. . . except defeat for those who give up without a fight."

–– "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" (1961), script by Irwin Allen & Charles Bennett

This "Superdelegate" baloney is designed to demoralize Sanders supporters.

In 2008, when Obama started to be a real threat to Hillary's coronation, these stories about the Superdelegates going for Hillary--were spread far and wide.

Obama supporters, in 2008, were just supposed to give it up--because the Superdelegates were going for Hillary.

We saw in 2008--that this was complete and utter garbage.

In 2008, the Superdelegates voted the will of the Democratic party. They'll do the same in 2015. When the Superdelegates went for Obama in 2008, there was no discussion of them defecting and going for Hillary. No controversy. No nothing.

This ill-conceived talking point was revealed to be wrong in 2008. It's bunk in 2015.

Shit, I thought we were running against Republicans, not with them.

I knew this.

And now, as then, I understood that the delegates aren't going to put an axe in the party's skull by ignoring the primary results leading to the convention. That Clinton supporters are trying to raise this possibility now - five months before they started doing it in 2008 - Says the same thing it did then, only louder.

Obama was quietly getting those delegates that Clinton needed. He also was ready t steal the Black vote for obvious reasons. I have no idea how anybody expects someone to pull an obama.

However, even with your lack of imagination and my lack pf prescience, there's no reason to assume that what we see on 11/23/15 will be the results we get on 7/28/16. The fact you are presenting this argument - "even if he wins the votes, we'll just ignore it, so neener" - doesn't exactly shake my confidence in Sanders.

If you're so dead confident Clinton has it in the bag, why not just take advice from an album I picked up in 2000?

All my party people
You need to come inside
Because we got it people
So just enjoy the ride

Pure speculation.

S'why I'm just gonna listen to my tunes, watch my zombies, and not worry about it.

I am working on several finals as we speak. Took one of my classes online and she gave i the final last week. My god. Every art movement since the egyptians. Shit is kicking my ass. Can only go for about half an hour before my eyes glaze a bit. Plus, this damn Gardners Art for the Ages weighs about 150,000 pounds. WTF? My arms hurt.

If someone white had written that blacks owed HRC their vote or that it was HERS and someone else had to steal it, this comment would rightfully be objected to.

As to super delegates, their endorsement now is not a guarantee of their vote. I think Clinton will win the primaries, but if she is edged out again - the super delegates will shift, because it would destroy the party otherwise.

really

I need a candidate who can lead.

I'm glad someone finally said the political "c-word" out loud (so to speak).

the voters need to be reformed

In 2008 (I was Hillary supporter in Ma) I can recall that she was up double digits in state wide polls, nearly 30 points if I recall.
Three of our most prominent super D's, Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Governor Patrick were all supporting Senator Obama, in fact the Senators were actively campaigning for him. When our primary was held that March, she won the state by double digits. Yet those 3 prominent super D's cast their votes for Senator Obama.

I'm supporting Senator Sanders this time but the process still stinks. One person, one vote. Dump the super delegates and a governing body that can split votes.

If it warrants changing it will have to be after this cycle.

either a popular vote and or a conventional delegate advantage but behind the scenes manipulation is used to have the super D's steal the election, it will be yet another tainted election.

However, having supporters and or representatives of one candidate advertising that their candidate has the super D's sewn up this early in the campaign makes it looks like manipulation.

This is just totaling them up and letting us know how things stand.

moneyed interests interfering with the democratic process. Why hold elections ?

That was completely something dreamed up after HRC under performed on super tuesday.

Some states with caucuses had zeroes in 2008 because nothing equated to votes. In addition, those caucus states in all cases ended up under weughted.

Of the most regular delegates when asked in February. There was pressure on him and others in MA to vote for HRC. I always wondered why all states didn't get their SD to vote in proportion to their regular delegates. I think Obama got about 40 percent of those - so why should 100 percent line up behind the state winner.

Many super delegates were not elected officials, but party big wigs.

That's the way the primary process is.

they will not subvert the will of the voters. they can sing from the rooftops now if they like, but if bernie wins the state delegates and the supers steal it for hillary, we will see the end of the democratic party in real time on the convention floor.

oh, and we'll need to get used to the term "president trump". the disillusioned bernie voters that people are worried about and the millenials will FOR SURE stay home and guarantee a gop sweep.

the one good thing is that such a brouhaha might signal the blessed end of the corrupt two party system. so future generations might have it better (if climate change doesn't kill the planet under republican rule, of course)

just out of curiosity, would you like to see a three or four party system with a real progressive party, or would you prefer to see the two party system stay in place with more left dems? i think i am leaning towards a 3/4 party system, if i could choose

In the caucuses and primaries. They won't subvert the will of the voters.

Can't be fucking up the Coronation with actual voting by the prols.

....fucking deep.