Superdelegates: WTF?

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

Because obviously superdelegates matter. Not only in determining who wins, but also the effect it has on potential voters who are constantly being told Hillary's lead is insurmountable. With a 500+ delegate lead, it isn't difficult to kill morale and momentum. Yes, superdelegates can change their minds after committing, but how many actually did that in 2008 for Obama? Relatively few.

The whole concept of superdelegates is stupid. Sanders doesn't like the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean he isn't playing by them. He's done nothing wrong as far as I can tell. He's just trying to put the best person in a position to beat Trump, and all national polls say that person is him.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Sorry, I don't have anything specific in mind. My recollection is that his campaign's position was that super delegates are undemocratic and should be eliminated. (Same as your position upthread.) If there were no super delegates, the person who won the majority of the pledged delegates would win. For the supers to be democratic, they would have to respect the results of the pledged delegate race and not overturn it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ok, I'll keep looking.

I agree that superdelegates are undemocratic. How could they not be? But not liking the game is not the same as not playing by the rules. If Superdelegates are needed to win an election, then why bother running if you're not going to try to get them?

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok, I'll keep looking.

I agree that superdelegates are undemocratic. How could they not be? But not liking the game is not the same as not playing by the rules. If Superdelegates are needed to win an election, then why bother running if you're not going to try to get them?

Do you not see some inconsistency in these two positions:

1. Superdelegates are undemocratic.
2. I'm going to pressure super delegates to override result of the democratic election of delegates?

[_EAllusion]

In 2008, the Clinton campaign made overtures towards using the superdelegate system to take the nomination from Obama even if Obama won a majority of pledged delegates. They made some initial efforts towards that end and floated arguments among their media surrogates to prime the public for it.

There was a notable backlash to even hinting at the idea this would happen and it was rightly taken as another example of the Clinton team's willingness to play dirty. Clinton ultimately backed down. Whether that was because they thought better of it or because they simply weren't going to be able to persuade enough super-delegates to usurp the popular vote I cannot say.

I think the fact that Sanders hasn't gotten the same taint from suggesting doing the same thing says something about voter attitudes.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Because obviously superdelegates matter. Not only in determining who wins, but also the effect it has on potential voters who are constantly being told Hillary's lead is insurmountable. With a 500+ delegate lead, it isn't difficult to kill morale and momentum. Yes, superdelegates can change their minds after committing, but how many actually did that in 2008 for Obama? Relatively few.

The whole concept of superdelegates is stupid. Sanders doesn't like the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean he isn't playing by them. He's done nothing wrong as far as I can tell. He's just trying to put the best person in a position to beat Trump, and all national polls say that person is him.

How big was Hillary's biggest super delegate lead in 2008? When the dust settled, who got the most super delegate votes? And by how much?

Check out this post from 2008. How well did all those super delegates work out for her? https://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com/2 ... delegates/

[_Res Ipsa]

In 2008, the Clinton campaign made overtures towards using the superdelegate system to take the nomination from Obama even if Obama won a majority of pledged delegates. They made some initial efforts towards that end and floated arguments among their media surrogates to prime the public for it.

There was a notable backlash to even hinting at the idea this would happen and it was rightly taken as another example of the Clinton team's willingness to play dirty. Clinton ultimately backed down. Whether that was because they thought better of it or because they simply weren't going to be able to persuade enough super-delegates to usurp the popular vote I cannot say.

I think the fact that Sanders hasn't gotten the same taint from suggesting doing the same thing says something about voter attitudes.

Exactly. Frankly, I think it's the result of comparing a politician who's had 30 years of the kitchen sink being thrown at her by political enemies compared with a guy who hasn't been a target. Yet. When Clinton acts like a politician, she gets slammed. When Bernie does, he's excused. Because birds or something.

[_EAllusion]

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.

Because obviously superdelegates matter. Not only in determining who wins, but also the effect it has on potential voters who are constantly being told Hillary's lead is insurmountable. With a 500+ delegate lead, it isn't difficult to kill morale and momentum. Yes, superdelegates can change their minds after committing, but how many actually did that in 2008 for Obama? Relatively few.

The whole concept of superdelegates is stupid. Sanders doesn't like the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean he isn't playing by them. He's done nothing wrong as far as I can tell. He's just trying to put the best person in a position to beat Trump, and all national polls say that person is him.

Hillary's nigh insurmountable lead is a consequence of the pledged delegate situation and is consistently reported in the media that way. The super-delegate difference significantly widens the gap, but the media seems to discount that under the belief that the Democratic party wouldn't dare use the super-delegate system to overturn a popular election.

Sanders could simply say that he won't use the super-delegate system to usurp the will of the people because he doesn't agree with that. I mean, it's far more understandable for him to accept money from large donors given the rules of the campaign and he doesn't do that on principle (or because it makes for a handy campaign slogan). Why can't he be principled here, then?

Maybe if the Republicans weren't effectively running against Clinton and used all their ammo on Sanders, the polling situation might look different. Sanders very well might be the more electable candidate, but until he faces the full assault of their red-scare campaign they'd inevitably use against him, that's hard to say. They've been relentlessly campaigning against Clinton as the presumptive nominee for a very long time. That's why she has to keep testifying on Benghazi. Sanders, not so much.

[_Kevin Graham]

Do you not see some inconsistency in these two positions

When you put it like that, but I think too many people, especially in the media, are jumping to conclusions about what all this entails. Sanders hasn't said anything about "pressuring" anyone to do anything. Every time he speaks on this matter it is because journalists pressure him to fork up a response to a potentially juicy story for them to report on.

But when Sanders does respond to this issue, it comes with heavy qualification (i.e. "well there are other factors, it depends on the situation, if the election is very close, etc). From what I hear him saying, he doesn't even like talking about this because it presupposes he's already in such dire straits that he has no other choice.

If Sanders is referring to potentially flipping specific superdelegates because they are going against the voters in their state, then this isn't undemocratic at all. And every time I hear him respond to this issue, he is referring specifically to superdelegates who committed against the will of the state's voters. Here are two recent interviews:


"Clearly we have the momentum. And I think, at the end of the day, we’re going to end up with more pledged delegates than Secretary Clinton. And then I think the super delegates are going to have make a very difficult decision and that is, if a candidate wins in a state by 40 or 50 points, who are you going to give your vote to?" ABC NEWS


"The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic ... I think it might be a good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their own state," he said. I just talked to a person the other day who said, 'You know what? I am going to listen to my state, and if my state votes for you, Bernie, you're going to have my vote.'" CBS - Face the Nation

Could it be that when he say's he hopes to "make the case" to superdelegates, that he is referring to his performance in the election, his performance in national polls, his performance with election day voting, etc and not that he is referring to a "sit down" Don Corleone style? Because that is how I read him in these interviews.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm still unable to find any citation of Sanders saying that if he were behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote, that he would try using super delegates to win.