Now they love them and they want the superdelegates to save Bernie from the will of the voters.

Truly pathetic.

I've always said they should vote with the plurality of pledged delegates.

MoveOn.org, which endorsed Bernie Sanders, has also been consistent in that position.

One day they are evil and undemocratic. The next day they are principled saviors of our system.

This flip flopping might be humorous were it not such a pathetic act of desperation.

IMO, SDs need to be abolished and that's what we should be striving to achieve.

Until they are, they should vote with the plurality of pledged delegates.

This is for democracy.

Another way to look at it is, Should the super-Ds support the weaker candidate and increase their risk in losing to Trump?

There's no evidence of that. Polling data at this stage in the presidential contest are highly unreliable.

Whomever has the most delegates wins the nomination. The Supers are there to ensure that a totally unfit for office candidate does not get the nomination (See Trump).

I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just posing the possibility, as remote as it might appear now.

Are we in agreement?

Your point is moot.

You have to go with the candidate that wins the most delegates period. You overturn the will of the voters. Trump wins. In that situation even I could not vote for Sanders. You can't steal an election. I don't think Sanders can win anyway nor do I think the supers are stupid enough to give the nomination to the losing candidate based on questionable polls...but just saying.. . I am a practical voter but not one who votes for someone who takes what he can't earn.

they are hardly representing the will of the voters in their states

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10594756

when in fact it is the reverse - and it would seem you have no problem with that ?

Note that the "anamoly" is Gore (who did in fact actually win)

?1446145459

The outcome of the upcoming elections will be telling too. Bernie wins them all and the superdelegates need to take a second look.

I don't like having superdelegates at all, but we have them. They were added because the party had "buyers remorse" with Carter. Their PURPOSE is to overrule pledged outcome if they believe a losing candidate won the pledged delegate totals. That's their job. Bernie is just staying in to let the remaining states vote, and then give the superdelegates a chance to do their job.

He's completely realistic about it:

He is no better than Bush if he means that. Tell me again how 'ethical' and what a 'good' man Bernie is...ha.

to intervene when they decide the pledged delegate winner is too weak.

I don't think there should be superdelegates at all. But the fact is, the Democratic Party has them. And they added them for a purpose. As long as they are there, calling on them to do their job is not "stealing an election."

You can advocate to get rid of superdelegates all together. Or lobby the DNC in your state to follow Maine's example. But until that happens, the nominating process is what it is.

First of all, early polls indicate nothing. The will of the voter must be respected. I would not vote for Bernie if he stole the election. And I am die hard. I know he can't win a general anyway. So we would be screwed regardless.