The complaining about Hillary's super delegates has begun

[leftofcool]

Do the supporters of the other team really believe that this primary is about popularity? If that had been the case, Hillary would have beat Obama by a landslide in 2008. How hard is it to understand that those "establishment" Democrats are going to vote for the Democrat?

[romana]

1. Superdelegates

I confess I'm not always comfortable with superdelegates. Didn't Clinton have a lot on board last time, only for it not to matter? This is a delegate race, and I think for the time being it's better to be focused on state delegates.

[leftofcool]

4. No, Obama took more of the super delegates last time.

Hillary won the popular vote, Obama took more supers. This time, the supers will vote for the Democrat. That is the way it has always been done.

[Stuckinthebush]

14. I'm a huge fan

Last edited Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

This is about a party's nominee. The leaders of the party should have a disproportional say in who wins their nomination. The reason for the supers is to prevent populist non Dems from taking over the party. This year is a good example of why the supers are vitally important.

[yallerdawg]

2. Democrats want to win above all else!

We have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Do we really need an 'independent" to come in and save us?

When that is the path to losing?

[leftofcool]

6. No, we do not need an Independent to save us.

Independents have never won an election.

[Blueguyinthesky]

3. I think super delegates are a terrible practice and totally antiethetical to the purpose of a

democracy

[leftofcool]

5. That is the way we have always done it. They have a vote just like anyone else.

[Blueguyinthesky]

7. Actually we've only done it since 1972

And just because we've done it for a long time doesn't make it right.

[leftofcool]

9. That's the way it is. Your argument is with the Democratic Party.

[BooScout]

13. Yep and the reason being...

We never want another debacle like the McGovern Campaign.

[bluestateguy]

31. Superdelegates have been around since 1984

But about half are elected officials, and they will not go in a different direction than the Democrats who elected them.

[FBaggins]

8. Unfortunately, they aren't "Hillary's super delegates"

They are party leaders who have publicly supported her to date. However, just like primary voters who tell a pollster months in advance who they plan to vote for, their preference can change in the interim. They aren't "her" delegates until they actually vote for her.

If, by some miracle, Bernie wins a majority of primary votes and is clearly ahead in delegates... a large number of them will change their minds. If for not other reason than the fact that most of them face those same voters periodically.

[Cha]

10. I'm not worried.. they're not going anywhere.

[leftofcool]

11. Hillary was clearly ahead in delegates in 2008

The supers went for Obama. They will not change their minds are vote for Bernie.

[FBaggins]

17. No she wasn't

About 50 superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama when he took the lead in "normal" delegates.

[Stuckinthebush]

12. I disagree

Look at the list of commitments. These are strong supporters of the Clintons who are unwilling to change.

In a normal year when we would have multiple Democrats running then I would agree that they are more mercurial. This year we have one Democrat running. The majority of the leadership will support the democrat come thick or thin.

Count the supers as solid Clinton support.

[BooScout]

15. No they won't...

Sanders has done nothing to give them reason to support him. These are seasoned politicians. They no more believe Sander's rhetoric than I do. They will stand behind the Democrat in the race.....the one that also fights and supports down ticket Dems......something apparently Sanders can't be bothered with.

[yallerdawg]

16. On the other hand...

the Party has to have some safeguards from exactly what has happened. An 'independent' was allowed in, and non-Democrats are leading the Party to a freefall!

Democratic voters prefer Hillary. Independents and a number of people who have never voted Democratic before could take us way off track.

This is the Democratic Primary - not a free-for-all. Independent candidates have their own path to the ballot.

Obviously, many people don't appreciate the value and strength of a political party in a majority rule democracy.

And one candidate understands "joining" the Party is the only way to be a viable candidate.

[Stuckinthebush]

21. Exactly

Point spot on.

[George II]

22. Remember, the two states that have voted so far had "open" caucuses/primaries. Sanders' so-called..

..."good" showing for the DEMOCRATIC nomination was fueled by independent and republican crossovers.

The upcoming Nevada caucus is closed - it will be interesting to see how that state goes.

[uponit7771]

36. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. "And one candidate understands "joining" the Party is the only way to be a viable candidate."

Even if it was 5 minutes ago. I can't for the life of me figure why the BS'ers would think that Democrats would fall in line behind someone who only joined the party a few minutes ago, because he doesn't have one of his own, especially one that attacks Democrats as much he attacks Republicans.

[stonecutter357]

18. K&R!

[disillusioned73]

19. Is this really the new argument?

He's not a "real Democrat"..

[Stuckinthebush]

23. It's been around for a while

He's not a Democrat. The party insiders won't support him over the Democrat. The super delegate count now shows that.

Also....go back to GD-P. This is the Clinton forum.

[disillusioned73]

24. I'll go where ever I like..

thank you very much..

[Stuckinthebush]

25. Not for long

Respect, if not given, is enforced.

[leftofcool]

27. Actually, no you don't. This is the Hillary forum.

Take your complaints to GDP.

[Cha]

28. No you won't.

[Cha]

29. It's not "new".. bernie himself said he could never run as Dem because of all the things he's

said about the party.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. "It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat...

...because of the things I have said about the party."

He does not and never has considered himself to be a Democrat. He's only one now out of political expedience.

In a recent interview with Politico Sanders was asked that since he was running for the Democratic nomination for President why not become a Democrat? He wouldn't answer the question, responding instead with: "I’m running for the Democratic nomination. I will meet all the regulations and requirements. I look forward to doing that." That's a dodge.

So why again do you believe he's a Democrat?

[William769]

42. Not a new argument just the facts.

And, I'll bet money that when he loses the Democratic primary he will go back to calling himself a Independent.

[George II]

20. Aw, sorry - when you work outside the "establishment" for decades and insult them daily.......

......you're not going to get many of them on your side.

People should know the "rules" before they jump into the game. Super Delegates have been around for decades.

Just a recap, with Iowa and New Hampshire having spoken, Clinton has 23+4 from Iowa and 11+6 from New Hampshire vs. Sanders 21+0 and 13+0.

Totals:

Clinton 45
Sanders 35

[DesertRat]

26. ^^This^^

[Cha]

37. Thanks for the recap!

[Iliyah]

30. K & R

Well, if the shoe was on the other foot there would be no complaining huh. Anywho, HRC has the delegates

Two states that does not look like America in its diversity, HRC did very well.

[restorefreedom]

33. as a sanders supporter,

i would not be happy if the shoe was on the other foot. i would not want to see bernie win because he had to be propped up by the establishment. the winner should be the person the most people voted for. the superdelegate practice is the most UNdemocratic thing i have ever seen, and will disappear once dws and her cronies are out.

but as to the election, its a moot point. they will support the winner unless they want to lose their own jobs and see the end of the dem party.

namaste

[leftofcool]

38. This is the Hillary forum and you are wrong

We have had super delegates since 1972 and they are not going anywhere. Democrats will vote for a Democrat, not an Independent running as a socialist in the Democratic Party. McGovern is the exact reason we have super delegates. Please take your complaints to GDP.

[William769]

41. What a crock of shit. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Your little fit of pique aside, DWS didn't make the rules. They were in place when she was in....

grade school, but nice try. BS should have warned his supporters this could happen. And no elected Democrat's job is on the line for correcting a mistake made by an influx of Independent voters in two of the whitest states in the Union that look nothing like the Democratic party.

[aaaaaa5a]

32. Superdelegates were technically created

For a situation just like this potentially could turn out.

In 1972 Democrats nominated George McGovern, a candidate way to far left that everyone knew had no chance of winning. The SuperDelegates were created so that the party could have some emergency influence of a radical "once in a lifetime" situation which led to a damaged nominee.

SuperDelegates have NEVER determined the party's winner. And SuperDelegates are ELECTED officials. In a representative democracy it's actually more democratic than a caucus.

Bernie Sanders currently reminds me of a George McGovern nomination. Whether or not that turns out to be true, we will have to wait and see. But this type of situation is what the SuperDelegates are intended for. It's the party's way for officials elected by the people to have some structure within the party.

By the way, this is the same party that Bernie Sanders was not even a part of until it became politically necessary for him to change his affiliation for his Presidential run. He was trying to find someone to primary Obama in 2012, which could have taken the Democratic Party out of the WhiteHouse. Could you imagine the GOP controlling all 3 branches of Government now? That's Bernie Sanders circa 2012.

You could make a case that the SuperDelegates as an obligation to the party are being lenient in their endorsement preferences so far. Again, we will have to wait and see how it turns out.

[Nonhlanhla]

35. This is a delicate situation

Superdelegates were created to prevent an unelectable populist from becoming the Dem candidate. On the other hand, superdelegates will also realize that if a candidate gets an overwhelming number of normal delegates, them swinging it to the other candidate can de facto make their candidate unelectable as well. We could potentially face that situation this year. Either scenario is fraught with difficulty. It is clear that there is a lot of anger in the country. You can see it in both parties' primaries, with outsider candidates tapping into people's anger and traditional party candidates being demonized by a large part of the electorate.

I don't envy the superdelegates the task that is lying ahead for them if Bernie should get the majority of elected delegates. They would have to calculate which is the least damaging thing to do: switch over to a largely unvetted candidate with weak ties to the party who also brings significant weaknesses to the general election; or swing the nomination to the traditional Dem with fewer elected delegates and her own set of baggage. This is shark infested water, folks.

[leftofcool]

39. Bernie will never get a majority of delegates.

It just isn't going to happen.

[Nonhlanhla]

40. I don't think so either

Was just dealing with hypotheticals.

[Treant]

43. I think we'll be fine.

Clinton just did passably in two very unfriendly states. In the off chance that Bernie actually does dominate, it sure won't be by anything appreciable.

[Nonhlanhla]

44. I think you're right. nt.

[72DejaVu]

45. I have no problem

with the idea that Harry Reid or Jennifer Granholm or John Lewis should have more say in choosing the Democratic nominee than someone who joined the party yesterday.

[Cha]

47. Zing.

[mgmaggiemg]

46. agree...

and my quote for the night comes from A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN....Tom Hanks said "there is no crying in baseball"...the bernie team did not get that memo!