doing exactly what the Clinton campaign did in 2008 -- mustering any kind of rationale that will justify the supers making him the nominee in the event that he loses the delegate race. If he wins the pledged delegate race, he doesn't need to argue about polls and such. All he needs to do is say "the people have spoken and the supers should not override the results of the elected delegates." The supers understand that overriding the elected delegate results will cause a rift in the party just like what is happening with the Republicans this year.

[_Res Ipsa]

Can you point me to where he ever said this?

Here's one of the newspaper articles discussing the plan: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

[_Some Schmo]

I think the most important point is that Sanders will turn out more voters willing to vote Dem than Hillary. Independents don't like her. The youth don't trust her.

So if neither of them get the number of pledged delegates needed for the nomination by the convention (and it's looking that way), I think Bernie has a solid argument. I think it's important to remember that Hillary started out with high poll numbers and they've only dropped. Bernie started out nowhere and has only risen. Trends matter.

There is a huge "Bernie or Bust" movement that I don't think is going away before November. I know I won't be voting for anyone but Bernie at the top of the ticket. So if Dems want a Dem in the White House, Bernie's their best shot. Course, I realize the Dems don't give a crap nor do they see it that way, probably think that a Drumpf nomination is an automatic win for them no matter who they roll out, which makes me realize they aren't immune to living in their own party bubble.

Hillary is toxic. She's only slightly more popular than Drumpf.

[_MsJack]

Yeah, I remember in 2008 when the Clintons didn't play fair and stole the nomination from Obama.

She's already not playing fair. The pledged superdelegate count is meant to discourage Sanders voters and make people think that her election is inevitable.

If you look at a Democratic delegate tracker like this one from The New York Times, you’ll find that Hillary Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders so far, despite having been walloped by Sanders in New Hampshire and only essentially having tied him in Iowa. While Sanders does have a modest 36-32 lead among elected delegates — those that are bound to the candidates based on the results of voting in primaries and caucuses — Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.

If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might think this seems profoundly unfair. And you’d be right: It’s profoundly unfair. Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sup ... y-clinton/

Clinton also started with a superdelegate advantage over Obama in 2008 (not as large), but as Obama began winning states, those superdelegates from those states began switching to him. That hasn't happened with Clinton versus Sanders. As the OP of this thread pointed out, the pledged superdelegates have stood by Clinton no matter how badly she lost in their states.

The supers are there to prevent a Trump. Bernie isn't a Trump.

They were created to prevent another McGovern. Trump is hardly a McGovern. I agree that they have the function of preventing someone truly unfit for the Presidency and dangerous like Trump, but that was not their intended purpose.

I started out this campaign season happy that we had two strong candidates that were much stronger than any of the Republican offerings. As time has gone on, I've become much less confident in Bernie's ability to be an effective president.

Hillary Clinton has a horrible record on rape, sexual assault, and sex abuse, made worse by the hypocrisy of her self-styling as a "women + children advocate." It's a disgrace to our country that someone like her is so close to the presidency.

[_Kevin Graham]

Here's one of the newspaper articles discussing the plan: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Thanks Res Ipsa, but I still don't see what the crime is here. Running for office is all about trying to convince people to elect you. I don't understand why Sanders is in some way being "slimy" for simply trying to convince superdelegates to flip in states he has already won.

From the article:

“I think the momentum is with us,” Sanders said. “A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their position with Hillary Clinton. A lot have not yet declared. And then you have got superdelegates who are in states where we win by 40 or 50 points. I think their own constituents are going to say to them, 'Hey, why don't you support the people of our state, vote for Sanders?'"

Every time I hear Sanders talk about persuading Superdelegates, he is usually talking about those in states he has won and he qualifies it with comments like "if the race is close". What is so horrible about that? How is it "hijacking" when no one is forcing them to do anything?

This was from earlier this month:

We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us.

Again, is it really "slimy" to try to persuade superdelegates to do what's best for the party when national polls have consistently shown that Sanders is the strongest candidate in a general election?

Look at it this way, Clinton leads in delegates 1,243 to his 980. When it comes to superdelegates, her 469 to Sanders' 31 means she got 95% of the superdelegates while only getting 56% of the "regular" delegates. Now if the superdelegates worked the same way as the delegates then we would expect Hillary to win something closer to 56% of the superdelegates, which would effectively cut her lead in half. So instead of her overall 1,712 to his 1,011 it would be her 1,523 to his 1,200, which would change things dramatically for Sanders and his momentum since there are plenty of primaries left. It doesn't put him in the lead, but trailing by a single digit is far more manageable than the huge lead the superdelegates are arbitrarily handing to Clinton.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I remember in 2008 when the Clintons didn't play fair and stole the nomination from Obama.

She's already not playing fair. The pledged superdelegate count is meant to discourage Sanders voters and make people think that her election is inevitable.

If you look at a Democratic delegate tracker like this one from The New York Times, you’ll find that Hillary Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders so far, despite having been walloped by Sanders in New Hampshire and only essentially having tied him in Iowa. While Sanders does have a modest 36-32 lead among elected delegates — those that are bound to the candidates based on the results of voting in primaries and caucuses — Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.

If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might think this seems profoundly unfair. And you’d be right: It’s profoundly unfair. Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sup ... y-clinton/

Clinton also started with a superdelegate advantage over Obama in 2008 (not as large), but as Obama began winning states, those superdelegates from those states began switching to him. That hasn't happened with Clinton versus Sanders. As the OP of this thread pointed out, the pledged superdelegates have stood by Clinton no matter how badly she lost in their states.

The supers are there to prevent a Trump. Bernie isn't a Trump.

They were created to prevent another McGovern. Trump is hardly a McGovern. I agree that they have the function of preventing someone truly unfit for the Presidency and dangerous like Trump, but that was not their intended purpose.

I started out this campaign season happy that we had two strong candidates that were much stronger than any of the Republican offerings. As time has gone on, I've become much less confident in Bernie's ability to be an effective president.

Hillary Clinton has a horrible record on rape, sexual assault, and sex abuse, made worse by the hypocrisy of her self-styling as a "women + children advocate." It's a disgrace to our country that someone like her is so close to the presidency.

There are no "pledged super delegates." Super delegates, by definition, are unpledged. They may endorse a candidate, but they are not obligated to declare who they are going to vote for until the convention. Clinton does not control how the media outlets report the delegate count. As for 2008, just how many super delegates switched support to Obama when he was losing the pledged delegate race? It was after it was clear to everyone but the PUMAs that Obama had the pledged delegates locked up (with a lead smaller than Clinton's current lead) that the supers began to shift. This has nothing to do with the Clintons being meanies.

Super delegates were actually introduced to give the party insiders less control over the nominating process. Remember Hubert Humphrey? How many elected delegates did he get? Zero. Super delegates were introduced to prevent the party insiders from completely ignoring the voters. Since their introduction, they have never taken the nomination away from the person who won the most pledged delegates.

Super delegates are not intended to vote with the results in their states. If they were, they would be "pledged delegates" -- not super delegates. They are intended to exercise independent judgment.

Finally, Clinton's actual record on women's and children's issues is far from "horrible." Take a look at her history of advocacy and employment on behalf of abuse victims and she looks pretty good. Take a look at her voting record in the senate on those issues. Yes, in an atmosphere in which right wingers were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at her and her husband (remember, she killed Vince Foster, you know...), she reacted strongly to allegations of rape and infidelity against her husband. I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same for my spouse. She defended a guy she was appointed by a judge to defend. (I believe she asked to be removed from the case at one point, but I'd have to double check.) She zealously represented him as she was required to do, regardless as to her personal belief as to whether he was found guilty. You don't get to throw your client under a bus even if you believe that he is guilty -- even guilty of horrible crimes. No, her conduct has not been 100% consistent with her advocacy -- neither has mine. Has yours?

I don't agree with everything Clinton has done in her career. But I am more than weary of the over-the-top rhetoric about her that I hear day in and day out from Bernie fanatics.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here's one of the newspaper articles discussing the plan: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Thanks Res Ipsa, but I still don't see what the crime is here. Running for office is all about trying to convince people to elect you. I don't understand why Sanders is in some way being "slimy" for simply trying to convince superdelegates to flip in states he has already won.

From the article:

“I think the momentum is with us,” Sanders said. “A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their position with Hillary Clinton. A lot have not yet declared. And then you have got superdelegates who are in states where we win by 40 or 50 points. I think their own constituents are going to say to them, 'Hey, why don't you support the people of our state, vote for Sanders?'"

Every time I hear Sanders talk about persuading Superdelegates, he is usually talking about those in states he has won and he qualifies it with comments like "if the race is close". What is so horrible about that? How is it "hijacking" when no one is forcing them to do anything?

This was from earlier this month:

We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us.

Again, is it really "slimy" to try to persuade superdelegates to do what's best for the party when national polls have consistently shown that Sanders is the strongest candidate in a general election?

Look at it this way, Clinton leads in delegates 1,243 to his 980. When it comes to superdelegates, her 469 to Sanders' 31 means she got 95% of the superdelegates while only getting 56% of the "regular" delegates. Now if the superdelegates worked the same way as the delegates then we would expect Hillary to win something closer to 56% of the superdelegates, which would effectively cut her lead in half. So instead of her overall 1,712 to his 1,011 it would be her 1,523 to his 1,200, which would change things dramatically for Sanders and his momentum since there are plenty of primaries left. It doesn't put him in the lead, but trailing by a single digit is far more manageable than the huge lead the superdelegates are arbitrarily handing to Clinton.

Why are you even counting super delegates today? We all know that, regardless of who they may endorse today, they can vote for whomever they choose at the convention. Let me put it this way, if Bernie were to take the lead among pledged delegates, any attempt by Clinton to argue that the supers should throw the nomination to her would be pounced on as slimy and undemocratic by Bernie's campaign. In fact, up until Super Tuesday, that's what Bernie's campaign had been saying about the super delegates -- that it would be wrong for them to give Clinton the nomination if Bernie won a majority of the pledged delegates. They changed their tune when they saw the hole they were in after Super Tuesday and Mini Me Tuesday and completely reversed themselves. That's not a crime.

Head to head matchup polls during the primary are not reliable indicators of the actual election. That's because it's easy today in a poll for a Bernie fan to say she won't vote for Clinton and vice versa. It's all hypothetical.

If Bernie can win the pledged delegate contest, good on him. He should get the nomination. But if Clinton's argument going in is "I won more delegates and more of the popular vote," the supers aren't going to risk tearing the party apart to give Bernie the nomination.

[_Kevin Graham]

In fact, up until Super Tuesday, that's what Bernie's campaign had been saying about the super delegates -- that it would be wrong for them to give Clinton the nomination if Bernie won a majority of the pledged delegates.

I guess this right here, gets to the heart of the matter. Do you have some context or a reference for this? I hate to be a pain by keep asking for references but I can't find anything from him saying this.