Report: Clinton Campaign Says She's Already Locked Up 1/5 Of Delegates
Source: TPM
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is reportedly laying claim to a fifth of the delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, months before a single primary vote is even cast.
Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin appeared Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to report on purported conversations between Clinton's senior advisers and delegates at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in Minnesota. Advisers informed Democrats that Clinton already has a fifth of the delegates she needs to lock up the party's nomination, according to Halperin.
Clinton's campaign reportedly boasted that more than 440 superdelegates have already publicly or privately committed to the candidate, according to Halperin.
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-locking-up-delegates
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
thereismore
(13,326 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)So maybe it AIN'T bullshit.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I should think.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)that is how secure it is.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Otherwise, pledge-breaking isn't as simple as you insinuate. No one likes a feckless, faithless individual.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)even if Hillary refused to give up
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:38 PM - Edit history (2)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My recollection from 2008 is that Democratic Party rules allowed the superdelegates to vote any damn way they pleased. Note that these are people who are voting delegates by virtue of some other position they hold or held (mostly current elected officials and DNC members). They're in place, and entitled to votes at the Convention, even before any primaries or caucuses are held.
The Democratic Party might have changed its rules. Some states may have enacted laws purporting to bind the superdelegates, but I'm not sure a state government has the authority to order a U.S. Senator how to vote at the party convention.
A more likely explanation, though, is that you're thinking of state laws that bind the delegates who are chosen in primaries or caucuses. I know some states have such laws (at least some, perhaps all, bind the delegates only on the first ballot), but I haven't previously heard of any restriction on superdelegates.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It didn't help that my state requires it's reps to vote along the popular vote lines.
Thanks again! 
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Superdelegates are free to change their minds at any time, regardless of how they may have "pledged" themselves. That was one of the major ideas behind creating this group (who were first a factor in 1984)-- that they would be free to vote in the light of more recent campaign developments, in a way that pledged delegates chosen through primaries or caucuses cannot do.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'm guessing it won't cost them anything either way.
Super 
short circuit
(145 posts)They'll drop Clinton like a hot potato.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)taken away from us this way. More reason why I will never vote for her.
ncliberal
(185 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)While you're having premonitions, got anything useful to say about lottery numbers?
lol
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)I was about six. The same numbers, almost obsessively. If I win the lotto I sent off to my cousin in Oregon, I'll let you know. 
The last premonition I had was the death of my mother which came to pass shortly. Of all the super powers one can possess, that has to be the worst.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Don't ever play sequential numbers starting with 01.
They're not more (or less) likely to hit but if you won on 1-2-3-4-5 (6) you'd be splitting your prize with a lot of people. It's the most-played Powerball combination with a double-digit number of tickets sold for every single drawing.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A notable example was John Lewis, a superdelegate by virtue of his status as a member of Congress. From his Wikipedia bio:
On February 27, 2008, Lewis formally changed his support and endorsed Obama.[51][52]
She can't "lock 'em down" in any meaningful sense.
If you mean that, in 2008, she was lackadaisical in courting the superdelegates, that's not my recollection.
MADem
(135,425 posts)John Lewis knew he was a witness to a particular history. He didn't take the decision lightly.
If you're looking for a groundswell to run to Bernie--who has never given any of them the time of day--you keep looking.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The simple point is that many of the delegates chosen through primaries are legally obligated to vote for the candidate under whose banner they ran. Superdelegates have no such obligation. Talk of "locking them down" is misleading.
I don't expect a Sanders surge among the superdelegates. Will the business-as-usual Democrats in Congress, who are cozy with the big money people, continue to support a business-as-usual candidate who is cozy with the big money people? Duh, call me crazy, but I think they will. Clinton will get heavy support from them and from the DNC members, who also get Convention votes without regard to such a messy business as a primary or caucus in which voters can choose among the Presidential candidates. That's one reason I'd consider her a favorite to win the nomination. As per the example I gave in #129, Clinton would have a good chance of overcoming even a significant deficit in the popular vote.
A non-Clinton candidate would get significant support from the superdelegates only if the Clinton campaign collapsed (or it looked as if she were so damaged that she couldn't possibly win in November).
MADem
(135,425 posts)Her 08 work was haphazard.
This process isn't.
We know Biden isn't running. Sanders--who has never once helped a Democrat in his life--EVER--is just not going to get any play from the supers who are promised to HRC, most of whom have benefitted from her fundraising efforts on their behalf, her donations to their campaigns from her PAC and her mentorship.
You have to give love to get love.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In 2008, Clinton made a significant effort to get superdelegates. Her greater success this year doesn't reflect greater effort; it reflects her big lead in the polls and in fundraising.
Clinton supporters, when reminded that she was once the frontrunner in 2008 but lost anyway, never tire of responding that her lead this time is much bigger. That's a big part of the reason the superdelegates have been more supportive this time. They expect her to be the nominee and probably the next President, and most of them aren't the types to value principle over polls.
You can disparage Sanders's history with the Democratic Party all you want, but consider this: If he weren't in the race, many of those now supporting him would be backing Martin O'Malley, who'd probably be in second place. Nevertheless, even though O'Malley is a lifelong Democrat, Clinton would still have a big lead among the superdelegates. That's partly because of the money factors you mention and partly because of the polls.
It's been argued that yet another factor is the famous Clinton vindictiveness -- i.e., superdelegates know that they can work with President Sanders or President O'Malley despite having endorsed Clinton, but that it doesn't work nearly as well the other way.
MADem
(135,425 posts)with Sanders supporters. Many "Sander supporters" are in actual fact disaffected Rand/Ron Paulbots. They like the "government sucks" and "Yay guns" vibe.
That's not a popular analysis, but it is factual.
I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders: How I grew up and traded libertarianism for a progressive “socialist”
Most self-identifying "libertarians" actually subscribe to a bankrupt ideology. What if they all opened their eyes?
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/why_libertarians_should_love_bernie_sanders/
Bernie Sanders has a lot in common with Ron Paul. What that means for Democrats
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/08/16/the-point/bernie-sanders-has-a-lot-in-common-with-ron-paul-what-that-means-for-democrats/
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Going into 2016, there was a widespread opinion that Clinton would run, and a widespread belief within the party that she was too conservative and that we should instead nominate a progressive. Note the intense focus on an Elizabeth Warren candidacy despite what she did to discourage the idea.
On a whole range of issues, O'Malley and Sanders (and Warren) are in roughly the same place, and it's a place well to the left of Clinton.
Your comparison to Ron Paul is valid only in the sense that both he and Sanders are outsiders in some sense. As your linked article states:
That's a far cry from saying that the same disaffected young people will support both.
It's true that the "outsider" thing does reach a certain constituency. There are probably some people who would vote for Sanders over Bush but would vote for Trump over Clinton. Ideologically that makes no sense, but some voters act more on style than on substance. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of issue-oriented voters. If Sanders had chosen not to run, quite a few of his Hillary-is-too-conservative supporters would be backing O'Malley.
MADem
(135,425 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Or perhaps in chains?
Superdelegates can't be held to any candidate by anything other than their own conscience.
They are free to change their minds at any time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of names of people who will come to, and contribute to, a campaign war chest. HRC and her associates do.
You can 'not like that' and play the 'waah unfair' card all you want, but so long as Citizens United is the law of the land, that's how the game is played.
Bernie brings NOTHING to the table, save rhetoric and "ideas" with no path to making them happen. "If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring...." is not a campaign strategy, nor is it a platform for governance.
Response to MADem (Reply #188)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Chan790
(20,176 posts)If Sanders is leading in primary delegates and superdelegates flip that in Clinton's favor...that's a lot of Democrats than can be certain that they will be voted out of office as a result. It would start an insurrection if the superdelegates decided a primary against the will of the primary electorate.
It'd be like if the EC had voted for Romney after Obama won in 2012.
I'd go so far as to say that the superdelegates have a near-necessity out of political-survival to vote for the primaries-winner regardless of how they pledged.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Everyone has a problem with "those other" legislators, but no one seems to have a problem with their own.
If you think that the nation is going to "rise up" and "throw the bums out," well, there have been better reasons to do that in the past, and it hasn't happened.
The MA superdelegates won't have any trouble keeping their seats. I'm betting it will be that way for most. Sanders' coalition isn't rank-and-file big D Democrats. They're independents, lilbertarians, and well-left-of-center Democrats, many of them nominal in terms of their enthusiasm for or devotion to the party. Just look at DU--a good percentage of the Sanders supporters have been well known down the years for their robust bashing of Obama. Party unity? Not much there. And these less reliable, less enthused voters don't tend to vote in off years, unlike the straight ticket/party line voters, who are faithful, reliable voters.
It wouldn't be "like if the EC had voted for Romney after Obama won..." This is PARTY politics. It's not the electoral college--it's the nominating convention. If neither candidate has enough votes, then the supers are going to decide it. People who don't like that either need to join the rank-and-file, do the work, move up in the ranks, and change the rules, or they need to find a new party, because that's the way ours is working right now.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)a superdelegate-chosen...contrary to the result of the primaries and caucuses...nominee will 100% certain dead-lock lose the GE.
People are not going to react well to party leadership choosing a nominee contrary to the results of the primaries. It's not about Sanders or Clinton...it's about the appearance of party leadership overturning the results of the primaries and caucuses.
It will not go over well. If Sanders wins the majority of primary delegates but not enough to secure the nomination and the super-d's hand the nomination to Hillary (or though unlikely vice-versa)...we're going to end up with President Trump. I hope they're smart enough to decide that they need to honor the will of the people and vote in-line with the public-vote result even if they've pledged otherwise.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You keep telling me what "people" will do, yet you don't seem to realize that most candidates are chosen by party insiders--it's not "Mr. Smith (or any other Mr.) Goes To Washington." It's not the way the system works. It has ALWAYS been thus.
You can not like that, but it's the way it is.
And we're not going to end up with President Trump. The GOP will date Trump, but they'll marry Jeb! or maybe Kasich.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Wes have president Clinton right now.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This kind of announcement backs up our sense that the game is rigged.
If Hilary wanted to fire up the crowd that I am in, the crowd that cheers when Bernie says, "Enough is enough," this kind of crowing is precisely what she should do.
And it is crowing. It is meant to cow those of us who support other candidates.
It's the hubris of machine politics at its worst.
I am even less inclined to ever vote for Hiillary in the general than I was before I heard this news.
What part of the super-delegates' anatomy has Hillary been squeezing back their in private in those smoky rooms where they hide all their beer and peanuts?
Her aide's announcement makes the Democratic Party look like a bunch of regimented fascists. It makes the crazy Republican line-up look like a real contest, a democratic free-for-all.
This is a mistake on Hillary's campaign's part, this announcement. It really makes the Democratic Party look like it is a top-down, goose-step organization.
If this is true, it is the end of the line for the Democratic Party. To have decided without consulting with the rank and file voters after a healthy contest of ideas, to hitch their wagons to Hillary, is about as far from democratic as anything can be.
I will be working a hundred times harder to get Bernie's rational, issue-oriented views out there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)for their support as easily as Clinton can. He is NOT a "victim" here--he has the gift of speech, he knows how to ASK.
Hell, Sanders served a quarter century in the House--an advantage Clinton doesn't have...and he can't get off his ass and ask for an endorsement? Makes me think he is unserious. He's been around far too long to not know how the game is played.
Regimented fascists? Goose-step? WTF and Please. Stop showing everyone how poor your grasp of the process is with this kind of unreasonable and ignorant name-calling. If you think anyone who doesn't LUUUUUUV Bernie is a Nazi--and that is what you are saying--you need to look in the mirror hard while you listen to yourself talk.
This isn't about "cowing" or "crowing." It's about doing the hard, slogging, dull work of selling yourself and securing an endorsement. It takes time, it takes PATIENCE. I suspect Sanders is short on the latter. And there are no smoke filled rooms (more antiquated hyperbole) --it is one candidate, talking to potential endorsers, and selling herself. Like Sanders isn't able to do, apparently. Despite the fact that he's served in BOTH legislatures, not just the Senate.
And if you're worried about the "end of the line for the Democratic party" you should have been shitting bricks forty some odd years ago--it was the clusterfuck election culminating in the whole Nixon mess that brought this process on. We learned something from that--we should not have lost that election, we didn't HAVE to lose that election. But we did.
And...FWIW, the GOP does it too. Only the title (unpledged v. super) is different.
Don't like the process? The Green and the Reform and the Libertarian parties have their own processes--jump on over there and see if you like it any better.
senz
(11,945 posts)Or, as MannyGoldstein so eloquently reminded us way back on August 22:
MADem
(135,425 posts)support the party, take care of legislative administrative work, do a little vote whipping, or play the quid pro quo game. They aren't going to spend a second scratching someone's back if they know they'll never get a scratch themselves.
It's just business. You can't play the "I don't need you peons" game, and then turn around and beg those peons for support. The peons don't take kindly to it.
Heinz_Golderian
(11 posts)"Sanders could approach his fellow legislators and ASK for their support as easily as Clinton can. He is NOT a "victim" here--he has the gift of speech, he knows how to ASK."
The real question is can Sanders approach his fellow legislators and BUY their support as easily as Clinton?
You don't have to actually answer. We KNOW the answer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You don't understand how politics works. That's pretty apparent from your "buy" comments.
Who did Sanders "buy" to get the F-35 to Burlington, then? And Sandia Labs?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)No one is saying Bernie cannot ask for endorsement. I'm sure he already has.
And "locking up" those endorsements early in the race, when those delegates know what the polls say or have said about Hillary's chances, was and is quite predictable. No one wants to be caught backing the wrong horse. But to publicize that early accomplishment? This is clearly an attempt to throw a speed bump onto Bernie Street, and a subtle reminder to the rest of the delegates that this train is picking up steam and cannot stop, so you best jump aboard now and not be thinking of boarding that train on the other track.
Hey, I'm not blaming her campaign for doing this. It could be a smart move to intimidate those delegates that may be just starting to waver towards Sanders. But lets call it what it is.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for their endorsements or support, he's been denied. It's a huge red flag when a job applicant has no letters of recommendation from his colleagues.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "It's a huge red flag when a job applicant has no letters of recommendation from his colleagues." More precisely, it indicates that his colleagues have reason not to recommend him. One possible reason is that he's a total incompetent. Another possible reason is that they know their corporate paymasters wouldn't want them to rock the boat.
The Congresscritters could reasonably refuse to endorse if thought Sanders to be unintelligent, or dishonest, or not dedicated to the best interests of the country. If you think any of those things are true of him, feel free to explain why.
okasha
(11,573 posts)or simply uncooperative. Whatever you think of them, they're the people who know his work best.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Specifically, they can determine how a Sanders presidency would affect the interests they serve.
If you think they serve our interests, then I can see how that would be a reason to vote against Sanders.
On the other hand, for those of us who would like to see a President who was less in tune with the attitudes of most Democrats now in Congress, then their endorsements of Clinton is a reason to vote for one of her opponents.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Biden isn't running, Webb and Chaffee are going nowhere, and O'Malley committed political suicide today.
Bernie just shot himself in the foot, but it won't be immediately fatal.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In your zeal to disparage anyone who's not marching in lockstep with the Clinton machine, you decide to put words in my mouth (or keyboard).
I personally am undecided between O'Malley and Sanders. I'd strongly prefer either of them to Clinton, but I haven't pinned my hopes on either of them. I don't think either has made any fatal mistakes. At worst, they've ticked off a bunch of party functionaries and conservaDems who weren't going to support them anyway.
Unfortunately, I do think both have to be considered underdogs. Clinton has big advantages in money (let's not talk about where it came from), name recognition, and support from the party functionaries. Most Democratic primary voters won't care as much as I do about her ardent triangulation, with its resulting rejection of many traditional Democratic values.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This isn't about intimidation. It's about a lot of hard work, and time, and effort.
Putting together a road show and a formulaic stump speech that sounds good but doesn't provide a path to solving problems is easy--getting the backing of one's fellow Democrats, though--that's not so simple.
It's rather naive to suggest that very experienced politicians don't know how polls work. They do, and they also know that they change like the wind. They also know that good politicians weather them.
So yeah, let's call it like it is--it's savvy politicking. She's ready for prime time, and it's obvious in the way she manages her campaign.
Response to MADem (Reply #149)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Every group has their aspirations and why the hell not? If a strong latino entered the race this year, there would be a battle for the latino vote, too.
You think that latinos or blacks are going to turn their backs on her this year? Keep wishing! Not happening!
She's got the constituencies. No one else does. And the more the GOP beat on her, the more she looks like she's getting unfairly assaulted. They, and their surrogates, can keep playing Rick Lazio all they want. It's not a good look.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)It is intended to demoralize her opponents and their supporters, so that maybe they would just give up now.
'Your opinions don't matter, the primaries and caucuses don't matter because we are already locking this thing up. So you all might as well just go home and fall in behind ME, because we are going to win whether you like it or not'
That's what I'm taking out of it.... and I resent it deeply.
MADem
(135,425 posts)opponent, then that candidate has no business in the public sphere.
That's Milk and Cookies compared to what the RNC will throw at him, and that's before the GOP superPACs even warm up.
Crying and rubbing the sore spot in an attempt to "guilt" people ain't cutting it. Talking about what you "resent?" Yeah, try that out on the GOP or their lobbying buddies--they'll REALLY stop what they're doing and LISTEN to you and say "Oh, gee--we're doing it all wrong! John Poet is OFFENDED!!!"
If you think you're helping your preferred candidate with that approach, you're not. All you're doing is making your candidate look waffly and weak, like he can't take a hit. You know what a hit is, don't you? Clinton's been taking them, unfairly, by and large, for most of her career from the wingnut noise factory....and she's STILL STANDING. If your guy can't hang, he needs to step off.
This is politics, not a bridge game. And it hasn't even begun to get difficult. If your guy doesn't get tough, he'll get gone before you can say "Waaah, not fair...."
Response to MADem (Reply #187)
John Poet This message was self-deleted by its author.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)'With a cloth'.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You've been following me around for the past day or two, I'm starting to feel rather special.
So, go on, now--you have the floor--get it all out, now.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Hillarybots whose posts annoy me so much that I'm compelled to respond when I read them-- you know, the condescending, arrogant, know-it-all-let-me-explain-to-you-how-this-process-works-Bernie-can't-win kind of posts...
So get over yourself.
MADem
(135,425 posts)they might support a different DEMOCRAT on this DEMOCRATIC board than you might.
So no--you get over YOUR self, and behave civilly, or be known to all as what--by your own rude words and behaviors-- you appear to be.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)That I might get a reputation (among Hillary supporters) as "Rude and insulting"?
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
Maybe better lecture your other Hillary people on the same. I've read the TOS.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It doesn't bother me that you support another candidate.
I don't think it's appropriate that you engage in insults and name calling because I'm not on your team.
You need to get correct.
That's not a "lecture," that's just plain advice. If you've read the TOS, I suggest you try looking at it again because clearly "my dear" there are aspects of it that you missed at your first perusal.
Good gawd is she tone deaf.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)... of what was said back in 2007.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)delegates.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)From the Daily Mail:
Her aides are telling reporters at the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis that more than 440 have made commitments to her
Do the math: 2240 × .20 = 448, about the number she claims.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214705/Hillary-one-fifth-delegates-ll-need-Democratic-nomination-locked-five-months-primary-vote-cast.html#ixzz3kAIqSovf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)The article is about Super Delegates.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)That's the bullshit I see.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Post 141.has the math. She has 20% of all delegates
The superdelegates are about 20% of the total. She has half the superdelegates. That means she has about 10% of all delegates, which is one-fifth of the 50% that she needs for the nomination.
These are round numbers throughout, of course.
6chars
(3,967 posts)so does this mean she needs to get 40% out of the remaining 90% to win, and someone else would need 50% out of the remaining 90% to win? That is a pretty huge advantage, not even counting her current leads in the polls!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Of course we're making approximations here. The superdelegates might turn out to be 18.7% of all delegates, and Clinton might now have support (public or private) from 52% of them. But, basically, yeah, she needs 4/9 of the remainder and someone else would need 5/9.
Her advantage is even greater because, among those remaining 90%, only 80% will be chosen by the voters through primaries and caucuses. The remaining 10% are other superdelegates. Clinton is likely to get the lion's share of them, too. If (for illustration) she gets all of them, then another candidate will need 5/8 of the popularly chosen delegates to be nominated, while Clinton will need only 3/8.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)they are free to change their minds at any time.
One of the ideas behind creating the superdelegates in the first place, was to have a block of "party wise-persons" delegates who would be able to respond to late developments in the news or campaign-- say, the leading candidate implodes and becomes unelectable between the primaries and the convention, they would be free to add their strength to a more electable option....
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Just a measurement of establishment support; however, the super delegates will jump ship to the candidate who wins the most amount of regular delegates in the primary. They will not go against the will of the people.
There was an article that said Hillary will start trying to "end" the talk of Joe Biden entering the race, I think this is phase 1 of her "intimidation." Again, shades of 08.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
If he CAN be "intimidated" then he doesn't deserve to be on the stage.
Unintentional hilarity, that.
ram2008
(1,238 posts)A strategy that will ultimately fail... I believe Joe Biden will enter the race, and I'm rooting for it because it increases the chance that Bernie wins the nomination.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)big_dog
(4,144 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 03:41 PM - Edit history (2)
http://edwardklein.com/bernie-sanders-is-poised-to-go-the-third-party-route/short circuit
(145 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)before he even announced his candidacy. He's a political realist and not the type to break promises.
When he says things like that, I
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)will flock to JeebusEnoughBushes! and the oh-so-inspiring Kasich if Bernie is the nominee.
Not.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This announcement is just typical of the offensive things she and her campaign will say and do.
I am a woman just a bit older than Hillary. I want so much to see a woman as president before I die. But Hillary is impossible. She really is not a good candidate. This announcement just crystallizes why she is such a poor candidate.
She is, as far as the primaries are concerned, discouraging and disenfranchising Democratic voters with, first, her premature effort to corner these delegates, and second, her actually announcing that she has fenced them in, corralled them. I'm sure we will learn next that they have all been harnessed and tied to her wagon and are going to pull it for her. I can just picture them all struggling to carry the weight of Hillary and her heavy campaign machine forward through the general election.
She needs to watch out. Wagons that full can easily get caught in the mud or break a wheel in the ruts in the road. Hillary once again is demonstrating the hubris and poor judgment that got her into so much trouble in 2008.
She tries so hard to do things right, to sew things up that people do not like it in the end. She still has not learned from Obama how to do things with grace and ease.
That is what won enough votes for Bush so that he could steal the 2000 and possibly the 2004 election. He was completely unprepared for the presidency. He was not really very bright and not a good politician in many respects, but Bush was easy-going and a lot of Americans (not me) found him lovable. Hillary just does not have that lovableness that makes people vote for her.
This announcement is a huge mistake, but that is par for the course for Hillary -- a trail of political mistakes. Uggh. This is getting uglier by the day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If the choices are Hillary, Jeb or Kasich, I don't want to contemplate the outcome. Jeb will trip over himself on the way to the forum. Kasich is clever but doesn't have much of a following. Both Kasich and Hillary have a lot of Wall Street baggage (as does Biden which you point out above). I don't think that the D.C. crowd understands how many middle class people lost homes or almost lost homes in the 2008 melt-down, how many people who had worked all their lives lost their jobs, spent their savings and now sit, waiting for Social Security eligibility to finally arrive so they can have a secure income.
I don't think the D.C. crowd understands or fathoms what it is like out here. And Hilary's listening tour is not likely to have been the kind of situation in which Americans talk freely about the pain they feel and have felt. I just happen to be in a situation in which I hear it a lot (although I am not working any more). I don't hang out with millionaires and billionaires. The problem with politicians is that, to get re-elected, they have to offer themselves up on skewers to the very rich because they need the money of rich people to run their campaigns. Since there are only 24 hours in the day, and the contact most politicians have with ordinary voters is in groups and in rather controlled encounters, they don't really find out what is in the innermost, secret hearts of their constituents.
Bernie has not operated that way. He has not had to raise the kind of money that say a Dianne Feinstein has raised in her life.
That is why when he speaks, he touches listeners' hearts. He knows what is on the voters' minds, what is in their hearts. People respond. I tell my friends to just watch him on YouTube and they love him.
Hillary knows that the best argument she has for winning the nomination is that she is inevitable. I sat with three friends the other evening talking politics -- all of them well informed and very liberal. Every one of them told me that Bernie is their favorite candidate. They agree with him the most. But none of them feel he can be elected. My message is that if all the people who like Bernie best vote for him, he will be elected. Because most people in the grassroots, most ordinary voters, if they are honest with themselves, like what Bernie is saying and like Bernie's honesty and authenticity.
Inevitability is about all that Hillary's got that Bernie hasn't got. But inevitability comes when the people make it real. I think that Bernie's personality is inevitable. He is granted, not one to flatter his listeners. He is not one to tell cute little stories to make his listeners feel how lovable he is. But his honesty is what his listeners hunger for. So, I think he has a very good chance of winning.
And if he wins, we can tie down Citizens United. Citizens United is the political foe this year. Hillary is the Citizens United candidate par excellence (ironic isn't it, since it was a lawsuit about her that gave birth to that decision).
I will be campaigning against Citizens' United and its symbol, Hillary. We shall see. If we can't at least constrain Citizens United by making sure that all political ads and money is accounted for and has names, human names attached to it, then we have no democracy whatsoever.
So basically, Hillary represents the anti-democratic (small d) movement, and Bernie represents the pro-democratic movement in the country. It's all or nothing in this campaign as I see it. So, i suppose, since Hillary represents (no matter what she says, her actions speak loudly on this issue) the anti-democratic crowd, it is no wonder that her campaign is bragging about the number of super-delegates she has harnessed at this point.
This is going to be quite a primary campaign.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)crossing over which would never vote for H. Clinton. According to H. Clinton supporters they would support Sanders if nominated.
Sanders Votes in Gen = Sanders supporters + H. Clinton supporters + Independents + some cross over Republicans.
Clinton Votes in Gen = some but not all Sanders supporters + H. Clinton supporters
Therefore: Sanders Votes in Gen > Clinton Votes in Gen Therefore Sanders has a better chance of defeating the Republicon nominee.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)This announcement is just typical of the offensive things she and her campaign will say and do.
////////////////////
she and evidently her supporters are so far removed from reality they do not understand we the people at all...it is like she got up and waved her arms shouting........i have all those who can be bought and paid for wrapped up
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)And every time she talks.her approval ratings drop. She stinks.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Really enjoyed the wagon metaphor. I do hope you are sharing your thoughts beyond the confines of DU. There are many ways to support Bernie; excellent, persuasive rhetoric can be invaluable.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...... he is not going to be the president of the United states. Or the democratic nominee.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)than being a self-professed democratic socialist.
I don't think people care about the label.
I'm not a socialist. When I hear Bernie speak, I think he is a realist. That is rare in our politics at this time.
The Constitution guarantees our right to private property and to just compensation for a taking of our property by the government. So, we do not have anything to fear from the word socialism unless we completely throw aside our Constitution. Bernie is talking about programs that are government sponsored, paid from tax money and that serve us all. That is good for our country, and most Americans I think you will find will support them.
We desperately need free post-secondary education. The pace at which workers need to re-train in this age necessitates it. A person cannot afford to go back to school if they lose their job in their 50s or early 60s because of the cost of education. That is throwing older people on the streets, making it impossible for them to find a job.
Bernie wants to break up the too-big-to-fail banks. Americans are, as I said, far more angry with the banks and the mortgage companies than they are with the thought of socialism.
And both Biden and Hillary are closely tied to the banks in the perception of the American people.
I will confess that although born and educated (almost entirely) in the US, I lived in Europe for a number of years and have no personal aversion to the mixed economies they have there.
They had more socialism and privatized some of the sectors like post offices that were government-owned. I lived in the UK but did not use that healthcare system much. The healthcare systems in Germany, Austria and France (especially in France) were great. Cheaper and more accessible and less trouble than ours.THat was years ago.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... sure, um huh. Whatever you say. Good luck with that.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)still_one
(92,192 posts)Democrats will lose the general election
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Biden splits the establishment with Clinton and gives Bernie an opening, most polls agree with that theory.
Without Biden the vote will probably break about 60 Hillary, 40 Bernie
With Biden it could be something like 40 Clinton 40 Bernie 20 Biden.
Depending on Biden's performance it could be something like 40 Bernie 35 Clinton 25 Biden etc.
still_one
(92,192 posts)will not look kindly on Biden entering the race this late in the game, and they will NOT flock over to Biden as you suggest. Bernie supporters will also not move over to vote for Biden.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Haughty is the right word.
And she picks campaign advisers that flatter her haughtiness and lack healthy humility.
Arrogance is not a good campaign strategy.
still_one
(92,192 posts)funding this late in the game. Also, I really don't think he has his heart in it.
If he did, he wouldn't wait for another month to decide.
juajen
(8,515 posts)ram2008
(1,238 posts)And he's not even in the race. Add the slow drip, drip of Hillary's e-mail and campaign gaffes and you have about another 15% ready to abandon ship. The only problem is these aren't the Hillary die-hards, they're most likely moderates who don't follow politics very much and are easily persuadable. They're not really Bernie's natural constituency, but they will be looking for a SAFE alternative. If there was no other choice except Sanders they would perhaps stick with Hillary, but given a safe alternative like Biden they switch over to his camp. I've never actually seen a hardcore Hillary supporter except on DU, most peoples support for her is soft support based on name ID. Almost all of Bernie's support is hard support, someone like Biden would not siphon votes from him.
still_one
(92,192 posts)you will
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think this kind of attitude on her part is precisely what could hurt her badly in the general election. That is why I tell people frequently that in my view it is Hillary who will have a hard time winning against the fool Republicans.
She is just too full of herself, too "my way or the highway." The American people do not like being bossed around.
She may think she has the super-delegates sewn up, but she may be very wrong. We shall see.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)in short.
MADem
(135,425 posts)GOP does. "Full of herself?" Listen to you.
Women are "allowed" to be tough nowadays. Get used to it.
And Biden is going to end not with a bang but a whimper.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/08/29/exp-mccaskill-joe-will-not-run.cnn
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-biden-president-2016-decision-213103
Botany
(70,508 posts)
Do I need to add this?big_dog
(4,144 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 28, 2015, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you're using a mock swearing in picture (every new Senator gets one--they don't even appear to be looking one another in the eye, there) from Warren's arrival at the Senate to illustrate the idea?
big_dog
(4,144 posts)the affordable care act legacy must be preserved. 
senz
(11,945 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)spectrum wrt bankruptcy law?
Or maybe you are so blinded by Team Spirit partisanship that you don't understand where these politicians actually stand on given issues?
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)They would make the decision for us. After all as mere voters we are not nearly as knowledgable as they are.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Congress gets a 15% approval rating, so the super-delegates within it are clearly in a better position to determine who the nominee should be.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)know who the real sponsors are.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Funny that the Republican Party does not have superdelegates since we are the party with "democratic" in our name.
kath
(10,565 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The GOP calls them "unpledged" delegates, they have about 400 of them, and they fill the same role.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The super-delegates should relinquish their votes, especially if the primaries are close.
What if, and I know this is nearly impossible for Hillary supporters to imagine, Bernie or another candidate wins the popular primaries by a large enough margin to insure a win at the convention in the absence of the super-delegate votes. Does Hillary seriously think that the super-delegates are so enamored of her that they will votte against the will of grass-roots Democrats to support her?
Of course they won't.
It is too early, far too early for Hilary to trust that she has that kind of support among the party elite.
And remember, this is a party elite that has lost congressional election after congressional election. We have very few Democratic governors and state legislatures.
The people who qualify as super-delegates have not been directing our Party to big wins in an awful lot of elections. Why should they have so much power?
Whether it happens in the 2016 elections or waits until 2020, there is a lot of change bubbling up from the grass-roots in the Democratic Party. Voters want neither the idiocy of the Republicans nor the corruption and machine politics of the Democrats. There really is a foment. I see it in California, and California tends to presage a lot of the political direction for the country.
MADem
(135,425 posts)platforms.
People who don't like it are free to support candidates from other parties. You're not going to overrun the Democratic Party and turn them into the Greens, nor are you going to take over the GOP and turn them into Libertarians. That is what super/unpledged delegates guard against.
And like I said, people who don't like it have options--at other party conventions.
We've had superdelegates for decades, now. Whining about them suddenly, now, during this election is a bit late to the party, as it were. Why weren't you compaining about them in 08?
Pfft.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)One at the polls, and one at the convention.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And why?
From Wiki:
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]
For Republicans, in 2012, there are potentially 3 superdelegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, certain states either have no superdelegates or have them but their votes are bound by the results of the state vote. In 2012, there are 126 Republican superdelegates.[3]
StevieM
(10,500 posts)ones that included Super Delegates. It was part of a deal in which they got rid of the winner-takes-all voting by state and brought in the proportional representation.
Tom28
(34 posts)Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.[7] Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History
Superdelegates are almost all current or former Party officials. They are chosen because of their loyalty to the Party hierarchy. They can usually be counted upon to support the choices of the Party leadership.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Good grief, I am surprised that this is news to so many here on a political discussion board.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I've never focused on their process....they don't usually have a competitive race.
I'm relieved that their process is as undemocratic as ours.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)let's see where things are next spring...
Superdelegates are flocking to Obama
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-02-22-535125231_x.htm
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're not taking the point that Clinton learned from her error the last time. You don't leave a delegate "unpledged" if you can help it. This time, Clinton's delegates have publicly announced, to no small fanfare, their endorsements.
It's a very different flavor this time round. And I don't see 'em "feeling the Bern." He's never done much to feel them, many of 'em.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)TPM's headline is misleading. The linked article says that the Clinton campaign is "reportedly laying claim to a fifth of the delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination...." (emphasis added).
The superdelegates are about a fifth of the total. If you have half the superdelegates, you have a tenth of the total number of delegates, but that's a fifth of what you need to win (10% is one-fifth of 50%).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)disgusting.
II guess her "listening tour" was just for show. She seems to have already decided that she is the winner. If she is so sure she is the best for the job, why did she go on a "listening tour."
The big issue this year is the problem of Citizens United. That is what is on voters', especially grass-roots Democrats' minds.
We want more democracy, not less. The technology of our time calls for more democracy, not less. The spirit of our time calls for more democracy, not less.
And the super-delegates represent less democracy not more. Can't wait to see the Facebook and Twitter feeds that will eventually grow out of the awareness among voters of the super-delegates' power. This is something that a lot of people do not know about.
It is an out of date concept worthy of Tammany Hall, but not of the Twitter and Facebook era.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)At least in prior cycles, the automatic delegates on the Republican side were solely the party officials (in each state, two Republican National Committee delegates and one state party chair). The Republicans have not given automatic Convention votes to their elected officials, the way the Democrats do.
My personal opinion is that the Republicans picked the wrong part of our rules to emulate. There's at least some argument to be made for delegate status for Senators, Congressmembers, and Governors. They've been chosen by the public in open campaigns. The people didn't vote for them on the basis of whom they'd back for the Presidential nomination, but at least the people voted for them. By contrast, the selection of party leaders is, in both major parties, opaque and indirect. These party functionaries have only the most tenuous connection to the popular will. They should not be automatic delegates.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Then it's more than likely.... irrelevant.
jalan48
(13,867 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It's also worth noting that in a little over half of states (virtually all blue states), Super Delegates are required by law to cast their vote in accordance with the popular vote. So, In essence, publicly or privately stated support from other politicians is functionally meaningless where Super Delegate votes are concerned.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's basically a rumor at this time.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Or perhaps someone is trying to get the notion to gain traction without overly committing to the story. Mealy-mouthed terms like reportedly and purported, with the source being anonymous, are reliable red-flags that the article probably isn't a good one.
Gothmog
(145,264 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is not yet the end of all days.
meaning:
Die Sache ist noch nicht verloren / entschieden; Der Ausgang ist immer noch ungewiss; Es gibt immer noch die Chance, etwas für sich zu entscheiden
http://www.redensarten-index.de/suche.php?suchbegriff=~~Es%20ist%20noch%20nicht%20aller%20Tage%20Abend&suchspalte[]=rart_ou
All is not yet lost/decided, the outcome is still unknown; there is still the possibility that something remains to be decided.
Hillary should be careful lest party rank and file decide that with so much power in the hands of the superdelegates, the process is utterly undemocratic. She needs the votes of for example Bernie supporters to win in the general election.
With politically insensitive announcements like this that kind of tell voters that their voting in the primaries is less than just a formality, she reveals herself as lacking a certain realistic view on life.
Don't count your eggs before they hatch, my dear Hillary.
Oh, well! At least we have the illusion of democracy.
This announcement is intended to silence Bernie supporters. It won't work.
We have not begun to campaign yet. This announcement throws wood to the fire of the Bernie campaign. We have utterly nothing to lose except machine politics and the corruption that fuels it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To date Hillary has 121 endorsements from present members of Congress. Yes the endorsements are important. I also look at the endorsements from those who worked with both Hillary and Bernie, I still wonder why Bernie still does not have an Congressional member endorsement.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)short circuit
(145 posts)which they will - after October 13th.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)short circuit
(145 posts)but at the end, it won't be Clinton who will be the nominee.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)short circuit
(145 posts)It'll be Bernard Sanders, (D-Vt) when he is the nominee.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Got a link to him saying he joined the Democratic Party?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You can find a lot of detail in the Wikipedia article. (I know some people like to dismiss Wikipedia, but, as recounted here, CNN had enough confidence in it to plagiarize my contributions to the article.)
The short version: Most delegates to the Democratic National Convention are chosen in primaries and caucuses, all of which must be held during the calendar year of the election. About 20% of the delegates, however, hold that status without regard to such voting. The main groups are: all current Democratic members of Congress and state Governors, and all current members of the Democratic National Committee. There are a few others who are "formers" -- Bill Clinton, as a former Democratic President, will be a superdelegate. All these are the unpledged PLEO (party leaders and elected officials) delegates. If you want to wade deeper into the technicalities, there are unpledged add-on delegates (who need not be PLEOs) and pledged PLEO delegates; people in those two categories are sometimes considered within the term "superdelegate" and sometimes not.
The details from 2008, when I was knowledgeable about this, are in Rule 9 of the 2008 delegate selection rules -- unpledged PLEOs in Rule 9.A, unpledged add-ons in Rule 9.B, and pledged PLEOs in Rule 9.C. I don't know if any significant changes have been made for this year's rules.
The central criticism is that a significant chunk of Democratic National Convention votes aren't related to the public's expressed preference among the Presidential candidates. I'll run through a specific example of what could happen, simplifying by limiting it to the two current polling leaders. Let's say there are 4,400 voting delegates to the Convention. Sanders has 45% of them (1,980) based on his performance in primaries and caucuses, with Clinton having 35% on that basis (1,540), and Sanders having won significantly more votes than Clinton (whether or not we adjust for lower turnout in caucuses). This evident popular will that Sanders be the nominee, however, could be overturned. There are, on these example numbers, 880 superdelegates. If they break for Clinton by a ratio of 17 to 3, then she gets 748 of them (17% of total delegates) and Sanders gets only 132 of them (3% of total delegates). The final delegate totals are Clinton 2,288, Sanders 2,102, and Clinton wins the nomination in defiance of the clear popular will.
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)a frontrunner using their political power this way. Nor anything especially clever or effective either. Maybe we should respect even things we find extravagantly unfair or deceptive when it is only very typical politics. Between weakness and creative force lies only boredom. Hillary has to show strength if she is running for president. The very worst thing of course is limiting debates within the primary format. That in general is a fiasco created by both parties to orchestrate something else entirely. Nobody has been magnanimous to get rid of the abuse anymore than ditching the electoral system. Instead of fair and ruled debates you have mere orchestration, endemic to both parties, sadly.
Frontrunner Nixon refused to debate at all- and since everyone presumed the poor schnook would lose on looks(and it had not achieved Super Bowl status as of that time) most people gave him a pass.
Republicans lately seem to have hidden anointing and raucous noise affairs which still cloud over the emptiness and vapidity of their positions. Dems seem to sigh for public anointing, love fests and more substantive vapid platform offerings. Anyone with a member of endorsements, committed delegates and party machinery being used to counterbalance the competition will know this apparent display of dismaying power can go on a long time before a fall. And many frontrunners have fallen. And many primary losers returning never change their ways or results.
Sometimes in a heated contest the loser can negotiate for reforms as a concession. The rules on the ground are what we have to live with and have had to for some time. McGovern tried to pick up the RFK delegates but instead got reforms that helped him win a more democratic primary format next time. People still argue about whether RFK jumping in kind of late could break loose HHH's advantage. We aren't even close to such affairs at all yet. If anything Clinton is disadvantaged by the magnifying glass on early small state primaries. Frontrunners can't sustain too many early punches since their chances rest on their king of the hill position not on equal footing or little guy slugfests.
Nothing really nefarious here. I would hope to God she is at least as practical and decisive as a presidential frontrunner has to be. The voters will decide.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)Posted 2/23/2008
WASHINGTON — The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters -- straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.
The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.
As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second -- or third -- thoughts about their public commitments.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-02-22-535125231_x.htm
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)
Though your link is better.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)superdelegates, Hilary is shoring up endorsements of those who are super delegates, I don't see any superdelegates for Bernie to date. I guess one could say if Bernie should get one superdelegate then the story would be Bernie is gaining on Hillary in the superdegegate column.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts).....second -- or third -- thoughts about their public commitments."
I guess we can revisit this after Sanders reels off 11 straight primary victories.....
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)May 1, 2008
Former D.N.C. Chairman Backs Obama
By LISA TOZZI and BRIAN KNOWLTON
Joe Andrew, a superdelegate who was the Democratic National Committee chairman under President Bill Clinton, announced Thursday that he had switched his allegiance from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Senator Barack Obama in the race for the presidential nomination.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)It will be very tough for Bernie to make any inroads with any of these super delegates especially since he is not an actual Democrat.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)In 2008 her massive lead with the super delegates, before the voters even had a chance to cast one ballot, was a very big turn off for many Obama voters.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The rules are the rules, and Hillary is likely to obtain a commanding majority of delegates for whom no one voted.
We can't leave this thing up to voters alone.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)she's not my choice. Never will be.
And I'm not going to answer any replies. I don't support Hillary, her awful campaign and have chosen Bernie as my candidate.
You can't change my mind either. Sorry.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Shouldn't we be out sewing clothes for the coronation, composing sonnets and ballads, building dioramas? Why are we wasting time and money on a campaign when it could be put to better use?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)She's the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers; he's the pick for 30 percent, according to a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Please, Ms. Clinton, just go away.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)......in a big stay-at-home vote in the general election.
If Bernie, or perhaps Joe, goes into the convention with a clear lead in delegates from primary voters, and Hillary suddenly swings the whole thing with superdelegates, that's going to look really high-handed to anyone paying attention, including people who might, repeat might have been inclined to vote for Hillary before.
Something like this is almost certain to happen on the GOP side if Trump keeps the lead. The Republican party establishment has to take him down somehow, no matter how it angers their base.
frylock
(34,825 posts)it's the indies, as well as the first-time and disaffected voters that will stay home. Republicans that Sanders has been appealing to will go back to voting Republican, and conservatives that have been waiting over 20 years to pull the lever against Hillary Clinton will show up in droves. And of course, progressives will be scapegoated for the poor decisions of the party machine, as always.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)The wording inside the TPM report is correct, and the MSNBC clip makes it explicit with numbers - 4491 total delegates, 2246 needed to win.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Process used to matter a great deal, you were expected to win over and excite the electorate. There were too many exceptions to that custom, I guess, and now the rule is that the establishment gets to rig the process.
Not one single debate and they want to call it. Listen up, supporters of other candidates, this is what your party thinks of the primary process. I hope and expect to hear this announcement getting called out. I hope and expect to hear that, no, this kind of broad based firm commitment hasn't been made.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This smacks of influence peddling.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)I tried to explain this to someone and she was flabbergasted. Turns out she wasn't registered to vote. And hearing how fucked up the primary system is didn't help convince her to register.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Is that what the Clinton camp is telling the primary voters? Our voice doesn't count? If that were the case I'd stay home for the general election too.
No, I think I will cast my vote in the California primary for Bernie Sanders and let the process happen...I don't know, what's the word? Ah yes, "Democratically."
The will of the people should not be dismissed and swept under the rug.
Bernie or Bust!
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Delegates are not locked in until they cast their vote. We saw how they rapidly switched from her to Obama in 2008 as Obama beat her in the primaries. It is rare for a delegate to vote against the popular vote. There has to be an extremely good reason to do this.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)This just highlights the trouble our system is in.
No matter how the spin meisters will try and spin it, 1/5 of delegates committed before a single vote is cast - this is not Democracy.
Life in the oligarchy, sigh.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... it's not going to do her much good.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)until they vote. This does say that she is a huge favorite of the party officials. If she wins various primaries, as polls show, she will easily win the nomination.
If for some completely not forseeable reason someone beats her in the majority of primaries and Caucuses -- those superdelegates may reconsider. I really do believe that without a good reason, they would never swing against the candidate who does the best in the primaries --- and all indication is that that will be HRC.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I remember all the hoopla going on at MSNBC about whether she would release her delegates after the primaries were over.
I talked to grantcart here at the DU about what it would mean to the Democratic party if she didn't release them, and he was convinced that she was going to force a brokered convention back in 2008.
Fortunately, she released her delegates when it came time for New York state to cast their votes at the convention and the party's nominee was finally chosen.
But, there was still a lot of talk going on here at the DU after the convention about the reasons why she didn't continue to fight for a brokered convention, and take it down to the wire.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Clinton and her ilk don't particularly give a shit what the stupid peasantry want.
This is gerrymandering for primaries, and the people that usually scream bloody murder about gerrymandering are all for it.
senz
(11,945 posts)Which raises the question of "How would she govern?"
Demeter
(85,373 posts)
24601
(3,962 posts)reports of her she has been sharpening several dozen sticks at both ends.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)mistaken Bill is a super-delegate.
Gman
(24,780 posts)You'd think this is a bad thing. But fortunately it's great news.
How anyone can reasonably expect for someone that's never been a Democrat his whole career in Congress to get support of lifelong committed rank and file Democrats is beyond comprehension. Like a rank and file Democrat is going to just step aside. It borders on the ludicrous.
And all this whining from lots of folks who likely won't support Hillary in the GE. So who cares what they think?
postatomic
(1,771 posts)You'd think that a Democrat, any Democrat, that is getting this much support early on would be seen as a good thing. Sadly, the "enemy" here being portrayed isn't the eventual GOP nom, it's a Democrat.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Go Hillary!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Response to peacebird (Reply #126)
Name removed Message auto-removed
George II
(67,782 posts)....(and rounding), there are 4480 delegates, meaning the nominee needs 2240. Since she already has 440, that means she needs only 1800 from the remaining 4080 delegates.
Any other potential nominee would need 2240 of the remaining 4080 delegates - almost 56%.
I guess it pays to be a Democrat.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....posted it anyway.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)From the Daily Mail:
Her aides are telling reporters at the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis that more than 440 have made commitments to her
Do the math: 2240 × .20 = 448, about the number she claims.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214705/Hillary-one-fifth-delegates-ll-need-Democratic-nomination-locked-five-months-primary-vote-cast.html#ixzz3kAIqSovf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
artislife
(9,497 posts)is that H supporters are elated.
Elated that delegates are already pledging allegience without the vote of the caucus or primary voters. This sure sounds like democracy.
It is so sad that they do not see how undemocratic it is.
But I am finding they will brush away anything that is questionable. H is above reproach or votes, so it seems.
Response to artislife (Reply #157)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)
BadGimp
(4,015 posts)its like saying we are still vertical...
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Don't count your super-delegates before they are hatched. The super-delegates will not undermine the will of the people. It's a recipe for a 2016 Democratic route.
jkbRN
(850 posts)that her whole campaign has pushed this announcement amidst her drop within recent polling--this doesn't sway the everyday voter, only the pundits.
Just seems like a whole lot of grandstanding.
Response to jkbRN (Reply #194)
Name removed Message auto-removed
I don't think it's discouraged anyone, at all--in fact this election season seems more competitive than ever
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1 - Not spending a lot of money early so she will run out early? Check
2 - Making sure to build up a huge infrastructure in all 50 states so she doesn't lose the caucus states after the first two weeks like she did against Obama? Check
3 - Making sure she secures the support of as many Superdelegates as she can before other candidates can try to appeal to them? Check.
If she had done any one of these in 2008, she would have won that race. If she had done any two of them, she would have won easily in 2008. If she had done all three, it would have been a blowout regardless of Obama's excellent candidacy/campaign and his oratory abilities and the excitement he generated.
