I'm glad the superdelegate system is different this time around...

[TCJ70]

...and hopefully it will lead to less misreporting around them. I’m sure we all remember DWS coming out and telling the networks they’re doing it wrong:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-national-media-has-be_b_9364170.html

“The way the media is reporting this is incorrect,” Wasserman Schultz told Rachel Maddow of MSNBC on February 20th. “There are not pledged delegates — or ‘super-delegates’ — earned at any of these caucus contests.”

She went on to note that super-delegates are “free to decide [who to vote for] anytime up until July,” and can change their mind at any time — one reason they can’t be reported as being conclusively attached to any particular candidate. “So combining them [the voted-on or ‘earned’ delegates and the super-delegates] at each phase of this contest is not an accurate picture of how this works,” she said.

So this time around they can’t be inappropriately added to any candidates vote count to suggest an appearance of a lead that doesn’t exist. This is a good thing for all candidates this time around. Calling that out isn’t a criticism of anyone, but a praise of the changes the DNC made. Good move, DNC.

[madville]

1. The real danger is if it goes past the first round

Imagine a scenario where Bernie and Joe Biden come into the convention at around 30% each in delegates but neither wins the first round. Now the super-delegates put Biden over the top in the second round, it would be a mess.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Exactly

I've been fearing this scenario ever since the rules changed to not allow superdelegates a vote on the first ballot. We risk being torn apart in a way that makes 2016 look like nothing.

[Garrett78]

6. Sanders will be long gone by then.

[madville]

9. Insert whoever you want

The optics of the super-delegates picking the nominee in a close race are going to really make the losing candidates supporters angry. It could be a scenario where Biden and Harris are 1 & 2 out of the first round and then the super-delegates essentially get to pick.

[SFnomad]

45. The Democrats haven't had a brokered convention since the 50s

It's not likely to happen again. Being the remote possibility that it is, it's not worth stirring the pot about it, now. We'll know in about a year if this is something we're going to have to deal with ... and there is nothing we can do about it now.

[Blue_true]

57. My guess is that if Biden and anyone but Bernie were 1/2 but short of winning the nomination

outright, there would not be an issue or even a second ballot. They would likely meet backstage and do what is best for the party. It will likely only be a problem if Bernie was one of the two.

[LongtimeAZDem]

10. Sanders will never be gone, if history serves.

[Garrett78]

12. 2016 was a much different situation.

To repeat a previous post of mine:

Sanders won't be in a 1-on-1 race, and he won't be running against someone who millions had been conditioned to hate over a period of decades. 2016 was tailor-made for Sanders. He was the only option for the anti-Clinton crowd.

2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire propelled Sanders forward. I don't see him doing as well in those states in 2020, even as they remain 2 of the whitest and most rural states in the US (how wonderful that we give undue influence to a couple of states that don't remotely reflect our electorate). If he does relatively poorly in Iowa and doesn't win New Hampshire, it'll be quite embarrassing for him.

And Super Tuesday, assuming he hasn't already dropped out, will be even worse for him than it was in 2016. He'll lose badly in nearly every contest that takes place on March 3, 2020. Not to mention South Carolina 3 days earlier.

Plus, there will be fewer caucuses in 2020.

He'll find it much tougher to justify sticking around, and I suspect there will be quite a bit of pressure on him to leave the race (including pressure from within his camp).

That there are people who seriously think he's a contender, or even the favorite, is dumbfounding. Reality will provide a swift smack.

[LongtimeAZDem]

20. As long as his followers are chanting his name, he will never stop. I hope I'm wrong,

but I do not believe it. The mere fact that he is in it again, despite the reality you outlined, convinces me that he already has all the "justification" he desires.

He sees himself as a revolutionary, not a politician, and so electoral math doesn't matter to him.

[madville]

46. Bernie is going to have more money than most

And will easily be in the top three as far as delegate totals by the time the convention roles around. I don't get this fantasy that people have that he will drop out with a big bank account from 2nd or 3rd place in a field of 10+ candidates.

I believe it will be Biden, Bernie, and Harris (in that order) left after Super Tuesday and all the rest of the way to the convention. I think Biden wins it and Harris will become his VP to unite the factions created during the primary. Bernie supporters will feel slighted and left out again.

[Garrett78]

48. Money doesn't equate to votes.

Sanders was done after Super Tuesday in 2016 and that'll be even more evident this time.

It's entirely possible that Vermont is the only state he'll win.

[Blue_true]

58. The gathering for Harris of South Carolina sorority women showed the problem for Bernie.

Even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina wipes away any advantage he had. Bernie has a Black voter problem and people like Cornell West and Nina Turner won't help him, they simply won't be able to negate the instate Black women that will be backing either Harris or Biden. The best chance for Bernie in South Carolina is if Biden and Harris are still standing after Iowa and New Hampshire, they could split vote that won't go for Bernie. If Biden or Harris wipes out any lead Bernie has from the first two small states, Bernie is in for a real beating on Super Tuesday and later in Nevada because very large, diverse states will weigh in.

[Garrett78]

59. Nevada caucuses will be held 11 days after NH and a week before SC.

The main impact Sanders may have is preventing Warren, Inslee and some others from being able to make it to Super Tuesday.

Super Tuesday: AL, CA, MA, MN (no longer a caucus state), NC, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA

March 7: LA

March 10: MI, MS, MO, OH

March 17: AZ, FL, IL

And CO (no longer a caucus state) will vote sometime between Super Tuesday and March 17.

I don't see how this can possibly go well for Sanders. Again, this ain't going to be a 1-on-1 race against someone made out to be Cruella de Vil.

[Blue_true]

60. Thanks. For some reason, I thought that Nevada came after South Carolina. nt

[MrsCoffee]

13. He'll stay in Vermont as an Independent.

[Gothmog]

26. I was a pledged Clinton delegate to the national convention

All delegates including pledged delegates have the right to change their votes. That is why real campaigns carefully vet their delegates. I was vetted and I help vet other delegates. If this situation happens, delegates form other candidates would move toward Biden to keep sanders from being the nominee.

I was at the mini riot at the Texas delegation breakfast where sanders delegates marched in and demanded that pledged Clinton delegates condemn Clinton and vote for sanders. It was a fun experience

[madville]

32. The only path to the nomination for Bernie is to win the first round

If it goes to the second round he can't win and that is by design, it's the failsafe in place to prevent a far left nominee.

[roody]

35. Yes. Keep out the progressive.

[lapucelle]

39. How will this keep out Warren and Harris?

They both have better progessive records than Sanders.

[sheshe2]

52. Good question, lapucelle.

Their is more than one progressive in the race!

[mcar]

53. +1000!

[emulatorloo]

40. Sanders didn't invent progressivism and he's not the only progressive candidate

And I’m not really sure what concrete ways he’s moved the goals of progressivism along. Renaming post-offices and creating buzzwords without concrete policy proposals doesn’t really cut it.

Warren for one has solid accomplishments on her resume that help people. I had hoped he would sit out this time and endorse her.

Of course YMMV, will be an exciting primary.

[TwilightZone]

51. There's more than one progressive candidate in the race.

I know that probably comes as a shock.

[floppyboo]

55. not necessarily a mess

The Morning Consult survey shows the majority of Sanders supporters would go to Biden. Happy happy all around! Well, happy for most. Like the Dem party itself, Sanders supporters have differing priorities.

[Garrett78]

2. I just have to point out there's been some revisionist history regarding media coverage.

Here are some 2016 post-New Hampshire headlines from major media outlets that run contrary to claims that the mainstream press minimized Bernie's win in NH by focusing on superdelegates.

From The Guardian:

Bernie Sanders secures decisive win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

Scale of defeat for Clinton will raise questions about her appeal among younger voters and women, especially after closer-than-expected Iowa result last week

From the WSJ:

Bernie Sanders Wins New Hampshire Democratic Primary, Defeating Hillary Clinton

New Hampshire primary results: Sanders victory boosts his momentum heading into states where he’s expected to have weaker showings

From Vox:

Bernie Sanders just easily won the New Hampshire primary. It's a remarkable achievement.

From NBC:

Sanders Trounces Clinton In NH

Will Double Digit Loss Prompt Clinton Campaign Shakeup?

From CNN:

Outsiders sweep to victory in New Hampshire

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders swept to thumping outsider victories in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, seizing on the fury of grass-roots voters to rock the elites who control American politics.

(Absolutely no mention in the lengthy article about superdelegates.)

No, Sanders didn't lose because of media coverage--in fact, he benefited from media coverage against the long-vilified Clinton. And he didn't lose because of superdelegates. He lost because he got crushed among POC and non-millennial women. Revisionist history doesn't change that and superdelegates have never overturned the will of the voters (just ask Obama).

[Hortensis]

5. Excellent post. Completely agree.

[TCJ70]

7. I didn't say he lost because of SDs...

...I said the reporting created a false narrative. That’s not wrong. I’d really appreciate you pointing out the revisionist history here explicitly. I posted a quote from the then head of the DNC saying it was reported improperly. It’s not revisionist history if you have receipts.

Quoting articles about individual primary victories is not a counter to wrong delegate counts being reported.

[Garrett78]

8. Claims have been made and would, in response to your OP, be made again that...

...the mainstream media minimized Bernie's win in New Hampshire and strong showing in Iowa by focusing on superdelegates. In fact, my post is merely a copy and paste from a post I made not long ago when people on DU were claiming just that. I decided to pre-emptively address that claim. Those headlines (not a single mention of superdelegates) are clear evidence that such claims are not grounded in reality.

[Gothmog]

30. Super delegates had nothing to do with sanders losing in 2016

Link to tweet

[TCJ70]

31. I DIDN'T SAY THEY DID. Not sure how many times I have to repeat that...

[LongtimeAZDem]

11. Wow

"Bernie Sanders just easily won the New Hampshire primary. It's a remarkable achievement."

I wonder how anyone could write that with a straight face.

[CentralMass]

14. There are many that report it as a tie in NH and as Hillary increasing her lead due to Super D's

Including from MSNBC and AP News.

The superdejegate system should be eliminated..

[Garrett78]

15. I just Googled "MSNBC 2016 New Hampshire primary" and here's the first article I found:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-makes-history-new-hampshire-landslide/amp

I did the same for the AP: https://www.wdrb.com/news/ap-trump-sanders-take-new-hampshire-primary/article_2b7db431-4466-556e-9291-485d9a6aa711.html

Now, was there coverage that talked about superdelegates? Of course. Just as there was in 2008. But the claim that the mainstream media, generally speaking, minimized Sanders's victories is simply false. I've provided plenty of evidence.

[CentralMass]

16. Here are a few from my google .

Rachael Maddow. Go to about 10:55 on the video if you want to skip the lead in.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/clintons-nh-loss-softened-by-delegate-math-620784707540

From the AP news. Used by news sites across the country.

https://www.apnews.com/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8

I have numerous other links.

[Garrett78]

17. See my last post. I addressed the fact that there was talk of superdelegates, as there always is.

[CentralMass]

19. To my point click on that first link.

It shows a 15-15 delegate tie in a contest where one of the two candidates won by a 22% margin. The liked and well respected host goes onto comment that the popular vote win is meaningless because of the superdelegates. The host (who I like) was a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in Philosophy of Politics.


This is not right. It is undemocratic and the DNC made a step in the right direction with their rules changes however the super delegate ststem should be eliminated all together.

[Gothmog]

25. I support the members of the CBC

Yes, I know that members of the CBC hurt sanders' feelings and so you want to punish them. That is sad. In the real world, Super delegates have voted for the candidate with with most votes and most pledged delegates.

If you are really worried about appearances, then why do you want to punish a group of leaders who are far more important to the success of the party than the people pushing this new rule. I support the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and this new rule will be seen as an insult to these key leaders. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place

The Congressional Black Caucus is against eliminating superdelegates, putting the group at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.

Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter.

It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[LongtimeAZDem]

21. If the Republicans had a superdelegate system, Trump would not be president

[Gothmog]

24. Rep. Cedric Richmond, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, blasts proposed superdelegate changes

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

34. Bingo. Facts trump wishes.

Superdelegates played no actual role in the 2016 nomination. Hillary simply won.

[Gothmog]

37. I saw this close up

[MineralMan]

38. I remember it well.

It was not a good showing on the part of some. Frankly, it was a bit disturbing to me.

[emulatorloo]

41. Good post.

A lot of obsfugation and false framing going on lately

[Hortensis]

4. A minor improvement, but don't think it'll matter squat.

Most media hid information and engaged in massive deception in 2016, for instance, to misrepresent the candidates' chances in order to create a long, fake horse race that would keep people watching, clicking, exposed to advertising.

They do it every election.

They'll do it all over again for 2020 for the same reasons, no matter how strong or weak the candidacies they're using may be, and most people will be taken in for the same reasons.

When pack journalism fixes on a common theme, it takes deliberate self education, looking outside the pack product shoved at everyone from the boob tube, and now Facebook etcetera, to know what's really happening.

[Me.]

18. I'm Not

and worry the party was pushed into the decision because of fear of criticism

[LongtimeAZDem]

22. +1

[TCJ70]

29. If the criticism is accurate...

...it should be responded to.

[Me.]

33. That's Just It

IMHO it was partisan with a goal to change something that had worked quite well until a certain candidate came along

[Gothmog]

23. I disagree-I stand with the CBC on this issue

The CBC and other groups of super delegates will be fighting this idiotic rule change https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/bernie-sanders-dnc-superdelegates-710818

A band of Democratic National Committee superdelegates is staging a revolt against a Bernie Sanders-endorsed plan to reduce their influence in the presidential nominating process, mounting a longshot bid to block the measure when the DNC meets in Chicago next month.

The proposal, a priority of Sanders’ supporters since the Vermont senator‘s defeat in a bitterly contested 2016 primary, would prohibit superdelegates — who made up roughly 15 percent of the delegates during the 2016 convention — from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at a contested national convention.

But even as the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee moved forward with the proposal Wednesday, superdelegates outside of Washington were beginning to organize opposition ahead of the August vote by the full DNC in Chicago.

I prefer to have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus over the support of the persons pushing this rule. It is a long shot but I hope that this rule is defeated

I agree with this super delegate

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who accused Perez of flinching in the face of criticism of the superdelegate process, called the proposal a “craven capitulation to what [Perez] describes as a perception of elitism.”

Connolly, like other opponents of the plan, argued that “disenfranchising the elected leadership of the party” would disconnect elected leaders from the party’s presidential ticket, ultimately weakening its prospects in 2020.

“I also believe the timing is wretched,” Connolly said. “We’re in the midst of the battle of our lives to win back the majority of our House, and to schedule this vote with this recommendation that came out of nowhere … is to me just wretched timing and political malpractice.”

[Me.]

43. Absolutely Agree

a “craven capitulation to what [Perez] describes as a perception of elitism.”

[Gothmog]

27. Eliminating Super delegates will not help sanders but will help Harris

Eliminating superdelegates is not a magical fix for sanders and will not help sanders win the nomination. In fact, this plan will help a real Democrat, Senator K. Harris https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/democratic-party-superdelegate-system-benefits-kamala-harris/

Harris, not Sanders, will be the probable beneficiary of the rules change because of the demographic makeup of the Democratic primary electorate. It would not be an oversimplification to say that the Democrats divide into three rough groups: progressives, centrists, and non-whites. African-Americans are by far the largest share of the last group, totaling nearly a quarter of all Democratic voters nationwide.

Democratic party nomination fights have followed a similar pattern since at least 1984. A candidate appealing to educated, more liberal Democrats challenges a relatively more centrist rival favored by the party establishment; the progressive wins most primaries and caucuses in New England, the West, and Wisconsin, while the centrist wins most of the remaining states. This outcome has historically doomed the progressive, from 1984 challenger Senator Gary Hart to Sanders himself, because there are more centrists than progressives or liberals.

The non-white vote, and especially the African-American vote, plays an underappreciated role in this process. Non-whites almost invariably back the more centrist candidate, providing that person with key support to defeat his or her more liberal challenger. African-Americans and Latinos backed Walter Mondale over Hart in 1984 and Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown in 1992, delivering the nomination to both men in the process. They did so again in 2016, backing Hillary Clinton by margins as large as 80 percent, allowing her to win most Southern and Midwestern primary states as a result.

African-American voters do break from this mold, however, when a serious African-American candidate is running. Jesse Jackson won two states dominated by African-American Democrats in 1984 and swept six Southern states in 1988. Crucially, Barack Obama owed his nomination in 2008 to African-American voters, riding their overwhelming support to win seven Southern states and many delegates in Midwestern and Northeastern states with large, urban black populations. If not for their support, Obama would have merely been yet another failed progressive challenger.

Magic does not work in the real world and eliminating super delegates will not help sanders magically win the nomination

[TCJ70]

28. I didn't say that it will help him...

...only that accuracy in reporting matters for all candidates. And it wasn’t accurately handled last time.

[Gothmog]

36. I strongly disagree

I had to run and be elected as a delegate to the National Convention I saw the process and your claims are wrong. sanders lost because despite winning a number of un-democratic caucuses, sanders got 4 million fewer votes. There will be fewer un-democratic caucuses this cycle and I doubt that sanders will be around after Super Tuesday

In any event, the elimination of super delegates is very likely to help Senator Harris which is great

[Me.]

42. Precisely

Fixing the unbroken


12 less caucus states this time around

[Gothmog]

63. The elimination of undermocratic caususes is a great move

sanders won a large number of his delegates in these undemocratic caucuses

[Me.]

64. Get This

The Iowa poll being touted as 'unbelievable' news is a caucus poll. I saw it on the Chiron on MTP but nobody on DU is mentioning that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=18271

[TCJ70]

50. Your experience as a delegate has nothing to do...

...with the reporting around superdelegates and their votes being counted before they were cast in reporting.

Thanks for your perspective, though.

[Gothmog]

62. The reason you give for the change of the super delegate system is wrong

In the real world, the super delegate system was eliminated to make sanders happy.

I find it sad that sanders is really made at the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus. I still stand with the CBC http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/superdelegates_black_caucus.html

The Congressional Black Caucus, on the other hand, says the super delegate system provides for minority representation that otherwise wouldn't exist at the party's national convention.

Sanders, who hasn't yet conceded the race to Clinton but has no conceivable way to win the nomination, is reportedly still trying to get rid of the super delegate mechanism before he steps aside.

But black lawmakers intend to hold the line. Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, who was formerly the Congressional Black Caucus' communications director, told Politico, "Sanders did a lot of things right in this campaign, he did a lot better than expected. At the same time he seemed to have a lack of understanding or lack of relationships with black leaders that you saw ultimately hurt him in South Carolina and other states with big black electorates. And this is something that the CBC is going to be very passionate and push back against. This is a way that African-American officials can represent their district and have a say in the process. They're not going to go along with this at all."

[madville]

56. Super-delegates were not eliminated

They come back into play if a nominee is not selected in the first round. And a large portion of Sanders supporters pick Biden as their second choice in all the polls I have seen. Bernie dropping out early would be a positive for Biden. I think we go into the convention with Biden around 35%, Sanders and Harris around 30% each. Then with no clear winner in the first round the super delegates come into the mix and pick our nominee, either Biden or Harris.

That's why I predict a Biden/Harris ticket after the primary.

[emulatorloo]

44. Dunno, the most "inaccurate" thing I saw last time was misrepresented Open Secrets data

By opinion bloggers etc who confused (deliberately or not) the difference between individual people’s donations with Corporate Donations.

Hence I could have made a meme that Sanders was in the pocket of BIG SUGAR and BIG UNIVERSITY. But that would have been false and inaccurate. Real people/Employees donated that money to Bernie

That did not stop bloggers etc from putting up such inaccurate information in 2016, and I’ve seen a bit of a revival of the same as the primary season starts up.

Will also remind you of NYT’s “exclusive” on the Mercer’s Clinton Cash book, which was basically debunked before it came out. But that did not stop the NYT’s from spewing falsehoods from the book.

I don’t think reporting on superdelegates was inaccurate as you do. “Reporting” on superdelegates is not why Bernie lost California or any other primary he lost.

IMHO Jeff Weaver’s inability to broaden Bernie’s base beyond the hard core played much more of a role. Weaver threw red meat to us, he did not build coalitions.

I am glad the rules have changed some. Bernie lost with voters. Not because of superdelegates.

I sense there is some effort today to insinuate superdelegates chose the nominee in 2016. (Not by you)

Primary Voters chose the nominee.

The only person I recall wanting to over-rule the will of Primary Voters by using Superdelegates was Jeff Weaver, Senator Sanders’ campaign manager.

[floppyboo]

47. I am also glad. No more misleading predictions.

I remember well - it was 'Bernie math'. Anytime you pointed out a possibility of a Sanders win, the super delegate vote was waved around like a 'surrender now' banner. This change should keep the conversation less divisive.

[TCJ70]

49. I don't get people denying it happened...

...I literally have the quotes from the person in charge of the whole thing saying it wasn’t being reported properly.

[floppyboo]

54. Maybe they just read the subject line?

I hear that's a thing these days

[radius777]

61. I agree with the superdelegate changes, caucuses should also be banned.

The goal for any political party should be to (a) maximize voter participation while preventing vote meddling/ratfucking, thus closed primaries w/early voting are best (b) prevent party leaders (superdelegates) from publicly stating how they intend to vote (c) prevent supers from voting on the first ballot (d) but in the case of deadlock, then the supers should decide the nominee on the second and subsequent ballots instead of unknown party hacks and backroom dealers. (e) the supers should take into account how the first ballot went ie how the voters voted and the overall feel of how the primaries went.

Sanders does have valid beefs against the 2016 nominating process, but he clearly benefited from the highly undemocratic caucus system which has low turnout and is dominated by activists.

He also clearly benefitted from the fact that the media loves to hate Hillary, loves a horserace, and was just aching to build someone up like Sanders.. who did excite an element of the base (the left and youth) but not most of the base which heavily includes party loyalists, moderates, women, PoC, etc.

The issue is that Sanders is not a Democrat, and has always branded himself an Independent, and railed against Dems well before the Clintons came onto the scene and moved the party to the center (saving the party from itself, which had suffered numerous landslides due to the perception of being out of touch w/mainstream voters).

It is not just that Sanders is to the left - he is alt (independent) left, and not a left-liberal in the Dem tradition. Thus, he saw no need to build strong ties within the party, raise money for the party etc over his many years in politics. This means he had no support from party leaders when he needed it. ALL parties (including far left ones that Sanders may be more sympathetic to) work this way, by you know, politicking and building relationships.

[Gothmog]

65. I am glad that there will be fewer caucuses in 2020

Link to tweet

[TCJ70]

66. Man, you really dug this up. And yeah, that's also a good change. N/t

[Gothmog]

67. Super delegates may be in play at the convention

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

68. Democratic Candidates Are Preparing For A Contested 2020 Convention -- By Courting Superdelegates

Link to tweet

[TCJ70]

69. You can stop...

...it's not like you're bouncing this to the top of the forum or anything.