one sentence out of a whole speech to totally change the narrative.

the Nation, saying that if he carries a state by a huge amount, Superdelegates previously pledged to Clinton may want to ask themselves whether they should support the candidate that the popular vote of their state supported.

That reasoning makes sense to me. Especially as this will give state residents the chance to make their choices clear.

He's saying that if the majority of a state's Democratic voters vote for him, he will try to persuade that state's super delegates to vote for him as well.

The super delegate system is messed up. But given that it's there, I think Bernie's suggestion is a better way to handle it than the alternative, which would be for the super delegates to ignore the state's Democratic voters.

by convincing super delegates to switch.

It's funny, becasue I've seen people accuse the Clinton Campaign and the establishment of using super delegates to give her the nomination even if Sanders wins the most votes, and therefore, the most pledged delegates.

So Sanders is going to use the establishment to stop the candidate who has the most voters prefer and become the establishment approved candidate.

"But I think when you have states, for example, say in New
Hampshire where we won by 22 points, in other states where we won by 25 or
even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those
states to say to their super delegates, hey, how about representing the
people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?"

I understand. It happens. You start reading something, maybe get tired or the phone rings and you forget to read the last paragraph. Maybe the kids are screaming, the dog barking and there's a cop knocking on your door.

Go Bernie!

Sanders avoids mentioning that Clinton is the Candidate who has managed big majorities in the most states.

I understand how it happens. You read something and neglect to apply it to all the states that Clinton won by large majorities.
Sanders is not going to win the popular vote because Democrats prefer Clinton.
Sanders is not going to win a majority of pledged delegates becasue the majority of Democrats prefer Clinton.

Sanders is not going to convince Super Delegates to give the nomination to Candidate that the majority of Democrats did not choose.

That party that wants to do that is Republicans. He did not run in that party.

It suggests to me that the Sanders campaign is in its final throes.

Sanders supporters were up in arms about the possibility of Clinton losing the vote but winning the nomination because of Superdelegates. And how unfair that would have been.

It looks like Sanders and his supporters don't care about the 'fairness' of it all anymore.

He's trying to get super delegates to vote for him in something close to the proportions in which Democratic voters are voting for him.

As it stands now, super delegates can make their decisions on any basis they want, votes be damned! Bernie's proposal is an improvement.

He's not trying to get close, he's trying to win. And he doesn't care if he throws his principles out the window to accomplish that.

It doesn't matter if you believe it, but he's not going to catch up to Clinton in the pledged delegate count. In 2008, Clinton was never more than about 150 delegates away from Obama and towards the end, she started closing that gap ... but she ran out of states. She even had more total votes than Obama had ... but it isn't votes that count, it's delegates. Sanders currently has more than double the deficit than Clinton EVER had. Can Sanders close the deficit ... sure. But he isn't even going to get close.

But it does matter if Bernie believes it. Bernie believes his best states are ahead and he still has a chance to win the majority of pledged delegates. His concern is that if he wins pledged delegates narrowly, super delegates could give the race to Hillary. But if, as Bernie proposes, super delegates all vote with the majorities from their states, then super delegate votes won't won't bias the election away from the popular vote. Actually, that's not exactly what he proposes. He says he will asked super delegates from states that he won to vote for him. They may or may not do it. If they do, they will be moving the total vote count to something at least a little more representative of the popular Democratic vote.

Not exactly how democracy works, though. Talk about a sore loser.

And I say that as someone who shook his head watching Clinton try this same strategy back in 2008. I didn't think she should have tried it then, and I don't think Sanders will have much luck on his attempt.

this will NEVER happen in large numbers as any one with a bit of political acumen should realize

it's simple.

then they lost by 5000 votes.

"Then you better start swimmin
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin "

the results of our efforts were positive. I'm pretty sure this is happening nationwide. I wish you well in your pursuit of mediocrity.

They like him so much that Utah is in play for a landslide with Sanders. Clinton is only in a statistical tie with Trump.

He has caucused with Democrats but has no history of being involved with the party itself.

Our party has pretty solid rules that have been developed over decades and that are designed to reflect the will of the voters as far as possible. It is unthinkable for party-oriented Democrats to imagine that the primary candidate with a majority of pledged votes would not become the nominee.

Every last superdelegate, on the other hand, is a long-time member of the Democratic Party. Most are long-time participants in official party activities as well.

If Bernie Sanders believes that those pledged and unpledged superdelegates are going to suddenly go against party rules and tradition, it can only be his inexperience with how the party operates and has operated.

For Bernie: The primary candidate with the largest number of proportionally allocated pledged delegates WILL be the nominee. This year, that candidate will have a majority of pledged delegates. If you want to be the nominee, you will need to earn that majority of pledged delegates in the primary elections and caucuses of our 50 states and a few other jurisdictions. If you do, then you will be the nominee. If you do not, you will have the opportunity to endorse the nominee.

Even though it's being misquoted, I still don't see what difference it will make. In the end, pledged elected delegates should determine the outcome.

Really? Wouldn't the party get a simpler, more accurate reflection of the will of the voters just by giving every Democratic voter an equal voice, with no super delegates skewing the numbers?

What is your basis for saying "The primary candidate with the largest number of proportionally allocated pledged delegates WILL be the nominee"? If the final count of pledged delegates is close, the super delegates could give the nomination to the candidate who did not win the majority of pledged delegates. Why do you think that can't happen? If Bernie were confident that it couldn't happen, he would not be worried about the super delegates vote.

You missed the night of the Living Seans!

with campaign contributions, bought votes. You support that. Your support makes them continue to do so.

I know, I have heard this before.

giving to them. Money from wall st. big pharma, etc. yea it's bad. Oh can we see the transcripts also?

I know Bernie sucks at the, so you'd like to think you can go it alone.... but it's not happening.
You;d really have to start with the bottom up, just like the GOP has been doing for 30+ years.

I'll pass

Even Elizabeth Warren these days. The cheese stands alone.
Good fucking luck with that.

In place way before Sanders decided to take all this on as Democratic Contender.

But, I suspect they would rather lose to a Republican than win with an FDR Democrat.

That's all it's about. They have been brilliant at tapping into the wallets of their base no matter what narrative they push. It's campaigning and the delegate writing is on the wall. This is being sold to rile up their wallets. Smart move. The only move left. It is them saying it's over without saying it's over. A bit surprised they aren't waiting until the next group of states vote before pushing this narrative.

First off, there is nothing against any Democratic Party Rules for candidates to make appeals to Super Delegates to support them. They weren't elected to support anyone in particular by any electorate. They are unpledged. They are allowed to change their minds ten times if they want to . Those are how the rules work.

Second, just because a candidate may think that the current Super Delegate system gives too much power to too many unpledged delegates outside of the primary/caucus process, that doesn't mean said candidate should be expected to not compete for those votes also and just concede them to his or opponent. That would be irresponsible toward the hundreds of thousands of supporters who donated time and money to their campaign, to not actively compete for a large percentage of the delegates who will elect the Democratic nominee.

Third, why on Earth should a candidate not argue that Super Delegates should be responsive to the will of the voters of their state? That is a perfectly sound argument to make. It may or may not be persuasive enough in any specific instance to convince a given Super Delegate to switch candidates because their candidate lost the primary or caucus in their state - but there is nothing unethical in the slightest to appeal to one to change sides on that basis.

Fourth, it is clear as glass that the Super Delegates to date are not breaking by proportions that even remotely resemble how the electorate has voted so far. There is nothing underhanded or hypocritical about wanting to change that.

The Sanders position on Super Delegates has always been that they can have a legitimate role to play in the process, if their overall numbers are small. For example he believes that elected Governor of states for example, should automatically qualify as delegates to the Convention - but that there is no good defense for allowing anywhere near as many Super Delegates as Democratic Party rules currently provide for. So he is not categorically opposed to Super Delegates having some role inside the Party.

In practice something extraordinary would have to be happening in the final months of the campaign for Sanders to close the gap between him and Hillary tight enough, and persuasively enough, for scores of Democratic Party insiders to switch sides to back him over Hillary. He would either have had to pull ahead of Hillary in pledged delegates or come within a whisker of doing so. If her campaign somehow went off the tracks due to a scandal or any other reason, and went into total free fall in the final weeks - losing big where she should easily have won, a case can be made for the Party to legitimately decide that she was too wounded to be the standard bearer if the race at that point was a virtual tie.

Under the latter scenario what comes up for me is an inherent weakness of any election that stretches on over several months. Democrats do not all vote on the same day for their Presidential nominee. There may be instances where new information breaks in the latter part of the primary season that likely would have strongly swayed voters earlier in the season differently had they been aware of it at the time. The above is an unlikely set of circumstances, but not unworthy of possible consideration in a very tight race, one that played out dramatically different in the second half than it did in the first, depending on why that was.

the original question was directed toward the oft-professed fury of Sanders supporters toward an imagined subversion of the voters' will by superdelegates.

I do think there are way too many Super Delegates, and that it isn't healthy to have one large class of delegates vowing to vote so wildly out of sync with how actual primary/caucus voters are voting in real time. A good case is point is Vermont where Sanders won over 86% of the vote while Clinton retained most of the Vermont Super Delegates come the morning after.

I understand that these are the rules in place and I can personally accept some Super Delegates in the process in the future - in far fewer numbers. There are seldom perfect answers but I would hope that Super Delegates might show more sensitivity to the wishes of the voters in their own states in the future, and I guess that future starts with the coming convention. A sitting Governor at least has a recent popular State wide voter mandate of his/her pwn, most Super Delegates don't. I can respect how a Super Delegate may feel an obligation to factor in how the overall dynamics of a race may have dramatically changed by the time the convention comes around, far after their own state voted - they can provide an important reality check review function. Usually though they simply seem like steadfast partisans for one candidate over another, simply voting for who they want regardless of how their electorate feels.

I appreciate your answer. I know that many supporters of both candidates see all this as simple black and white depending on how it effects their guy or gal. I hope the Democratic Party takes another long hard look at the Super Delegate matter and makes some significant reforms to the system before the next Presidential Election.

same one who is plotting to harass PLEDGED delegates right?

Tad Devine has made no secret of his goal.

There is a whole lot about how the Democratic Party, and those who rise within it, operates that I find woefully lacking in terms of small d democratic values. That is a near universal - and it is giving me a lot to think about in general. For the record I oppose harassing pledged delegates. I felt the same way about it in 2008 when I was supporting Hillary and some said her campaign intended to use that strategy.

It is my understanding he will try to flip pledged delegates which is a whole different kettle of fish and mere words can not express the negative feelings such a move would evoke in me , and I suspect many others. It is literally worth leaving the party over, which I would do in a New York minute, despite my and my family's eighty plus year devotion to it.

WIN! Bernie WIN!

win the GE?

I did not make up the party's history or rules, promise.

Where have we heard THAT before?

My thinking?
No more Bushes; no more Clintons.

The US Presidency is not a fucking family entitlement.

Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:17 PM - Edit history (3)

BTW, would you be one of the many Hillary supporters here claiming that Bernie should fold his campaign, or that he cannot win? Before a rather vast number of Democrats have even voted in a primary? I would call that pre-crowned by fucking definition.

If you haven't argue that, than I won't say that you did. It's just a lot of other Hillary supporters here are saying it. And then they complain about Bernie supporters who say they won't support Hillary. Apparently it is her turn!

I call that unbridled hubris. It is a disgusting way to run a campaign.

I do not like Hillary Clinton very much. She was a rather poor candidate in 2008, and is not much of a better one this year, if at all. She has horrible negatives with independents, those who Democrats rather depend on to help get elected at the national level. Plus, there's the fact that I disagree with her positions on a whole lot of major issues.

Damn! I will vote for her in November. But I am just not sure that she can win against any Republican candidate. When one positions oneself with little political difference from the opposition, don't be too surprised when the opposition beats you. (PoliSci 101)

of the IOKIYAR, and pushed by the same people who have pushed that hypocrisy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

The super delegates will support the candidate who is ahead in the pledged delegate count. Just like they did in 2008, and Obama had less than half the pledged delegate advantage that Hillary has at the moment. They will not subvert the will of the people.

For starters, Sanders probably will not have enough pledged delegates to close the gap with even all of the superdelegates.

OTOH, allowing Hillary to run unopposed wouldn't require many voters at all. I finally hear that one hand clapping.

And I'm sure you have a very subtle point that's flying way over my head.

Then where is the subverting you mention in your OP?

How would declaring someone the winner even if they can't secure the required delegates not be considered subversive?

look at the Sanders strategists who are pretty much conceding defeat in pledged delegates with their announced plan.

In a situation like that the early primary voters voted without having the benefit of information about a criminal indictment. And many of the pledged delegates should flip, too.

Other than that case, the superdelegates should be voting similarly to how their states voted. Period. For everybody.

In the highly unlikely event that was to occur the pledged delegates would be released from their pledges on the second ballot and they would vote for Joe Biden, the loyal vice president and stalwart Democrat. Bernie Sanders is practically no Clinton supporter's second choice. I doubt he is their tenth.

Don't believe me, commission a poll...You can start here...We Clinton supporters are not into Bernie Sanders, at all...Oh we labor under no delusion that Senator Sanders' stalwart supporters feel the same way about her.

If it was Bernie I would be crestfallen but there is no more sacred principle than the popular vote and nothing more ennobling than a candidate following it.

I remember the 1990 Nicaraguan election between Daniel Ortega and Violeta Chamorro where Daniel Ortega was defeated and voluntarily transferred power. It was the first time in fifty years that a peaceful transfer of power had occurred and that one elected president had given way to another. It was the election Jimmy Carter oversaw... He told Daniel Ortega this was a chance to be great.

He was eventually rewarded for his fealty to democracy and the rule of law and is president now.

There is nothing more sacred than the will of the people and nothing more ennobling than a candidate following it.

Over Sanders not getting the nom. They'll get to acceptance soon enough.

Maybe Bernie Sanders can conquer Mars, enslave the population and use them to build an army of robots to take over the United States. It's nearly as plausible as what you are describing.

Just sayin'...

who entered the presidential race in 2007 supported by a coalition of long standing DEMOCRATIC party leaders. But, hey, you can't fix stupid.

But let's stop with the "only honest politician in the room" bunk. This is what all politicians do, every day.

We have heard for MONTHS the crying , the bloody outrage over the very existence of the super delegates from the Bernie camp.

They must be destroyed...anti-democratic, etc.

But now that a certain campaign is getting desperate and seeing the handwriting on the wall...

They suddenly embrace the supers with open arms!

Not only that, they seek to subvert the will of the voters and force them to flip to their advantage!

I expect all the fierce defenders of democracy in the Bernie camp here to massively protest this outrage against the voters will and playin footsie with the un-democratic supers in any way.

But...

All you hear now is crickets from the Bernie camp about it. I guess that's just the way the wind is blowing them along.

Kinda like Bernie promising to never go negative in the race. HAHAHA