2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSuper Delegates 359-8?!? Can the dem party steal this thing?
I was just flipping through tv channels and stopped on Msnbc and saw Hillary has all those "super delegates".
Can the more informed political junkies here help me out with how this happens? I sat on the fence a LONG time before I chose to support Bernie. I truly feel he is going to erase many of Hilary's leads in upcoming states. I have even mentioned (here and to friends) that I feel like we are living through a future Ken Burns documentary.
Please understand I am NOT saying Hillary Clinton would "steal" this thing. I just don't trust the people in charge of the Dem party right now and I am completely dumbfounded that ONE state has had a primary and she has this crazy edge.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)eom
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)8 of that 30 were superdelegates.
It was a horribly biased report. The Superdelegates don't cast their votes until the convention. The reason they exist is to avoid a brokered convention. If 3 candidates split earned delegates the SDs could put one candidate over the top (presumably the leading candidate).
I think it is extremely unlikely that the SDs will overturn the will of the voters. The candidate with the most earned delegates will most likely be the nominee. If not, the nominee will be seen as illegitimate.
Renew Deal
(81,860 posts)Because of the candidates are close, the delegates could swing the election one way or another. A candidate would win the election by hundreds of delegates and lose at the convention.
Imagine the chaos if it's close and it is clear that super-delegates pick someone else.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The SDs have an investment in the success of the party. Creating an illegitimate nominee is not in their best interest.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)If Sanders is able to win more delegates in primaries and caucuses, they will not go against the will of the people. They know it would be a disaster for them in the general election if they did that. They are mostly elected officials. They may prefer Hillary but they aren't stupid enough to alienate half their voters.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That's like standing in front of a voting booth and saying "You should vote for so and so." SAME difference!!!
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)The way the Clinton campaign counts them as part of her delegate count is really misleading. And they know that.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)talk about them and the electoral college between now and the end.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's nothing new and only deemed nefarious because they're not pledged to Sanders.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which is what is happening here when they post those as totals.
It's like saying you've already had the privilege at early voting before everyone else and have done so already, when as noted, these votes could change if the rest of the votes go more for Bernie later, and they don't want to be viewed as voting outside of what most Americans want, especially when their "votes" as delegates count for far more than just another voter's "vote" counts.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I think there's TOO many superdelegates under current party rules..... They have too much influence in proportion to the party's rank and file. What is it now, roughly a third of the total number required for the nomination?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Just a rotted corrupt corpse poised in front of a corporate feed trough. Sanders is the last shot at restoring traditional Democratic values and bringing fresh blood in. If we fail him, it's all over.
JudyM
(29,250 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)The Democratic Party has had super delegates forever.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)so they yelled at the old guy with the cane. That was brilliant.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)in the primary season. And, no, we haven't had them forever. Only since 1984.
Plus, as has already been pointed out, they are free to change their mind. They are not pledged in the way the delegates selected via caucus or primary are pledged.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... more, Republicans or Democrats, when they say that Clinton has "won" all of those super delegates already, and there are NO superdelegates "won" on the Republican side.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=1
THIS SHIT TURNS OFF VOTERS FOLKS!!!! It looks blatantly like the system is rigged!
Vinca
(50,273 posts)Once Obama picked up steam they fled Clinton. Secondly, should the Democratic party super delegates overturn the popular vote of rank and file Democrats, it would be the end of the Democratic Party. I would run, not walk, to change my affiliation to Independent.
moondust
(19,988 posts)Renew Deal
(81,860 posts)If they can then it is not a theft. If they can, the race is likely over already. If people feel they can't, then anything is possible.