Superdelegates: WTF?

[_Kevin Graham]

I saw Devine on Maddow last night talking about those remarks, and he was saying it really depends on where they're at in the end. He said it would be Bernie's decision on what he wants to do when the time comes, which is always what I suspected. He said if they are only 5-10 delegates behind, then of course they're going to try to convince super delegates to flip, but it depends on where they're at. And why wouldn't they do that? That's the whole point of running for election, trying to convince more people you're the best candidate. Devine also reiterated points I had already made, namely that they don't like the rules of the superdelegate game but that doesn't mean they're not going to play by them. If you're against the designated hitter in baseball, does that mean you're going to send out your pitcher to the plate, on principle? I don't think this will ever happen though. I think these guys are just trying to be positive about a viable path to victory while the establishment media is pushing for Sanders to go ahead and give up.

I really don't understand what the big deal is here. You guys are following the media's framing of it as a Democratic vs. Undemocratic issue, when we know very well that 1) Bernie beats her in just about every general election poll and 2) the percentage of pledged super delegates is ridiculously disproportionate to the popular vote especially in states he's won 3) he is likely to win significantly more States. Sure, she has more of the popular vote so far, but it is difficult to get a clear idea how many people really support Sanders when there are closed primaries and three million people in New York were not allowed to vote; Sanders gets most of the independents whose voice cannot be heard simply because they didn't register as Democrat before the deadline back in early October. So in their minds, Sanders is the choice of the people, but the system is set up so that we don't know that.

[_Gunnar]

I am still rooting for Sanders to win the nomination, but I will vote even for Hillary Clinton if I become convinced that is the only way to help prevent Donald Trump from becoming the next President.

[_EAllusion]

I saw Devine on Maddow last night talking about those remarks, and he was saying it really depends on where they're at in the end. He said it would be Bernie's decision on what he wants to do when the time comes, which is always what I suspected. He said if they are only 5-10 delegates behind, then of course they're going to try to convince super delegates to flip, but it depends on where they're at. And why wouldn't they do that? That's the whole point of running for election, trying to convince more people you're the best candidate. Devine also reiterated points I had already made, namely that they don't like the rules of the superdelegate game but that doesn't mean they're not going to play by them. If you're against the designated hitter in baseball, does that mean you're going to send out your pitcher to the plate, on principle? I don't think this will ever happen though. I think these guys are just trying to be positive about a viable path to victory while the establishment media is pushing for Sanders to go ahead and give up.

Yeah, they're now walking it back a bit given, finally, some vocal complaint. Why doesn't Sanders take large corporate donations if his campaign just needs to play with the rules they are dealt? After all, taking a donation doesn't mean you owe the donor anything. Either this says something about what principles the Sanders campaign actually has or they are just inconsistent about whether principle matters more than doing everything you can to win.

One of the reasons Clinton has a reputation as a dirty campaigner is because she was willing to do this in 2008.

I really don't understand what the big deal is here. You guys are following the media's framing of it as a Democratic vs. Undemocratic issue, when we know very well that 1) Bernie beats her in just about every general election poll and 2) the percentage of pledged super delegates is ridiculously disproportionate to the popular vote especially in states he's won 3) he is likely to win significantly more States. Sure, she has more of the popular vote so far, but it is difficult to get a clear idea how many people really support Sanders when there are closed primaries and three million people in New York were not allowed to vote; Sanders gets most of the independents whose voice cannot be heard simply because they didn't register as Democrat before the deadline back in early October. So in their minds, Sanders is the choice of the people, but the system is set up so that we don't know that.

Bernie beating Clinton in general election match-up polls is not necessarily predictive of actual general election outcome. For example, one major confounding variable is that Republicans have been running against Hillary as the presumptive nominee forever while leaving Sanders with some B-team criticisms. They have not yet, but certainly will, run a full-on Marxist-scare campaign against him. They will use whatever folder they have on him. And it will have some impact. How much? I don't know. General election polling this far out isn't really predictive. Carter was beating Reagan by a lot around this time i 1980. It isn't clear why that should be determinant of receiving the nomination when Clinton won more delegates and votes than Sanders while out-polling him among Democratic voters.

The idea that Sanders should win the election because he won more states, even if those states have way fewer people and thus less votes and less delegates, is hilariously undemocratic. Should we run the general election this way? Spoiler alert: Republicans tend to win more states, because they pick off a lot of the more rural ones.

"Non-voters really probably would've preferred Sanders, even though there's no empirical evidence of this as all polling indicators we actually possess favor Clinton" is such a profoundly undemocratic sentiment as well. My socialist comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but I do think the leftwing that supports Sanders at the end of the day is prone to undemocratic sentiments because of a tendency towards the firm belief that if the public knew any better, or they could express what they really want, it would be the same as what they want. That mentality is dangerous.

That said, Sanders does better among independents, currently, because he's viewed as apart from partisan politics relative to Clinton among the type of independents who would vote in a Democratic party primary. There's good evidence to back this notion up. See:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... ependents/

That can easily change when he's the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party and is in the thick of a partisan presidential race with the Democratic machinery behind him and the Republican opposed. As stated in my link, the independents who vote in party primaries are in no way representative of independents generally. Elections that discourage independents from voting hurt Sanders. But then again, elections that use a caucus system and discourage Clinton voters away help him. It's not clear that campaign rules are hurting him. It's probably been a net help.

[_Brackite]

While Bernie did win in a lot of the States, Hillary has managed to win over Bernie in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. All four of these States should be crucial battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election. If Hillary becomes the 2016 Democratic Nominee, I don't think she will have to worry that much about liberal voters staying home from those four battleground States. If Hillary wins two out of four of those battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election, she will very likely win the Presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rida,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... inia,_2016

[_Kevin Graham]

Yeah, they're now walking it back a bit given, finally, some vocal complaint.

I don't see it that way at all. Devine confirmed what I suspected all along, that none of this was ever set in stone the way you folks were presenting it and that one man's remarks don't necessarily reflect the position of Bernie Sanders. You know, he was accused of hypocrisy. But all I see here is manufactured news by those who've been in the tank for Clinton, and it is wrong to say someone just "finally" started to complain because you guys were citing clips from months ago that were criticizing Sanders for hypocrisy on this very point. But what it all boiled down to was that some folks working for the campaign were constantly pressured by certain journalists to concede they've already been defeated and when they refused, they were pressured to explain a viable path to victory.

Why doesn't Sanders take large corporate donations if his campaign just needs to play with the rules they are dealt?

So now, after all that's been said and done, and it turns out that you worst fears about Sanders were shaped by certain journalists trying to create a news story, you're still hanging onto this notion that Sanders is just as unprincipled as the rest because ... he doesn't take large corporate donations. That makes no sense. There is something fundamentally immoral about accepting bribes. There is nothing immoral about trying to persuade super delegates to vote for you.

Either this says something about what principles the Sanders campaign actually has or they are just inconsistent about whether principle matters more than doing everything you can to win.

Well, obviously if doing anything to win at all costs were the goal then he would have been accepting corporate donations for years. But he doesn't, so that answers your question. And I already said I don't see what the big deal is about trying to convince super delegates that they should vote for you. You keep framing it in this sinister way, as if Hillary is going to end up with a 800 delegate lead and then Sanders decides at the end he is going to try to persuade 801 of them to change their minds. Again, you have neglected the context of the few sound bytes that were used to criticize Sanders's so-called hypocrisy on this issue. Persuading super delegates in states which he won by large margins was always the idea and I see nothing undemocratic about it.

One of the reasons Clinton has a reputation as a dirty campaigner is because she was willing to do this in 2008.

But obviously Sanders isn't. So now you're back at square one with no real evidence that Sanders is just another unprincipled politician.

Bernie beating Clinton in general election match-up polls is not necessarily predictive of actual general election outcome. For example, one major confounding variable is that Republicans have been running against Hillary as the presumptive nominee forever while leaving Sanders with some B-team criticisms. They have not yet, but certainly will, run a full-on Marxist-scare campaign against him. They will use whatever folder they have on him. And it will have some impact. How much? I don't know. General election polling this far out isn't really predictive. Carter was beating Reagan by a lot around this time i 1980. It isn't clear why that should be determinant of receiving the nomination when Clinton won more delegates and votes than Sanders while out-polling him among Democratic voters.

But that wasn't the point. I was pointing this out in response to this idea that Sanders is supporting an undemocratic process. The fact that currently polls show him beating Republicans by wider margins kind of throws cold water on that. At least in their minds, Sanders is the best candidate for beating the Republicans in November and he represents what the people want. Whether this always holds true is beside the point. Sanders has bucked the trend and has surprised everyone, winning big where he was supposed to lose and losing small where he was supposed to lose big.

Just looking back a few months ago it is crazy how far he's come. In Feb average polls had him under 10%. A graph of the last six months shows his support skyrocketing while Clinton's gradually drops. It doesn't take a mastermind to figure out where this would be headed and how the election would look dramatically different if they were to redo all the primaries and allow everyone to vote. You say the system may benefit Sanders which is laughable. Hillary went into this thing with early voters and super delegates already committed to her because they never thought Sanders could compete. Thousands have been trying to vote for him only to discover they can't unless they find a time machine to go back a year to register as Democrat. He attracts larger crowds and gets more money from small donors. Clinton is merely riding on the coat tails of Barack Obama, which has worked for her getting a large majority of minorities. So yeah, taking all of this into account, it is understandable why the Sanders campaign believes they have the people's choice.

[_Kevin Graham]

While Bernie did win in a lot of the States, Hillary has managed to win over Bernie in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. All four of these States should be crucial battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election. If Hillary becomes the 2016 Democratic Nominee, I don't think she will have to worry that much about liberal voters staying home from those four battleground States. If Hillary wins two out of four of those battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election, she will very likely win the Presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rida,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... inia,_2016

Based on recent polling data, when it comes to the general election:

Clinton is +9 over Trump in Virginia whereas Sanders is +22.
Clinton is +6 over Trump in Ohio whereas Sanders is +9.
Clinton is +2 over Trump in N.C. whereas Sanders is +7.
Clinton and Sanders are both +8 over Trump in Florida but Sanders has momentum in his favor.

[_EAllusion]

I don't see it that way at all.

He directly says they are going to use the time between the end of the primaries and the convention to try and persuade super-delegates to flip and give the election to Sanders on the argument that Sanders is the superior candidate. This, after a lot of grumbling about it, finally produces a fair amount of backlash. The very next interview finally adds the qualifier, "If we're, uh, down a handful of votes." I'd call that walking it back.

You know how many pledged delegates Obama beat Clinton by in 2008 even after she gave up before the last 6 or so primaries?

68.

And the idea that she'd use the superdelegate system - having better connections to the Democratic establishment than Obama - was unconscionable. Sanders, because of having devotees who have predetermined he's a moral paragon, doesn't get the same taint despite suggesting the same thing while never being anywhere near how close Clinton was to Obama.

So now, after all that's been said and done, and it turns out that you worst fears about Sanders were shaped by certain journalists trying to create news, you're still hanging onto this notion that Sanders is just as unprincipled as the rest because ... he doesn't take large corporate donations. That makes no sense.

You made the argument that it is fair and reasonable for Sanders to play by the rules he's been given, which involve the superdelegate system. I pointed out that campaign finance rules are also the rules he's been given yet he doesn't play by those. This either implies that he doesn't oppose the undemocratic superdelegate system overturning popular election results or that he does and he's willing to be pragmatically unprincipled in one case, but not in the other. Take your pick. Neither is good.

I'm fairly confident Sanders won't be able to flip superdelegates. It is not just because Clinton is far better connected to them. It's precisely because there is enough popular opposition both in the public and among superdelegates themselves to overturning the national primary results that they simply won't go along with it. You'd need a Donald Trump situation for the superdelegates to actually contravene a popular election result.

I think you missed the point. I was pointing this out in response to this idea that Sanders is supporting an undemocratic process. The fact that currently polls show him beating Republicans by wider margins kind of throws cold water on that.

No it doesn't. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. The Democratic nominee isn't selected based on who polls better in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup in spring. The primary system isn't a contest to find the most electable candidate. The primary system is an expression of democracy in a political party selecting its nominee. The superdelegate system is not that. It's specifically meant to overturn the will of the people if the party bosses think the will of the people is bad.

You say the system may benefit Sanders which is laughable. Hillary went into this thing with early voters and super delegates already committed to her because they never thought Sanders could compete. Thousands have been trying to vote for him only to discover they can't unless they find a time machine to go back a year to register as Democrat. He attracts larger crowds and gets more money from small donors. Clinton is merely riding on the coat tails of Barack Obama, which has worked for her getting a large majority of minorities. So yeah, taking all of this into account, it is understandable why the Sanders campaign believes they have the people's choice.

"Attractling larger crowds" says nothing about popular support because those large crowds only are a relatively small amount of total voters. All attracting larger crowds says is that Sanders has the sort of supporters who like to and are able to attend political rallies. If number of small donors was indicative of popular support, Ron Paul would've been the nominee for Republicans in '08 and '12.

Sanders benefits significantly from a primary system that is proportional in allocation of delegates and favors high investment voters over low investment ones. Indeed, the very same reason why Sanders rallies are huge or that he has a lot of people who donate him money is the same reason why it is in his interest to see only the most committed voters actually vote. This is what primaries are built for in general and in caucuses in particular. That's what I described as a "net benefit."

The primary system is an iterative process. People vote in a snapshot in time after a campaign that focuses specifically on their state. It's because of this that you can't retrodict previous results based on current polling.

The idea that Sanders is "the people's choice" and thus deserves the victory despite getting more or less crushed in the actual elections is dangerous. All hail the glorious socialist leader. He's knows what's best for you.

[_EAllusion]

Based on recent polling data, when it comes to the general election:

Clinton is +9 over Trump in Virginia whereas Sanders is +22.
Clinton is +6 over Trump in Ohio whereas Sanders is +9.
Clinton is +2 over Trump in N.C. whereas Sanders is +7.
Clinton and Sanders are both +8 over Trump in Florida but Sanders has momentum in his favor.

Sanders might be more electable. There's no data we have available that can tell us this, though. Polling is weakly predictive this far out. Moreover, Sanders hasn't really faced the right-wing media machine going after him. He's treated as a side-show because, well, he has virtually no shot at actually being the nominee. If the media environment changes, it would be surprising not to see a comparable change in polling numbers.

One thing I can guarantee you is that Sanders will not outperform Clinton to the degree the numbers suggest right now. Those numbers will come down. That's because we know that people perform about as well as their party is expected to perform regardless of who that person is. The personalities and views of candidates can move numbers at the margins, but only at the margins. You wouldn't expect there to be that large of a variance between Sanders and Clinton at the end of the day in the general.

The Republicans are putting up extreme outliers to this rule, and even then don't be surprised if Trump or Cruz loses a tighter than you'd think race. Trump is literally the least popular candidate in Republican history since we've started measuring that. That he won't lose every single state is a testament to the depths of partisanship.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hillary's nigh insurmountable lead is a consequence of the pledged delegate situation and is consistently reported in the media that way.

That's simply not true. I see the media constantly including all her super delegates in the overall tally. This has been true from the very start and it has been detrimental to Sanders' campaign because it keeps giving the impression that he never stood a chance at all; that is is simply not an electable candidate. I suspsect it has the same effect as declaring a given candidate has won a state while thousands of voters are still waiting to vote.

[_Kevin Graham]

Res Ipsa,

If Sanders leads the pledged delegate count at the end, he has the strongest argument there is for the supers to vote for him. There is no need to talk about hypothetical head to head match ups or whether a super should vote with their state. In 2008, the supers who voted against their states voted for Obama -- the pledged delegate winner.

Right, but ask EA how likely it is that the Supers would flip to Sanders even if he manages to win the pledged delegates. A majority of these Supers went with Clinton before their state's respective primaries/caucuses. They're not interested in voting with their states. You say there is no need to talk about hypotheticals, yet this thread is based on a hypothetical as to what Sanders would do in some future situation. That situation is probably going to happen so I guess we'll find out when it does. In the mean time, let's just call him hypocrite based on what he hasn't said or done.