Democratic candidate.

Endorsements mean very little. They are psychological fodder

Unlike Bernie! Most their asses are owned. Besides it's awfully early for that. That's the spending side of it all when it matters. No ones paying attention yet except those more involved.

he also will be our next President.

Do Not Underestimate Bernie Sanders

Man of the People and Former Long Distance Runner

His stamina and endurance are amazing like his many other qualities.

~ Bernie Sanders, the Real Deal ~



Seeing him 3 nights ago live at an Arlington 2-hour public policy forum (not a campaign rally) was an incredible experience and I've seen a few of them. His commanding voice, presence and message resonate powerfully and he can really fill and stir a room as I wrote in my OP on the event in the BSG.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128023007

A "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically, based on their status as current (Republican and Democratic) or former (Democratic only) party leader or elected official. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.
Although originally coined and created to describe this type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties,[1] even though it is not an official term used by either party.
For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:
delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[2] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[2]

A simpler breakdown from the last contested election cycle:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

All members of Congress are superdelegates. Superdelegates are not elected as such. They are powerful people in the party.

I am not surprised that Bernie has none. HRC is almost certainly the nominee and these are people who want to be in good standing with her as well as people who have supported her for decades. They also likely remember that the Clintons will remember people who cross them.

and super delegates are not chosen via primaries (those are regular delegates)

...but glad to know you think it would be irrelevant if Alan Grayson or Elizabeth Warren endorsed him...since they won't be.

think many.

I prefer to do my own homework about a candidate, and I do not base it on the endorsement by someone.

As for the premise of this thread, Democratic politicians are going to endorse who they consider "the likely" Democratic nominee, so that is NOT a surprise, and in my view means very little.

What would be a surprise, for example is if a republican endorsed one of the potential Democratic nominees.

When lieberman endorsed mccain against President Obama, that was unusual. However, in that case the endorsement I believe did not change many Democrat's minds. It may of changed some independent views, but the results don't indicate that.

I personally question how much influence a political endorsement has

"They're YELLAH!"

With all the comparisons to Obama some make there are many differences and this is another one.

Obama worked to get endorsements and other support which helped him to be competitive with Clinton.

Sanders isn't doing any of this.

he is running to win.

Ooh! Bernie is rattling the Clintonistas!

Why else would "Democrats" try so hard to marginalize him?

We have one candidate who can't be bought by corporations. (Hint: It's not Hilary, who never met a GMO she didn't like.)

it's in the same family as Joan Walsh's comment that he's not a serious candidate, or some commentator on a political show that he can't really win a general election blah blah blah. It's all the same BS to try to make people believe he's not electable or doesn't really want to win. It's pure grade a horse crap.

but they are getting nervous. can't say i blame them

The others cannot afford NOT to endorse HillAry.....

His commanding voice, presence and message are very powerful as I saw 3 days ago live in Arlington at the 2-hour public policy forum he spoke at (not a campaign rally). His commanding voice, presence and message are very powerful and he can really fill and fire up a room as I wrote about in my OP in the BSG.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128023007

~ Bernie Sanders, The Real Deal ~

People all over this country are about to boil over because they are groaning under the neoliberal capitalist model, which is a living hell for about half of America. Bernie's counting on that anger to propel him deep in the primaries and into the general election.

I'm sure gonna caucus for him here in Colorado. And many, many people that I have spoken to like and support him as well.

So...we'll see how it works.

he would need at least half of them and then some.

Without them, absent his crushing his opponent decisively (and lets get real--that is never, ever going to happen), he doesn't have a path to the nomination. I think he knows it, as you have also quite astutely observed, and he's pleased to just influence the debate.

We want them to support him.

After all, that's why you're here. To tell us wayward Sanders supporters.

I await enlightenment.

I'm all fuckin ears ...

That's why I asked.

I would think that he'd be able to pick up a few, considering the fact he's currently in Congress. He's currently a member of the Senate, but he was also a House member.

This is a good question for reporters to ask members of Congress. He's currently 2nd in the polls behind Hillary.

I would ask if I could, but unfortunately I'm 3,000 miles away and have no press credentials.

there is nothing for them to gain by endorsing him, and potentially much to lose.

You don't want to be like Claire McCaskill.....and have to work your way back into Hillary's good graces.

Personally, I could care less who they are backing as their vote has nothing to do with my vote. Why do you feel they are so important one way or the other? They're just people, and to tell you the truth their vote (technically) isn't any more or less valuable than mine....or yours.

They constitute TWENTY PERCENT of the delegate votes at the convention.

A candidate who wants to win HAS to have superdelegates on his or her side--there's likely no path to nomination without it.

requires quite a bit of bravery.

'not a Dem' and challenging Mrs. Clinton, no mystery, really.

I'm with the people ...

I'm with Bernie ...

for President of the United States.

Holy crap, we're rolling now!

is a superdelegate.

Now, there is nothing to keep them from changing, but at the moment that is a powerful statement on how they see the race.

Also, if it is a close primary, Superdelegates could tip the balance and decide who wins.

Because the vast majority of inside-the-beltway Congress-critters are self-interested careerist shitheads who should be thrown out onto their unclean asses. Most Americans would agree with that sentiment, which can only help Bernie.

You would think that they would want to replace them but most members of Congress are bought.

One of my all-time favorite posters:

I am endorsing him and supporting them. Those "congressional democrats" don't vote at my precinct caucus.

And they vote for the candidate that they endorse....

I heard Bill Press say several weeks ago that he knew of a get together in DC that was held with Bernie about his running for the nomination. Several members of what they thought would be sympathetic Democratic Congressional progressives were invited to attend. They all turned down the invitations out of fear their names would get out.

Why wasn't it used in 2008 when her competitor was much more of a threat ?

I'm finding lists of who but not when...

But the list I'm finding IS showing me that Clinton had 0 senatorial endorsements and only 28 house endorsements... Which tells me that some of her early endorses changed their endorsement at some point 'cause, c'mon, i'm pretty sure she had more than that early on

She didn't have as much support as now.

But my point is more about the conspiracy stuff about how they are afraid because of what the Clintons could do.

the same people will be singing a different tune.

more than Hillary does, and this shows that he doesn't have them. I'm not talking about the nomination here, I'm talking about passing anything of his agenda should he become President.

What you note in your OP is not surprising to me. He has never shown any particular leadership ability in the senate, he has no following there.

Sanders greatest skillset is in shouting to the rooftops what the right thing is to do. The best platform for that is the Senate. You're not responsible for anything in the Senate other than your vote.

He does not have the skillset to be President. If he finds himself in that position, the first person who is going to realize it was a mistake is him and he will realize that within the first 30 days. He will realize that on the first major bill of his when it gets zero Republican votes in the Republican House of Representatives and goes down to a miserable failure.

How do I know this? I know this because the stimulus bill during a massive crisis, which was the first major bill proposed by President Obama and should have been a no brainer, got ZERO Republican votes in the House. It all was about not giving Obama any legislative victories and/or credit http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll046.xml and that is all it has been for Republicans since he was elected. Sanders will not get any better treatment.

That is how the Republican party rolls.

have his proposals die in the GOP House of Representatives?

No matter how stupid it would be, the first act of a Republican President presiding over a Republican House and Republican Congress will be to repeal the ACA (AKA Obamacare).

They have not been shy about proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else liberals and the whole of he American left hold dear.

We desperately need a Democrat to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. The four members of the liberal wing of the court are among its oldest.

Until Democrats retake the House and Senate, no Democratic President will do very much.

better, quite frankly. None of the proposals of either one is going to pass. Certainly nothing transformative.

"moral victory"/"go down fighting" thing!

(by the current polling of electoral sentiment) will fight the good, losing fight.

Which republican do you feel is the one to beat Sanders?

Sanders is polling even with most of the GOP candidates in California, so there's that I guess. Sanders turns California into a battleground state.

And yes, you are spot on.

The logic has always seemed flawed to me because it defers to power without speaking truth to it. I think it works when the system is relatively uncorrupted and incremental change is about improving inefficiences. But when the system has been corrupted to the point where change is a rejection of status quo and a need for revisioning based on values, incrementalism is capitulation. The voices that deny the internal revolution made possible by primaries must, by extension, believe that the system is not yet broken. If you stand as I do on a metric of socioeconomic justice, that opinion starts to smell Vichy. But If you stand with the sensible crowd, our corporate masters can yet be dissuaded in their efforts to amass all power unto themselves through negotiation among equals. if you buy into the latter, our polemic sound like nilihistic anarchy. I can see why sparks fly at this juncture.

Please. "Core values are negotiable?" More like "Don't want to hand the White House to the wingnuts for eight more hellish years."

I'm not into victimology. I want the best POTUS we can get, not a proud loser who fought the good fight, and to make that happen, we need a winning candidate--not a high-minded, all ideas/no solutions candidate, but one who can cut the best deal she can manage with a vicious Congress to get the ball down the field.

Everyone wants a Hail Mary pass, when the reality is, it's a passing game, and it's inches, not yards.

I do not share the worldview. Values are not high minded, they are what we live. Politics isn't a game of red vs blue uniforms, it is a human system for turning values into ideas and ideas into action. People thrive and suffer, live and die, based on these ideas. We, you and I, are united in the values of democracy. It appears we disagree over the relationship between value driven politics and "winning". I believe fear of the other (e.g., GOP) is a victim's motivation; a pale substitute for a principled action plan. I believe that money in politics is a weak substitute for ideology (people use this word as if it is a bad thing). I believe that a strong platform of ideas can start a fire in the hearts and minds of the public that no amount of money or dirty tricks can extinguish. Case in point. Marriage as socioeconomic justice. "Winning" did not advance the cause...indeed "winning" assured us that now was not the time, everytime. The magical transformation in our politicians came after years of steadfast self advocacy from Stonewall on. At every advance of social justice there is an idea, a collective voice, and a representative. I have no doubt that Clinton could represent that voice. But the message would be more clearly delivered by Sanders...in my opinion. But I am open to hearing these public servants state their case... I will vote for the one that aligns with my unalienable values. If every voter did that, the prospect for change would be measured not in inches or yards, but miles.

You can't eat values, you can't pay college tuition with them, you can't put a roof over your head with them, and they won't give you a paycheck every week.

Like it--or not--money IS in politics. The only way to get it out is to force the enemy--and they are the enemy--to spend and focus on fundraising so much that even they get sick of it, and they decide it is to everyone's mutual benefit to duke it out in the arena of ideas. We're a ways from that paradigm, though, and we can't rush it, because it won't be rushed.

Sanders says--despite PACS raising money on his behalf--that he won't "take" PAC money. Truth is, he has no say in that, PACS work independently of candidates. He simply refused to coordinate ahead of his announcement, and that was probably a dumb idea, because he could have told them what he really HATES, and what he likes, when he is represented--now he's lost that opportunity, unless he does it publicly, or he cough-fires-cough a staffer who then goes to work for the PAC in question.

As for the marriage equality issue, it came about pretty much as I envisioned--state by state, until we reached a tipping point, and the rightwing figured if they didn't try to head it off at the Supremes, the critical mass as more and more states fell would obviate any hope of a challenge. They really should have, if they wanted a "win" (i.e. to prevent equality, a "loss" to us humans) found a way to get this before the Supremes a couple of years ago--their timing (ha ha!) was off. Even at that, the decision was closer than I would have liked, but I'll take a "WIN" on that score, because winning, in the case of equality, was indeed everything.

I refuse to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I simply will not do it. I will take incremental progress because it's better than no progress at all. We are a nation of varied people with varied views, "My way or the highway" just doesn't fly. As long as we're moving forward, I'm OK...I don't want to stand still or go backwards.

YMMV.

It involves OUR lives! This isn't a game.

We need a real change, and we need it ASAP.

Using the system to get what we can get, is preferable to losing with some self designed "honor".

...nobody on the Clinton side thinks Sanders shouldn't run. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be realistic about how the election is likely to play out.

'Cause when you argue as if June 2015 polls are the deciding factor in the 2016 primaries, you are, in fact making exactly the argument you say you aren't making.

Just remember that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.

We all agree that the Republicans won't budge and give the democratic president anything they want, right? You agree, I agree, everyone's on the same page here. So, if they will give nothing, what is the inevitable result of attempting political give-and-take with them? You don't reach out to these people unless you want to lose a hand.

Clinton is running a campaign where bipartisanship is her central theme. She's all about working with congress, reaching across the aisle, making compromises and - this is my favorite - "Warm Purple Sauce." What will be the result of this bipartisan effort she plans to make? Well, one side or the other will give in... and we're all in agreement that it won't be the republicans.

Now, whatever your view of Sec. Clinton herself is - whether you think she's an earnest idealist or whatever... the fact is just that bipartisanship will not work so long as we have those cretins clogging up the pipes. I'm not slamming clinton here, I'm saying that "biartisanship" is a bad strategy today.

Bernie might not be able to accomplish all the goals he's laying out, that's true - what candidate ever does, though? The thing is though, he's not depending on the reactionary right to set those goals for him. His campaign doesn't have the "or maybe I won't, I guess, if they won't let me" clause that a cmapign focused on bipartisanship does.

Further? Sanders might not have an obstructionist congress.

You know how democrats have the best turnout during presidential years? And how those years where we take Congress (however briefly) have been due to that turnout? The simple fact is... Sanders is better at energizing people for democrats. Clinton puts off those vaunted 'independent voters" and, DU loyalty oath demands beside, she also puts off the left of the democratic party. Sanders as our nominee simply has a better chance to draw more liberal (or at least anti-republican) voters to the polls, which means a better shot at jumping the congressional hurdle.

Also, Hillary is a Reaganite. (All presidents since Carter are/were. ) We don't need any more of such.

--imm

first of all, people in general don't like and fear change. It's a lot easier to advocate for the status quo than it is to advocate for change. I laugh when I see people saying Bernie would use the bully pulpit and that would make everything great, bills would pass, etc. the Republicans standard playbook is even more effective against someone proposing greater change for the simple reason of people fearing change.

We all know what they will say, what he proposes is to extreme, he's too radical, he's a socialist, etc. the difference is, Snders has openly positioned himself to the left of the Democratic Party for most of his political career, so when they use inflammatory labels like socialist and Marxist and all of that to attack him, it will be very effective, much more so than it was against Obama. You and I know the truth but do you think the average American knows the subtleties of what a democratic socialist is versus a social democrat versus all the other left ideologies and incarnations? No.

He would be extremely easy to demagogue and undermine and they would win in the court of public opinion and appear justified in obstructing him completely. Not to everyone, but to a lot of folks.

And Sanders will have promised all this stuff, raised all these expectations (you i hope recognize the huge danger and mistake of raising high expectations knowing Republicans will control one of the branches of congress through a minumim of six years of what you hope would be an 8 year administration?), and in the end would be able to deliver little or nothing, and he would get punished for that in the midterms worse than Obama, who could at least point to preventing the economy from collapsing as an accomplishment.

Clinton energizes people for the simple fact of her representing the first woman President. She doesn't excite the Democratic activists as much because those folks tend to be extremely progressive, but just about every woman I talk to in real life (as opposed to Internet chat forums) can't wait to go out and vote for her. And she will not have promised a progressive revolution and won't have to explain why she didn't accomplish it.

there are quite a few independent voters out there, as well as the more sane variety of Republicans who are boiling inside at how badly the deck has gotten stacked against us these last few decades. People are literally groaning under the ponderous economic burden of neoliberal capitalism, which makes life a living hell for nearly half of us, and really hard for the rest - all but a few freaks who have the peculiar skills needed to have amassed huge quantities of wealth.

Time for a little redistribution, don't you think?

Plus, Bernie is the ONLY candidate for president I have EVER heard talk about the increasing number of corporations that aren't paying any US income taxes because of loopholes in the corporate tax code. He's the ONLY one who has articulated the truth about
Social Security and the truth about how to fix it quickly and permanently. He's the ONLY one who is talking about Medicare for all Americans.

He's my guy, that's for sure. I agree with pretty much everything he's trying to do. So why should I support someone like Clinton just because a few pundits think she's 'more electable.' That doesn't make any sense. I'm supporting the candidate who supports my positions.

doing something ie pass shitty neo-lib and neo-con policy. It's about changing the expectation. It's about ensuring government works for us all, not just those who cut the huge checks.

That's the whole problem.

January 2025. This is due to redistricting and due to the fact that we dont do well in midterm elections when we have an incumbent Democrat in office.

The next President is only there to prevent Conservative SCOTUS justices from being seated and to prevent anything else a GOP President would do. That is the only thing they will be able to do.

Thus when the elections of 2022 happen, we won't have only centrists on the ballot. We also need to get more statehouses in the 2020 election, and that's going to take some groundwork starting now.

(Not to mention if Sanders manages to get crossover voters like he is anecdotally, that means we may not have to wait until 2022)

Sanders supporters are generally looking at this with a much longer view than you are.

Sanders supporters are generally fighting to change the party, so that we are not always left with Republican vs Republican-lite on our ballots.

In that respect, they've already won a lot. Clinton's running far more to the left than her 2008 campaign, because her 2008 positions would cost her too many votes.

So even if Sanders loses, the conversation has been changed and someone else can capitalize on that later to win. Kinda like Goldwater set a lot of the groundwork for Reagan's victory.

who tells the truth. That's a good start.

regulation, free trade agreements that cost us jobs and manufacturing or war profiteering. We need a Truman at this stage.

in a monotone voice. Bernie can appeal to all voters.

that makes them look good to the folks that vote for them.

There is nothing in it for them to vote for anything that Hillary or Sanders propose. That would get them a primary challenge that would probably unseat them. That is what Republican politics is at this point.

Dems haven't tried to talk to all people in a long time.