2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSuper delegates exist to help PREVENT someone under threat of indictment from getting nominated.
Not just for that reason, of course, but in effect, that kind of thing is part of the reason they exist.
By making it hard for any candidate to become the nominee through pledged delegates alone, the super delegates provide a way for the party to make sure that the Dem nominee is not someone whose candidacy will blow up in their faces.
So for all the talk about how the SDs rig the system in favor of the establishment or whatever other complaints people--typically Sanders supporters--have about them, ironically, if Hillary gets the wrong news at the wrong time, the super delegates may be the way she loses the nomination. If the nomination were simply granted to whoever has the most pledged delegates (which, if always true, would obviate the need for super delegates at all), Hillary is almost a lock. The fact that the supers can look at the big picture and override such criteria is a threat to Hillary's winning the nomination, and the SD's ability to do that is the very reason they exist. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but if the FBI recommends indictment between now and the convention, the SDs could decide she's too risky a bet for November, and then basically justify their raison d'etre.
That doesn't mean that Sanders is necessarily the beneficiary, though... but that's another thread.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...or constitutes a real threat.
Maybe they should read DU.
kpola12
(78 posts)A lot of things could still happen.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)no charges will be filed then the whole thing goes away.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)With long legal exposure. I bet you did not consider that
And anyway. The FBI is the one recommending charging or not charging. One step at a time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to maintain the Establishment that they are so deeply entrenched in. They are rewarded by special consideration from the DNC.
If we want to regain our democracy from the corporate-oligarchy, we must throw out the corp-owned politicians. Sadly there are Democrats willing to sell their souls to Big Business at the peril of those struggling.
LuvLoogie
(7,011 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Occam's Razor suggests relatively few people think the email-server story will keep Clinton from winning.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clintons use of a private server for her emails, but in nearly all instances that were prosecuted aggravating circumstances that dont appear to be present in Clintons case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Politicos examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.
Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.
TPMs Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. To a person, Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is very far-fetched.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Don't hold your breath!
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And their number one goal is to keep progressives out of power. The corporate-oligarchy that Clinton represents favor big corporations over the People. 2.5 million homeless children and there are DEmocrats that will still support the corporations and ignore the children.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)Maybe he can clear all this super delegate stuff up, why it was such a wonderful thing then but not now, and tell us why he was so involved in its creation.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-soboroff/superdelegate-creator-tad_b_87857.html
Based on the date of that interview, his desire to take another look at the delegate system had nothing to do with the prospect of a Sanders campaign. Sometimes people see something a little differently 25 years later, after they see how their ideas have been working out..
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... Hillary Clinton being a Goldwater girl when she was still a teenager but is still constantly used here to denigrate her? I should give a full grown man a pass when a teenager won't be forgiven? We get it. If it favors Bernie Sanders it's okay. If it favors Hillary Clinton it's not okay.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)You asked a question, I pointed you toward a video interview to help answer it, that's all.
As for the rest, I've never taken Hillary to task for being a Goldwater girl as a teenager. I haven't said whether I think Super Delegates are a good or bad thing nor asked you to give Tad Davine a pass. That said, if something you put together 25 or 30 years ago looks a little different now than it did then, then I don't see where revisiting it is necessarily a bad thing.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... was simple. Tad Divine helped create the superdelegates system which after many years he has altered his opinion of it. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl when she was a teenager. After just a few short years she has altered her opinion concerning Republicans. As for the rest your commen on not being one of those who used the Goldwater girl meme, I never said you did it in particular but that doesn't cover the many who have used it. The super delegate system he helpef to create is still in place, therefore his revisiting has not had much of an impact on changing it. One thing is for sure. If the super delegate system had favored Bernie it would be a great thing to have. Any denial of that would be silly.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...the video and discussion about it is posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512098764
MFM008
(19,816 posts)Supposed democrats on the floor with republicans praying for her to be indicted.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)People don't always fall into line.
Personally, I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Pray harder dead enders, It ain't working.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)i.e. supporting the winner of the pledged delegate vote.
The Sanders camp has been screaming about Emailgate for months; the voters have rejected it as an issue to be concerned with.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...it's hard to be sure what "will of the people" in July is, when many people expressed their preference in Feb and March.
You can say "The Sanders camp has been screaming about Emailgate for months" but outside bubbles like DU, that's not true at all. Sanders himself famously dismissed it as a relevant campaign issue, saying that the process will play out, and in the mean time, there are much more important things to talk about.
And if the worst to come out of it is last week's report, I don't think it will derail things for Hillary. The question is a hypothetical one, what if a heavier foot drops between now and convention time, like a recommendation for indictment. The people who expressed the will of the people in March were not necessarily expressing a preference for someone who the FBI said should be indicted. But we're not going to run all the primaries again.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That is all that matters.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There is no need for SDs at all unless they are expected to override the pledged delegates when necessary.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)So, you can go pick a fight with history, bro. Many supers endorsed Hillary in 2008, then switched when Obama became the clear pledged delegate winner.
The only conceivable case/person I'd ever entertain the doomsday scenario would have been if that fascist shitweasel Lyndon LaRouche had ever somehow wound up as a pledged delegate winner. That would've truly been a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.
Not liking Hillary, or still holding out for a bogus Indictment Fairy to land, is not an emergency scenario.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Poor Bernie.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)vote.
Another 14 days of this.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)I am a Sanders supporter. On one hand, I hope for anything that increases the chances that the country gets what I think will be a better president, but my sense of fairness still would not hope for indictment unless it were truly justified... which is what the FBI is in the process of determining.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to thesquanderer (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Fair enough. We'll all just sit back and wait for an indictment.
merrily
(45,251 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)riversedge
(70,242 posts)Skink
(10,122 posts)The email issue is a different matter.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)The Indictment Fairy is pure right-wing created propaganda. Berners who "believe" that fantasy would be better described as wishing it to be true, for nakedly partisan reasons or irrational Hillary Hatred.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)which in the abstract would include a candidate under serious threat of indictment. I'd agree that threat is not that substantial today, but that could shift depending on the FBI report. I don't think it is "pure right-wing created propaganda" as no one is denying that the FBI is still investigating.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Is that people are slinging stuff at Hillary left and right, looking for any reason at all to keep her from becoming the candidate, even though she has more votes. Coming up with conspiracy theories every time she wins a primary, finding a zillion things that supposedly show she's unfit and will have to be dragged off to jail, blowing anything at all negative way out of proportion, whatever.
I voted for Bernie and I wish he had gotten more votes. But the fact is that Hillary is winning, and she will almost certainly win. She isn't going to be indicted for anything. The superdelegates are going to follow the will of the voters. If they were going to swing the election, they'd swing it toward her rather than away from her, because they exist to keep non-establishment candidates from having much chance of getting the nomination. Which is totally unfair and I think we should get rid of them, but she'd win regardless so that's beside the point in this particular election season.
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Who knew....
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)step aside for the good of the party and country? Someone like that? Are there really people like that?
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)They exist to stop someone like Bernie and McGovern from stealing the election ...and losing.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)I'm not familiar with this. Link by any chance?
Either way, as I said elsewhere, they were created to help block any candidate who they consider a liability or otherwise undesirable. That includes your scenario, but many others as well.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Seems logical given what we know.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)The question is one of what happens if what has happened so far turns out not to be the worst of it for Hillary.
onenote
(42,714 posts)the nominating process that they might otherwise not have. It's not a throwback to the cigar filled, closed room decision making of yore, but rather an intentional check on the process to make sure that the Democratic Party nominee is someone who the party's leaders feel would make the best candidate.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)..."an intentional check on the process to make sure that the Democratic Party nominee is someone who the party's leaders feel would make the best candidate" which is not far from how I summed it up in the OP, "to make sure that the Dem nominee is not someone whose candidacy will blow up in their faces." "Best candidate" may be hard to define (or hard for everyone to agree on), but however you see it, it can look different in July than it did in February.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)have issues that they are paid to push ahead of any non-paid-for advocacy so they prefer a candidate on the take over a straight up candidate because the candidate on the take can be controlled to support the paid-for issue.
These people are not likely to save the party from an indicted nominee; they want a nominee who is as dependent upon them as possible. A strong, independent candidate is anathema to the superdelegates.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)delegates:
Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials dont have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists, Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's the only explanation that makes sense, not that she was announcing that the DNC is now done with activists of all kinds.
There are such things as 'good' and 'bad' activists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)you can't be the nominee? And if you get someone under threat of indictment you want as the nominee, change the rule then.
That's just as much bullshit as SDs.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)If the pledged delegates break rank on the first vote, that would be an example of what I was talking about, SDs exercising their power to avoid a candidate who they think will have too many issues in November. The remaining question would be, would they necessarily switch to Sanders, or could they abstain to allow the DNC to maneuver another option on a second ballot. I *think* they would go to Sanders, but I'm not certain. As Merrily said in post #27, they may not be so thrilled with him either, but OTOH, it would be hard to get anyone else to get the required number of delegate votes. But at this point this whole scenario is still unlikely to happen anyway.