"Bernie Sanders is why superdelegates exist"

[Pryderi]

One of my Facebook "friends" posted this bullshit, so I immediately put her into my "ignore group" until after the election. Bernie is no Humphrey. Rigging the system is no way to run the party. As Susan Sarandon said recently,

" “The status quo is not working, and I think it’s dangerous to think we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, with threats to women’s rights and think that you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”


http://underthebluetarp.blogspot.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-is-why-superdelegates.html

History is a crucial factor in the superdelegate narrative. I bet few supporters of Bernie Sanders remember the 1968 Democratic convention. Besides being noted for violence in Chicago, the 1968 primary resulted in the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, largely decided on the will of party leaders. If, and this is a huge unknown, Robert Kennedy had not been assassinated, the convention may have turned into total chaos.

Humphrey lost a close election to Richard Nixon in November. Democrats responded to the events of 1968 by changing the rules that governed the primary. The process was opened up for the 1972 nomination.

<snip>

I still expect Hillary win the necessary delegates needed for the nomination. But if she should fall a bit short, why would any superdelegate support a candidate who is roughly 2.5 million votes behind Hillary, has failed to give one dollar to help elect other Democrats, and would be destroyed by the Republican nominee?

Wouldn't it be sweet karma if this is what in fact happens?"

"If you think it`s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you`re not in touch with the status quo. " - Susan Sarandon

[thereismore]

1. Sweet karma? That will be when she loses this election. nt

[thereismore]

2. It's the awful legacy of the past 8 years - his words. nt

[pokerfan]

3. All animals are equal, but...

[Baobab]

4. Dammit Janet, I no-

we love you.

[surrealAmerican]

5. It's just plain weird, that complaint.

You read it here frequently too: "Bernie doesn't help down-ticket Dems"?

Clinton is buying the support of super delegates with money from wealthy corporate donors, which makes those down-ticket candidates just as beholden to the 1% as she is.

Sanders, not getting the big dollar donors, is not in any position to do the same.


But, help is not really the same thing as money. What will really help local Democratic candidates the most is getting more voters to the polls. Higher turnout favors Democrats. We need the most inspiring candidate we can find, and Clinton is not that candidate.

[hopemountain]

7. and, where is the proof she is

giving to down-ticket Dems? and which down-ticket Dems? the third way dems hand picked by dws?

[davidpdx]

6. I just unfriended someone this morning, so I hear you on that one

The person had been pretending to support Sanders when in fact he never did. He had posted smears again him and repeated the lies coming out of Camp Weathervane. I hated to do it, but I just couldn't stand it anymore.

[hopemountain]

8. yes, their scent markings

are distinct. the double speak dripping with hypocrisy between the lines is not mistakable.