Sanders campaign's new strategy on superdelegates leaves some unimpressed

[SecularMotion]

Retired teachers Rosie Skomitz and Ron Stouffer, part of the raucous crowd that packed an old theater here last week to cheer on a Bernie Sanders revolution, have no love for Democratic superdelegates, the party insiders who have helped Hillary Clinton pad her lead in the race for the nomination for president.

"It takes votes away from people and gives them to the elite," Skomitz said, summing up the typical complaint from the Sanders faithful that the nomination process is undemocratic.

But as Sanders falls further behind Clinton in amassing delegates who will choose the nominee, some of his supporters have replaced their criticism and occasional outright virulence with appeals to those Democratic elites — some of whom have long memories.

You're trying to woo us now, but we remember when you were trashing us," said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, one of 21 superdelegates from the state, the largest of five that hold primaries Tuesday.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-superdelegates-pennsylvania-20160424-story.html

[Hortensis]

1. The question is should supers IGNORE the popular vote

if Sanders decided to "woo" them? This article points out that they've been called a lot of nasty names by Sanders supporters so, and suggests that could affect his ability to woo.

Big deal. That is not the issue. The issue is that IF Sanders went through with this, which is seeming less likely, he would be trying to get the superdelegates to set aside the decision of a large majority of Democratic Party voters. I.e., to set aside democracy itself.

Our superdelegates have never done anything like this. It would be the first time and set a dreadful precedent.

Bernie Sanders is not the man he says he is, nor IMO would his supporters here on DU be the people they say they are if they supported this attempt to overset the popular will.

[MineralMan]

2. What "large majority of Democratic voters?"

Nothing like that exists or is even close to existing. Even the superdelegates can read the results.

They can also read all the hate comments from people claiming to be Sanders supporters on their Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Bad strategy all around.

[Hortensis]

4. Hi, MM. I'm talking about the fact that so far

primary voters have cast far more votes for Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders. Currently over 2,700,000 more people have chosen Hillary. Every indication is that this gap in the popular vote will increase substantially on Tuesday and continue to rise in most primaries thereafter.

Again, IF Sanders could (big, big, big "if&quot use the superdelegate system to put aside both the popular vote and the pledged delegates, that would be blatant election tampering. The superdelegates have never lent themselves anything like that, and that Sanders would ask them to is shocking.

As for Bernie's argument that he is the stronger candidate, he is actually far weaker. This excerpt from Time's The Problem With Bernie Sanders’ Polling Argument genteelly understates the tsunami of character assassination the right would unleash on Sanders if he were our nominee. (This is also only one of the reasons he is a weaker candidate.)

Part of the discrepancy has to do with the early unfamiliarity of the candidates. This year, despite months of frequent coverage on television, social media and the press, Sanders is not as well known as Clinton. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56% of Americans say they know Clinton “a lot” while just 38% say the same as Sanders. And while Clinton’s negative ratings may be baked-in after decades in the public eye, Sanders has not received that kind of scrutiny.

In politics, familiarity breeds contempt. If Republicans viewed Sanders as the likely Democratic nominee, he would face negative advertising and intense scrutiny of his record, on everything from his honeymoon in the Soviet Union to his large spending programs. Like any less well-known candidate, Sanders’ unfavorable ratings would rise as people became more familiar with him, pollsters say.

For now, Sanders serves as a kind of stand-in for the Democratic Party, a lesser-known candidate whose popularity reflects the overall favorability of the party, says Stan Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster. The Democratic Party is viewed more favorably than the Republican Party, with a favorable-unfavorable rating of about 45-47 compared with 31-58 for the Republicans, according to poll averages. That suggests that in a national race between a generic Democrat and a generic Republican, the generic Democrat would win. At this point in the race, that “brand advantage” benefits Sanders.

“He’s kind of a placeholder for Democrats overall. If you have candidate who is pure and you put them against Trump or Cruz” or another Republican, said Greenberg, he or she has the advantage of being a Democrat.

And in the months ahead of a general election, experts say polled opinions are given cheaply. Poll respondents are asked to tell pollsters who they prefer without the burden of making an actual choice, and voters often react by registering their dislike of a candidate. That’s why protest candidates emerge as early frontrunners: Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich in 2011, and Ben Carson last year. That kind of candidate often fades when voters start to buckle down and think in earnest about who they’d actually like to see in the Oval Office.

http://time.com/4305514/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-general-election-polls/

[pdsimdars]

3. You mean there are things people disagree on? Wow! How profound!

Thanks for sharing.