So I'm pretty sure Bernie guaranteed that most Party Superdelegates will never switch

[Godhumor]

After this "Unqualified" brouhaha.

I'm pretty forgiving and can forget a lot of what is said campaigning. I did in 2008 and I've been able to see through a lot of the BS thrown around this year in the name of securing the nomination.

But I think Bernie, win or lose the pledged delegate battle (Which he will lose. Handily), has pretty much guaranteed that no party superdelegate is switching from Hillary at the convention. I just don't see a Howard Dean, for example, uniting behind someone attacking a long-time loyal Party standard-bearer with a truly mean-spirited salvo. They, the supers, must recognize this as a scorched Earth tactic that is designed to hurt the frontrunner, and the Party, to gain votes at the expense of the greater good in November.

In other words, Bernie can no longer depend on the supers getting him over the magic number if he finishes ahead of Hillary in June, much less convince them to flip if he's behind her.

You take your chances when you poke a hibernating bear. This was just a monumentally dumb thing to do.

[livetohike]

1. Agree. Whether Sanders believes what he said, or said it to appease his

supporters, either way it was a ridiculous thing to say.

[Basic LA]

2. He locked that number down.

Smooth move.

[Lucinda]

3. And he provided the answer to the question Hillary ducked. You just cannot have

Sanders temperament and be an effective leader.

[pandr32]

42. Exactly! he was completely reactive

...and then tried to justify a tit-for-tat response that was uncalled for in the first place. Not presidential, and not worthy of the Senate, either.

[rock]

4. Probably true anyways

(That most party super delegates will never switch). But now guaranteed.

[davenelson5555]

5. I disagree

I don't think the Super Delegates are going to dwell on these kinds of flare-ups. Truth be told, they are meaningful to whichever candidate's supporters are outraged at the time. In the end, the Super Delegates are going to make their choice based upon the most politically expedient option.

[displacedtexan]

8. Supers have been around the Capitol block a bunch of times. They already know Bernie...

...and they're not buying what he's selling. They belong to the Democratic Party, not the "I'll see how the wind blows and wait to see who's fucked up at the last minute" supporters.

[davenelson5555]

11. Some yeah, but these are political creatures we're talking about

While some will remain loyal to one camp or the other, it should be remembered that many Super Delegates are ultimately accountable to constituents. A great many may very well vote with the majority of their state, to whom they are are political beholden.

[Walk away]

13. But Bernie has barely won a state with a Democratic majority.

He is winning with Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents and some Democrats. That is why (Like Donald Trump) he would be a disaster down ticket. They will never cross over to him because he is useless to them. He can't deliver the votes he has garnered to the Super Delegates. All of his rag tag coalition of anti establishment voters are useless to the average Democrat in office.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. That is exactly why the SD concept was created.

So that they are NOT beholden to the voting outcomes in their states. Besides, many are former elected officials and have no active constituencies. Others are merely Dem party officials and they will do what they see as best for the party.

Bernie & Co may not like it. But when he decided to become a Democrat simply to run for President, he must accept the rules of that party. His libertarian and indie supporters may not like to follow rules - which is likely why they do not belong to a mainstream party. But those of us who have been longtime party stalwarts expect that the rules should be adhered to. Those who want to see the rules change have to stay in the party and work for the changes, not simply have tantrums when they can't get their own way in the middle of an election cycle.

[davenelson5555]

23. I'm with George Washington on this

Personally, I would like to see the SD's go away. It's undemocratic, divisive and elevates party above the people who comprise the party. George Washington hated political parties, and abhorred their rise to prominence in the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. The SD concept makes it easy to understand this aversion. People matter more than parties. In my mind, the Democratic Party does not equate to Super Delegates.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. Well, Washington hasn't been around for

some 200+ years and a lot of the world has changed since his time.

You apparently have not been involved in politics for that long or you simply have not paid attention to what has been happening in the Democratic Party - which is nonetheless much more democratic than the other. It must seem frustrating, but if you have been paying attention all along - or were even paying attention in 2008, when SDs were definitely a big part of the process (and Tad Devine knows ALL the ins and outs of SDs, so there is no excuse for Bernie's not knowing) - you would know that what you may find grossly undemocratic simply because it does not favor your candidate, was specifically decided WAY back in the 1980s. And, in fact, as things have played out, the SDs have never subverted democratic primary results. They will not do so in 2016.

The SD process has worked just fine since its inception. Yes, it is true the SDs do not have to follow the will of their particular states. But even if they had to, because the Democratic Party has proportional delegate assignments, Hillary - as the winner of the popular vote so far, as well as of more pledged delegates than Bernie - would also STILL have more SDs than Bernie. In fact, she would likely have even more than she has now. There are some who have actually made that calculation, but I am not among them.

The only times that I remember that SDs ever became an issue were in 2008 and now. In 2008, Hillary was always much closer to Barack Obama's totals than Bernie has been to hers in 2016 since many southern states voted in March - in part due to a different primary calendar. As things turned out in 2008, she actually had a slight edge in popular vote totals then, but not in pledged delegates. Obama also had more SDs who had endorsed him. When Hillary realized that she would never catch up to Obama's pledged delegates, she conceded to Barack Obama and released her SDs. So in 2008 - just as they will do in 2016 - the SDs went with the candidate who had the majority of pledged delegates.

In 2016, it is very unlikely that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates will be Bernie, given the remaining primaries, the demographics of the states involved, etc., all of which favor Hillary. You can try to speculate all you want, but those are the realities. Even if Bernie won every state from now on (which is highly unlikely), because of the proportional allocation of delegates, he will never make up the shortfall that now stands at about a 210 pledged delegate difference. Even his BIG win in WI Tuesday only netted him 10 delegates (Hillary had 38; he had 48).

The only real questions remaining are these: 1) when will Bernie realize this? 2) will he concede as Hillary did and work to elect Hillary as she worked to elect Obama? 3) if the answer to 2 is yes, when? 4) if the answer to 2 is no, what does he intend to do?

If he decides to concede and support Hillary, will he release his SDs, as she did or not? If he decides not to concede at all and to try to push some kind of brokered Dem convention, he will fail because she will have the majority of delegates as well as those SDs who have committed to her. She will also likely receive a majority of uncommitted SDs who will endorse her as the one having received a) the majority of pledged delegates AND b) the popular vote. That is democracy.

If Bernie wants to push for a brokered convention with a minority of pledged delegates and fewer popular votes than Hillary, he will receive little support for that; he will lose in that effort; and worst of all will be seen as a spoiler. That is not democracy.

[davenelson5555]

41. Modernity != Better

Yes, lots has happened in 200+ years. However, the rank divisiveness of party politics played out in front of Washington's very eyes in the election of 1800. His opinion is quite relevant.

I've been a politically conscious Democrat since the early 1990's and have been paying close attention to what has been happening in the Democratic Party. I know that SD's came about in 1984 in order to ensure a grassroots candidate such as Ted Kennedy would be crippled in challenging an incumbent such as Jimmy Carter. It was an undemocratic fixture of the party then, and it's an undemocratic fixture of the party now. And let's not pretend that the 1980's is ancient history, which somehow embeds this rule as a precious core value of the Democratic Party. It's a rule, and it's a crappy one no matter who your candidate is. Should the voice of the people not rule supreme in this land? How is elevating a select elite group of voices above the majority of the people in any way consistent with the sacrosanct concept of "We the People"?

[BlueCaliDem]

43. It's a rule Sanders agreed with before he ran. Don't attempt to change the rules mid-game. That's

called cheating.

And don't forget...Super Dels is a Tad Devine creature.

If Bernie supporters have a problem with that, then they should address Tad Devine and the Bernie2016 campaign heads.

Our elections have never been 100% democratic - not even from its inception. We've never won elections based on the popular vote. If that were the case, we would've have a President Gore.

In the primaries, we use delegates, and in the G.E. we use Electors. That's how it's been done from the get-go, iirc.

[davenelson5555]

47. I'm not changing any rules midstream

Don't ascribe to me false motives out of convenience, thank you very much.

For the sake of clarity, let me say that I think they are shitty rules that should change BEFORE a political contest. Not during. OK?

[BlueMTexpat]

44. Can you point to one instance

since their inception where SDs have thwarted the will of the Democratic party majority?

Possibly the Dem primary popular vote in 2008 ... if it is actually true that Hillary did win the popular vote (I've heard different versions).

Just as they have not previously thwarted the overall Dem primary outcome, SDs will not thwart the will of the Dem majority in 2016. If it is the will of Indies, Greens and Libertarians that you believe is being thwarted, perhaps you misunderstand the role of the Democratic party. Its role does not include catering to the whims of party outsiders.

You and others who seem willfully to misunderstand what SDs are and what they do are only working yourselves up for a tempest in a teapot. Get active in the Dem party and work from within to change the rules in the future if you feel so strongly. Browbeating SDs now will not help your cause.

If the majority of "the people" that you refer to are those who vote in the GE, please remember that SDs play no role whatsoever in that; their role stops at the Dem Convention. Please save your ire about undemocratic processes for the GE. In the GE, that undeniably most undemocratic of institutions known as the Electoral College plays the principal role.

Of course, it will require a Constitutional Amendment to get that changed. Good luck with that.

[davenelson5555]

46. Thankfully, I can't

You're correct that thus far it has not thwarted the will of the people. However, it's designed to do precisely that, and it's simply not a good rule to keep in place. It's counter-intuitive to a party that calls itself the Democratic Party.

How am I willfully misunderstanding what DWS herself has described as the ability for the party to restrain grassroots candidates? Those were her own words. What am I misunderstanding?

[BlueMTexpat]

48. So, now you are changing your complaint

about the SDs themselves to the words of DWS.

It seems that you simply want to be enraged about something. Anything.

What you really need to do is to go have a nice cool beer or a nice glass of wine - or whatever your favorite beverage is - and chill out. TGIF, after all.

[davenelson5555]

49. Nice deflection, dude

No, I'm not changing my complaint. My complaint is one in the same: the rules suck, and they are unbecoming of the Democratic Party. You're trying to evade the reality that these rules are undemocratic, with random rude assumptions including:

1. I'm ignorant or unfamiliar with the Democratic Party. I'm not.
2. I have an aversion to SD's because of my choice of candidate. Not true.
3. My stating the precise purpose of SD's (by quoting DWS) means I simply want to be enraged about anything. As Rachel Maddow likes to say: Bull-pucky.

My position doesn't require discrediting you. It's quite simple: the concept of Super Delegates is undemocratic and sucks. Period.

[BlueMTexpat]

50. Let's see -

you've been on DU for about a week (perhaps you have lurked for longer).

Several of your very first posts slam the Dem SD system. That's already a red flag.

I try to explain why the SD system - created for a reason known best to those who created it and although it may superficially seem to be undemocratic - has not, in effect, ever worked out that way and probably will not in 2016. You essentially acknowledge that.

So then you pivot to DWS - I'm not a fan, btw - but she hadn't even come up before. Whatever we may think of her, she was NOT in the DNC when these rules were created and may have her own take on them, which is not necessarily the reason why they were created. There is likely much more nuance involved.

First of all, YOU deflected to DWS. Now you expect me to rebut your deflection? If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to consider you to be a troll. I will not respond.

Finally, I am in no way, shape or iteration whatsoever a "dude." In fact, where I originate from, "dude" is a fightin' word.

[davenelson5555]

51. Yes....

1. Long-time lurker
2. Why does slamming the SD system amount to being a red flag? Do you feel that an attack on the SD system amounts to an attack on the Democratic Party? I am a lifelong Democrat, and have always favored the Democrats over the Republicans because of the lack of lockstep mentality. Why must my distaste for a party rule amount to being a "red flag"? Should I get up and stand over there against the wall?
3. I didn't "pivot" to DWS. It was relevant and an illustration of why I think the rule is a horrible one. You are resting your case on semantics (I'm pivoting, I'm ignorant, I'm new, I'm a troll, I'm this, I'm that, red flags, etc.) rather than granting my distaste for the rule one iota of authenticity. Like it or not, it's a fact that DWS said those things, what she said was entirely accurate, I'm entitled to hate the basis for the rules that she described so well and that doesn't make me anything that you are insinuating. You can "explain" the system to me until you're blue in the face. I understand it. It's undemocratic. I'm not a horrible right-wing troll. End of story.
4. "Dude" retracted if it's inaccurate or a fightin' word. Where I originate from, "dude" is an expression of annoyance. Like "dude....come on!"

[LiberalFighter]

39. Washington was never a leader or member of the Democratic or

Democratic-Republican Party.

[OilemFirchen]

40. Hell...

he didn't even become a citizen until he was in his forties.

[wysi]

21. If they voted with their state...

... they would be completely superflous. Sanders supporters really need to get educated about the purpose of SDs.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. + a million! eom

[BlueMTexpat]

12. The "most politically expedient option"

for Hillary's SDs will be to remain with the candidate they have endorsed because she will have 1) the highest delegate numbers and 2) the highest number of popular votes. Just as she has today.

If Hillary's SDs had ever thought of changing camps and switching to Bernie simply because they found his candidacy appealing, this recent brouhaha will set them more firmly in Hillary's corner. I also expect that some so-far uncommitted SDs, who had previously been waiting for the primaries to play out completely, will declare after the NY primary results, if Hillary wins as expected. I believe that many more will endorse her right after the April 26 primaries, where Hillary is favored to win, mainly because they want to shut this spectacle down.

If Bernie continues with his current tactics and rhetoric, he might even find that some of his own SDs may defect to Hillary before the convention, which is a much more likely outcome right now than the converse.

When you lose the high ground, as Bernie has done in recent days, people begin to run for the lifeboats. They are politicians after all and "political expediency" is indeed the byword.

[displacedtexan]

18. Well said!

You rock!

[BlueMTexpat]

19. Thanks, texan!

So do you!

[NanceGreggs]

27. ...

...

[Cha]

32. Excellent, Blue.. "lose the high ground".. he didn't have it, afaic, but now more people know it..

Bs being his own worst enemy.

Thank you!

[Cha]

24. And, that will be Hillary Clinton for POTUS.. she's Winning and she'll make an Excellent President.

[Squinch]

6. They were never going to flip to him anyway. They know him. They have tried to work with him.

They really don't like him.

[SharonClark]

15. K&R

[Cha]

25. Exactlly.. it's all smoke and mirrors to the BS campaign..

http://theobamadiary.com/2016/03/31/early-bird-chat-710/

This is one good reason why Hillary has most of the Super Dels with her.. Most of the Democratic Leaders are Down Ticket.. Amazing! They appreciate those who know we're all in this together.. not just for ourselves.

[DesertFlower]

26. well said. nt

[sarae]

30. NICE

#9 so he's basically admitting he's a hypocrite...

Just sayin'...not news to me!

[Cha]

31. Nope.. no big revelation.

[Squinch]

33. And wasn't Bernie one of those superdelegates he finds so undemocratic?

[GusBob]

7. Gee ya think? This is nail in the coffin stuff

Coming soon you heard it here first:

IT WAS A MEDIA CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE WP AND THE HRC CAMPAIGN

That's right Hillary goaded ( goaded not goated ) Sanders into blabbing his own conviction

Just like Tom Cruise did with Jack Nicholson in that movie

You can't handle the truth yall

[Cha]

38. #10 should read.. "..and, obviously I'm a hypocrite"

I guess we just have to read between the lines, GusBob!

LOL@themedia being in Hillary's pocket.

And, what's up with the BSrs saying the NYDN was a "hit piece" when it was sanders' own words?!

Thank you! No, it's been evident for quite awhile that the truth is not something they hold dear.

[72DejaVu]

9. Here's the thing

Many of the super delegates are elected state party officials, such as the party chair and co-chair. In most states they will come up for reelection by the state committees after the November election.

The state committees that the Bernistas have turned their noses up at joining.

The state committees made up primarily of the most dedicated party loyalists.

You see where I'm going with this....

[Her Sister]

10. I think it will flip over many regular voters that were on the fence

and people that liked both candidates! This and the NYDN interview.
Can you say turn-off!

HRC SO QUALIFIED!!! AND READY FOR DAY ONE!

[NurseJackie]

14. I get the feeling that the campaign (and its advisors) are its own worst enemy. I mean ...

... seriously now, are they TRYING to self-destruct? It's one thing to be disheartened, but it's quite another to do things that appear to be self-inflicted sabotage. What were they thinking?

Regardless ... it's still fun to watch as it unfolds.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. How does one come back from a statement like that & bring us all together? A woman with a resume...

like Hillary's, who is admired the world over, is "not qualified"? So says the guy who still uses "tokens" in NYC subway.

[DemonGoddess]

20. K&R!

[Gman]

22. His supporters did that months ago.

[enid602]

28. i'm confused...

By going after the superdelegates, isnt bern legitimizing them?

[sarae]

29. exactly!

I don't understand that. Wasn't Bernie railing about superdelegates at the beginning of the primary, talking about how "unfair" the whole concept of superdelegates was? And if I'm not mistaken, I read that it was Tad Devine himself who proposed and passed the whole superdelegate thing...

He needs to decide – he can't have it both ways.

[Gothmog]

34. Sanders is going to look silly asking super delegates to flip

[George II]

37. The more he pisses them off, the more adamant they'll be about supporting the Democrat...

....in this campaign.

Hey Bernie, Jeff, "Tad" - this ain't Vermont, this is the big time. You're toast.

[NastyRiffraff]

45. There's a reason

why Bernie has so few superdelegates. His colleagues in the Senate don't like him. The rest don't trust him. He's going to end up looking very very foolish if he tries to get them to flip, as he's said he would. Right, he wants the superdelegates he despises to support him! Brilliant.