Nt

What should the SDs do in the system we have now?

which of course renders their existence unnecessary, but that will have to be dealt with at the convention.

to paraphrase john iadorola, either the supers have no influence, which makes them unnecessary, or they have an influence, which makes them undemocratic.

either way, time to go.

As I said in another similar thread...

the single most important thing, if it actually is a close enough contest to fall to the super delegates, is to select the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election.

I'd say that's really the essential function of the super delegates. There's a reason the rules don't simply say, whoever has the most delegates wins, or whoever has the most delegates of the last two standing wins. If a delegate wins 2,383, the nomination is theirs. If a candidate was not able to generate that level of support, if you have a closely contested race or one where no one achieved a majority, the SD are supposed to choose who they think will be the best candidate, and I would say that the first criteria would be who is most likely to win. If the Super Delegates are not supposed to be able to select someone other than the person with the most delegates, then they have no reason to exist, the party could simply automatically nominate the candidate with the most delegates. But that's not the system we have.

I would say that, if an SD thinks that neither candidate is clearly more likely to win in November (or win by a larger amount, which is a more certain win and would likely yielding stronger coattails), then, yeah, they should stick with the delegate leader. (And one of the advantages of the calendar this year is that the Dems will know who the Republican candidate is before possibly having to make any choice.) But as to how many will feel one way or the other, and what information will be known at that time, is nothing we can predict today.

As for original OP, no, of course we don't all agree. On DU, we pretty much don't all agree about anything.

I would point out though that your premise seems flawed, i.e.


Your "on one hand...OTOH" construction implies that these two thoughts are somehow contradictory, where they are not at all. The SD system does inherently favor the establishment candidate, all else being equal. That doesn't mean there's no hope that it could somehow favor the other candidate under the right circumstances.

Has to be assessed in light of the SDs actions. The SDs have to look at what would happen to the party of they went with the candidate that was behind in PDs. They are also elected officials that are looking out for their own hides.

In an anti-establishment year like this, the SDs going against the candidate that lead in PDs would be absolutely untenable. These elected officials have no interest in tearing the party apart, risking their own political futures, for a candidate that would end up losing anyway.

As I said, it is not something we can predict today.

Your point about how the base would react if the candidate ahead in delegates did not get the nomination is a reasonable one, but not the only one to consider.

By the time of the convention, we will know who we are running against. What if even the party's own internal polling shows that the candidate with fewer pledged delegates is starting off with a 10 point advantage over the Republican candidate, and the other is starting out as an underdog? Or more specifically, since the presidency is not won by popular vote, what if there are huge discrepancies in how the possible Dem candidates would perform against the Republican candidate in swing states like Florida, Ohio, and others? What if a candidate seems better positioned to capture so many more states that it they are more likely to flip more Congressional seats our way? What if, by some chance, there is some significant legal cloud hanging over the head of one of the candidates? Should all of that automatically be ignored in favor of the single criteria of who won more--but still not officially enough--delegates?

As to how much damage would be done by choosing Bernie if he were behind in delegates, I think to some extent, that would be determined by how Hillary herself handled it.

I've seen plenty of evidence that Bernie is trying to pick up enough SDs to win if he wins the PDs (half would do it).

Clinton and her supporters are the only ones who i've seen defend a strategy of losing PDs but winning due to establishment control of an undemocratic process.

The last sentence of the first paragraph was not hypothetical.

I really don think there's a chance of the SDs doing something so stupid

The voters they are most accountable to. District then state.

The people who stand in line for hours should not have their votes negated by an elite voter. If delegates are to be awarded, just count the popular vote. If a candidate gets the most votes, they deserve the most delegates. If my candidate wins, great. If he doesn't, that's the way it goes.

I just don't think those votes should be cancelled out by superdelegates. It would also make sense to have a straight popular vote, even though, at this point, my candidate would be losing. Superdelegates made up of the party elites create the appearance the game is rigged. We should get rid of them.

Take it up with the Democratic Party

Camp Sanders justifies its delegate-wrangling in Nevada and Missouri by citing the party rules.

Well, it is also in the rules that the superdelegates are free to vote as they please, that they are not bound to their state's outcome.

Can't have it both way, kiddies.

Many people (unsurprisingly, mostly those supporting the "fringe candidate&quot don't like the whole idea of SDs. Yet we recognize that rules are rules. So, Sanders is resigned, this cycle, to playing by the rules as they exist.

Within the current rules, there are two major arguments Sanders can make to the party elites at the convention:

1. SDs should vote with their states' popular vote
2. Sanders polls better than Hillary in the General Election

Some SDs who agree with argument #2 and not argument #1 may choose to vote against their state, by the current rules.

Personally I don't like the SD thing, and would prefer to see something much closer to a raw popular vote get implemented by the party. I do realize that would still put Hillary ahead for the moment, but people would feel that the process is more democratic, and it would be good for party unity, IMO.

I realize the original argument *for* SDs is to keep outsiders at bay. It's the party's prerogative to keep with that policy. I still disagree with it because it, by definition, disenfranchises voters.

The roles were reversed? If a PD-leading Sanders was not the nominee, would you respectufully disagree with the rules and go home quietly?

Hillary or her campaign for the rules we all agreed to play by.

I'd be even more inclined, in that situation, to pressure the party to change the rules.

If the SDs took the nomination away from Bernie, his supporters would be outraged, as well they should be. The entire party would be torn apart. Many Hillary supporters, like me, would agree with them. Nobody is saying "oh well, those are the rules."

That's why the rules were established.

Somebody doesn't like it? Change the rules back to the old system.

We all know why a certain segment of the Democratic Party (and a lot of non-Democrats trying to hijack the nomination) is annoyed by the current rules.

that in doing so, you make the candidate you gave the nomination to unelectable.

50 years ago People may have been comfortable with the party bosses choosing the nominee, but it's not like that today, especially in the most "anti-establishment" cycle we've had in a long time.

More than a hedge against Trumps, SDs are potential weapons of the status quo against progressive change.

I'm not sure how you get one without the other, though, in a major party.

Typically who can win in the GE.

And of course, personal "influence".

There's no logic or reason to these arguments. It's a desperate ploy to allow the trailing candidate to subvert the will of the millions of voters who cast ballots against him.

She is the most qualified, has the best plans, is the democrat, will have the most votes and PD's, Clinton hasn't offended every one of them, she didn't try to cheat to win as Sanders has, she isn't trying to destroy the party for personal gain, etc.

This is going to be an easy vote for them.

Of course, the SD system should be eliminated...but no way the DNC gives up their leverage. Which is also why they'll never be made to vote in correspondence with the popular vote. The entire system reeks of corruption, frankly...

honored. The party voters get their say with the great majority of the delegate count, and the supers, people who actually work to strengthen the party and to advance our policies, get a say too. ALL those votes should be honored and not manipulated.

If you don't like the system, get to work in your state party and work to change it.

"I know that my constituents prefer Bernie by 3:1, and that he is more likely to win against a general election opponent, and his policy proposals align more closely with my own... but I'm voting for Hillary because she sent my campaign a big-ass check."

Three of those observations are legitimate reasons that a superdelegate might justifiably vote for a candidate. The fourth observation is the rationalization of a crook.

But in general, this country was dedicated to the idea that one person = one vote. Superdelegates each hold the effective power of many thousands of voters.

Superdelegates are bullshit.