Oh wait ... Killer Mike and Susan Sarandon.

and career?

because they're depending on Sanders supporters for their funding.

So in a way Sanders is proving both that excessive funding can't buy elections, but that it can corrupt the political process

However long Sanders has in this race he should talk about his plans and stop attacking Hillary. He does better when he makes it about his policies.


4 of the 5 upcoming primaries are closed and registered Democrats don't care for attacks on other Democrats. Did not work in NY.

they're moving in the right direction.

That is, of course, assuming the whole SS system shouldn't be scrapped (along with multiple other aspects of the incredibly broken primary system)...

As SDs have always gone to the overall winner ever since their introduction.

But SDs are far from the only thing fubar about our primary system...

Math. Complicated stuff.

They have rigged it. And the Skull and Bones society, too.

It's all a big con, see.

We can't win. They are watching. Shhhhh.

So, let's assume neither candidate has enough pledged delegates. Then the super delegates go to work. They are supposed to know more than voters or pledged delegates. They are supposed to read the tea leaves on the political landscape. They are insiders. They are the Very Serious People.

That being the case, their support should not automatically fall to one candidate or the other. For example, they should be able to evaluate the following re Hillary:
FBI investigation
Corruption via Clinton Foundation
Wall Street speeches
Trade policy flip-flops (TPP, etc.)
Minimum wage pros and cons
Inability to tell the truth (Bosnia just one example)
Etc.

And they should be able to evaluate the following re Bernie:
Effect of "democratic socialism" in the GE
Bernie's record in the Senate
Bernie's lifetime support for civil rights
Etc.

Of course, that won't happen. Because, as this primary as revealed, the DNC and primaries are a hotbed of corruption, "insider trading" (so to speak), ineptitude, and more.

But, at this late date, it is what it is, and it's unlikely to change (too many vested interests). Sure, Bernie and his supporters must keep fighting. There is nothing to gain by dropping out or dialing back on the enthusiasm.

If Clinton has even 1 more delegate than Sanders, she wins the nomination, and vice versa.

...to get as many Bernie pledged delegates and superdelegates to the convention as possible.

Even if they don't get enough Sanders' delegates there to nominate, the more there are, the better the chances are of effecting desperately needed changes in processes and platform.

The nomination is not the only thing decided at the convention.

Consider this (it gets more interesting as you read deeper)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1798895

Not the other stuff. Even his own allies are saying his "flip SD even if I finish second" is a dangerous road to travel down.

... were suddenly embroiled in some kind of scandal, then I think "voter sentiment" would be calling for SDs to nominate the untainted candidate, even if that candidate had fewer pledged delegates.

Or if it became clear that the process for allocating delegates in a state was corrupt, then "voter sentiment" would be calling for SDs to weigh in and cancel out the effect.

I'm not saying either of these things are on the horizon, but shit does happen.

The way I read it, Sanders is making his case to the voters first. If it becomes clear that "voter sentiment" in July looks a lot different from the "sentiment" expressed by the pledged delegate allocation, any superdelegates who choose to align themselves with voter sentiment as they see it in July are doing the right thing.

Sticking to a "pledged delegate total or bust" position regardless of how conditions change is as unreasonable as sticking to a "bernie or bust" position regardless of how conditions change.