Shaking fists at the sky!

[Stuckinthebush]

The GD-P "Dems" are angry about those darn super delegates! How naughty of the party to have this weird group!

You see, according to Sanders supporters they are Un-democratic and are terrible. They don't seem to understand that the PARTY installed this concept in the 70s to prevent a populist non Democrat to win without the will of the PARTY.

At this stage of the game, the PARTIES are choosing their nominee. This includes votes from PARTY affiliates like you and me, and special votes from PARTY officials. The democratic process of one person one vote applies to the national election. This ain't that.

This is when the PARTY decides who best represents the PARTY.

Right now the leaders are not digging the non party guy trying to be the PARTY nominee.

Clinton will be our nominee because she is the only Democrat in the PARTY race.

[William769]

1. Also she has been a loyal Democrat for years.

Not someone that constantly trashes the Democratic party.

[Tommy2Tone]

18. Exactly!

I guess what bothers me most about the insurgents is they are not Dems and like you said have no use for any Democrat. The party would be destroyed if Bernie is the nominee.

[leftofcool]

2. Hillary is the only Democrat in the primary race.

Of course the Democratic Party will choose her. Why would they choose a non-Democrat to represent the Party? What part of "this is the Party of Democrats" don't the GDPers get?

[Stuckinthebush]

3. Right

As if the Democratic leaders would switch their support from the long time Dem to a socialist. Oops....I mean Democratic Socialist who isn't a Democrat.

[ismnotwasm]

4. I think it's pretty funny

Along the lines of ironical humor.

[Iliyah]

5. Majority of them are not Dems.

Belonging to a party you would think you learn how they function, especially during election time.

The Dems went with HRC in both IA and NH.

[Tommy2Tone]

19. Did not know she won the Dems in NH as well?

Do you know the numbers?

[freebrew]

36. Every state has its own rules...

fer instance: I vote Dem w/o fail. I haven't 'joined' the party. I don't have to 'join' in MO to vote in the primaries.

So, when Bernie wins, DWS won't be able to screw with the rules anymore.

The superdelegates will vote for the winner of the districts they represent.
Anything else is undemocratic and will likely result in a big loss for the party.

It sounds like the folks here won't vote for Bernie when he wins???!!!

[hamsterjill]

77. There are rules, and I'm sure that Mr. Sanders is savvy enough to have read and understood the rules

I haven't seen him complaining about super delegates. I've only seen snippy posts on DU already suggesting that something beyond the rules of the party is going to take place. No one here or anywhere else has a crystal ball. Let the process play out and let's all just see how it ends. The rules have been in place for decades, so I don't think there will be any foul play. If there is something amiss, I'm sure the Sanders camp will defend against it in the proper manner, and based on the rules.

I've also not seen any post in this thread that suggests that someone will not be voting for Bernie should he be the nominee. I'll be voting for Hillary in the primary. If Bernie becomes the eventual nominee, I will vote for him. But I prefer Hillary because of her experience in foreign policy.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Let'em be angry all they want. It just shows how little they know about the Dem Party.

This is the Democratic Party primary election. They have rules and the super delegate rule is to strengthen the Democratic Party, not to weaken democracy. If they don't like it, they can start their own political Party so they can create their own rules.

Those complaining about super delegates not being democratic can't be serious! They're most likely the very same people who alert and hide posts that attempt to vet their Independent Socialist candidate running under the Democratic Party banner - the same guy who's been chastening longtime Democrats for all his 25+ years because they won't do as he says?? Seriously?? There's a word for people like that. It starts with an "H" and ends with "ypocrite".

[shenmue]

8. Yes

[GusBob]

11. This, this a thousand times THIS

thank you for this

[Stuckinthebush]

14. My respect for you is enormous!

Rock on, BCD!

[BlueCaliDem]

140. Aw, thanks, SitB. I feel the same about you.

, too!

[treestar]

138. +1

Note how the Democratic party was supposed to bow down to Bernie and let him fix them, because he's the only true Democrat, doncha know? That was what they thought would happen? The whole system must be changed to placate newcomer Bernie! We bow to his purity!

[72DejaVu]

7. Maybe Sanders should have found a party with rules he liked

and tried to take over that one.

[DesertRat]

9. You explained it perfectly

Simple and to the point.

[George II]

10. Everybody knew the rules going into this primary season, no secrets.

[yallerdawg]

12. Maybe they should try "Liberal Underground"...

or "Progressive Underground" or "Socialist Underground."

I mean, they're going to need it in a few weeks anyway!

Especially if Senator Sanders (I-VT) declares himself the self-appointed gatekeeper of progressive qualification in the Democratic Party - and eliminates everyone except himself and his supporters.

Once a 'party of one' always a 'party of one'!

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Democratic Socialist Underground

That's the ticket.

Leave us Dems to the Democratic Underground.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. Because he's not a member of the party. I don't get why that's so hard for them to grasp.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. They have contempt for the party

Simple truth.

[SunSeeker]

17. Yup. Bernie won NH by packing the polls with Independents.

Hillary and Bernie actually split the vote when it came to registered Dems.

[Stuckinthebush]

21. Yes, in progressive NH

They split the Dems. In the rest of the country she out polls him with Dems.

March will be pretty.

[SunSeeker]

26. Yes, and NH has a higher percentage of Sanders friendly Independents than the rest of the US.

New Hampshire allows independent voters -- a substantial part of the voting population -- to vote in the party primary of their choosing. Interestingly, Sanders and Clinton essentially tied among Democrats -- but Sanders won independents nearly 3-to-1. Twice as many independents voted in the Democratic primary (percentage-wise) in New Hampshire than caucused with the Democrats in Iowa.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1482561

[justhanginon]

20. I've been a Democrat all my life and always voted for Democrats.

I am not about to switch now and vote for a DOC, "Democrat of Convenience". I wonder how long it will take for Sanders to switch back to whatever the hell he is or was after the primaries are over.
Hillary is an infinitely superior candidate who does not proffer unrealistic and unattainable ideas which in the real world have no chance of being enacted. She is a hard working loyal Democrat and will get things accomplished. The real Democratic party knows this and I hope all will vote accordingly.

[Stuckinthebush]

22. Amen

THat would be a great question to Sanders.

"Will you promise to switch affiliation to Democrat if you lose the nomination?"

He will say, "No".

[KitSileya]

23. They really don't realize how duplicitous Sanders is being here

He is trying to become the leader of a political party he doesn't want to be a member of, just because he knows he has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency on his own. If that isn't selfish, I don't know what is.

[Stuckinthebush]

27. Damn. I never thought of that.

Whoa. I love it. Great point!

[KitSileya]

32. I had to double-check myself

Of course, the President is the leader of their party, so that is what he is aiming for. In my search, I fund an article in the Atlantic that spells out how problematic it is for the Democratic Party if Sanders wins the nomination, but personally, I was just thinking of how sneaky and underhanded it is that Sanders want to become the leader of the Democratic Party, but refuses to say straight out that he wants to be a member of the party. I mean, it's one thing if he changed his mind and didn't want to be an independent anymore - after all, his colleague Jim Jeffords went from being Republican to being Independent, caucusing with the Dems, so Sanders could go from I to D. However, Sanders deflected questions about remaining a Dem, and he's still an I in the Senate. As I said, I find that very duplicitous.

Bernie Sanders's Problem With Democrats
Will the Democratic Party nominate a candidate who hasn’t been a member of their party, and who has long denounced it?

[wysi]

33. I don't think they really care...

It's more about the guy promising the unicorns and rainbows, and not the long-term future of the party.

[KitSileya]

39. I know. However, I like to expect better of them.

As I expect better of Sanders. I am not giving them or him a pass. I am not stooping to their level.

[FloridaBlues]

24. I would think most of the people posting have never joined their local dem party to know the rules

On the primary races.

[Stuckinthebush]

25. Why would they?

They aren't Democrats. They are Democratic Socialists!

[workinclasszero]

28. Hillary is the only democrat in the primaries

Bernies history with and opposition to the democratic party is well known.

He said he would be a hypocrite to run as a democrat and here we are.

[72DejaVu]

29. Bernie fan logic

some friends of mine on FaceBook are so outraged that the NH superdelegates are not voting the same way the state did, that they are demanding that our superdelegates in Maine announce their support for Sanders, even though we haven't voted yet.

[Stuckinthebush]

30. Funny. What is the point of a super delegate then?

I don't think they understand the process very well.

[72DejaVu]

35. Well many of them are new. Some never heard the term "super delegate" before today

Of course, that doesn't stop them from declaring themselves political experts.

[ciaobaby]

31. Good God

Why even have a primary if the "Party" will decide who represents best?
I guess your idea of democracy is to say to hell with the people who vote, we know what's best.

So condescending and patriarchal.

If Clinton is "chosen" to be the nominee, she will likely lose as no one likes to have their vote disregarded by a party that calls itself 'democratic".

Good luck with this tactic !

[wysi]

34. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...

... they are headed for a brokered convention, meaning that the party will pick the nominee.

It pays to know some history.

[Treant]

38. It's a theoretical argument only.

Mathematically speaking, Sanders just passed two of three very friendly states. He starts racking serious losses starting in NV and it just gets worse in SC. Even today, he's behind in delegate math already compared to what Clinton requires to win.

Super Tuesday is the beginning of the end for him.

So no, this won't come to pass...because he won't dominate the delegate count and won't have any chance of being the nominee.

Welcome to the Hillary Clinton Group, by the way.

[Stuckinthebush]

90. Yes, indeed. Theoretical only

No way in hell Sanders gets a bump on March 1

[72DejaVu]

109. Superdelegates WERE elected

When you elect Democratic Senator, Representative or Governor, you elected a super delegate.

The state party chairs, vice chairs and DNC members who are superdelegates were elected by the members of the party, either at their convention or through the democratically elected state committee.

[seaotter]

37. Shaking fist at sky, we don't need any of that!

[CajunBlazer]

100. I have been reading your posts on this thread - Who are you supporting in this race?

[Catch2.2]

40. After reading this thread...

I am very disappointed with Hilary supporters (at least the ones posting here). The tone, ignorance, & arrogance. Bragging and boasting that it's not the people that matter, but instead the Democratic party establishment...and being ok with that! At first glance, I thought the first couple replies were right wing trolls pretending to be members here. Sadly this was not true. Shameful thread.

For the People by the People.

[KitSileya]

41. Yes, because letting independents and republicans choose the Democratic nominee

is just fine. Why should actual Democratic party members, elected officials in the Democratic party have more to say about the party leader than independents who scorn said party?

[seaotter]

44. Basically , all it takes to be a member of the Democratic Party is to declare such.

That is what is done when they request a Dem. ballot. All this "I was here first" shit is just noise. We are a party with a large and ever-expanding tent. Get over your little selves.

[Treant]

45. Sort of correct.

And it might be salient if we were discussing registering for the Democratic Party.

We're not. We're discussing being nominated to become the Presidential candidate for said party. The superdelegates, about ten percent of the party vote, are reserved for Party officials.

If you're saying that Bernie didn't know the rules, he's ignorant. If you're saying he won't play by the rules, then he's not a Democratic candidate. If you're saying he can't win by those rules...well, that's just too bad and perhaps he shouldn't have agreed to those rules when he threw his hat into the ring.

I won't tell you to get over your little self, as you just told us. I'll simply tell you to read through the rules--that your candidate agreed to--before speaking.

[seaotter]

48. Super delegates will eventually vote with the people. To "claim" them at this point is disingenuous,

at best. No matter, the Democrats who vote will make the decision. Thems the rules.

[Treant]

54. Argument shift.

Rejected. Since you ducked it, I'm forced to assume you cede the previous argument.

Also, incorrect; superdelegates are remarkably reliable historically. And in this case, it's a Democratic candidate versus some guy who registered as a Democrat ten minutes before the race--and has a lousy history of party support and a long history of noisy criticism.

So good luck with that and all.

[seaotter]

63. No, just a bit of reality.

The "supers" will bend and quake with the polls. After all , they are politicians. Whether 10 minutes before the race, or 30 years, all are equal in this large tent party. And rightfully so. Your post seems to smack of some sort of "native-ism". Hardly a core value of the Democratic party.

[Treant]

68. Citation Required

Very few have ever been faithless. Also, thanks for the insult. It means you lack a cogent argument and that we're done here.

[seaotter]

69. No "insult" just an observation.

Why do you not like a "big tent", inclusive party? I do.

[Treant]

73. Welcome to my block list.

Now you're simply asking leading questions as you've been schooled on the way party rules have been for more than forty years--and you were found wrong on every point. Rather than waste time with you, you're gone.

[seaotter]

75. I'm hurt.

[Stuckinthebush]

94. They don't like the rules

and like to say that they are undemocratic. They fail to understand that it is an organization that picks its nominee. The general public doesn't get to pick its nominee. Very basic.

[leftofcool]

56. Wrong!

Sorry, it isn't about who gets the most votes, it is about who gets the most delegates. Thems the rules. Take your complaints to GDP.

[Treant]

67. +1000

Obama simply played the superdelegate game better than Clinton did in 2008 and shut her out.

There hasn't yet been a case where the superdelegates would have decided the race, but this particular contest is tailor-made for that if Bernie were to win the most delegates, but not enough to dominate without the superdelegates.

That won't happen. Bernie is damaged goods in March and gone at the beginning of June.

[seaotter]

74. The "supers" will not decide the race.

Most of them know that would be suicide for their own careers.

[seaotter]

71. No complaints.

I have every confidence that when the time comes, the "supers" , as a whole, will do what is right.

[Stuckinthebush]

95. Which is to support the Democrat

Who the majority of Dems will be supporting.

This argument about supers is moot because Bernie has no shot with the Democrats coming up.

[seaotter]

98. You mean "support the Democratic nominee".

[Stuckinthebush]

103. In this case, the Democrat

The non Democrat will never be the nominee.

[seaotter]

105. This, is, of course, just your opinion.

[Stuckinthebush]

108. It's math

and logic.

But, ok.

[seaotter]

110. There are too many variables involved to reach such a static result. (that is math, too)

But ok.

[Stuckinthebush]

116. Not really

It's pretty simple. Look at the delegate count in each state. Look at the polling. Feel free to adjust a little for some magical country wide Bernie bump. Multiply the percentage of won delegates in each state by the total number of delegates. Show me how he wins given the polling and demographic issues that face Bernie in the upcoming states.

He would have to win a majority of states coming up with Texas as a big one. Plus, he'd have to get Clinton loyalists who are superdelegates to switch allegiance to the non Democrat.

The probability of both of these happening is infinitesimally small.

[seaotter]

118. This is why we have elections, instead of haveing "speculators" decide.

[Stuckinthebush]

119. Yes

And the probability of the Democrats voting for Sanders to be the nominee is small. That's math based on polling which is pretty accurate. Predictive modeling.

Nate Silver does a great job at it. Check his predictions out.

[seaotter]

120. small does not equal zero. (that is math, as well)

[Stuckinthebush]

121. Conceded

You get your tenth of a percent chance.

[72DejaVu]

46. The party ought to be open to anyone who wants to join it and participate

Letting people just walk in and seize control, yeah, that's another matter.

[seaotter]

50. Here, Here!

[KitSileya]

47. Not in every state.

In NH, for example, you don't have to support the Democratic party to vote in the primary. We know how despicable republicans are, and you don't want the Democrats to have a safety valve in case they decide to throw a spanner in the works of electing the party leader?

But then, I guess some people don't care to have a party leader that actually supports the party and its elected officials anyway.

[seaotter]

52. All are, and should be welcomed.

This is the "peoples" party, after all.

[KitSileya]

57. So you wouldn't mind if independents who don't support the Democratic party

got to choose the Democratic nominee? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess, but I would prefer if Democrats, people who pay membership dues (in labor and support, if necessary) had more of a say in that matter.

[seaotter]

64. When "the rules" are kept intact, so be it.

[Stuckinthebush]

97. Welcomed with open arms

Our long standing leadership will have a disproportional influence, however, in determining the future leaders. That's how it works. Democrats like it.

[seaotter]

99. Rules can be changed.

[Stuckinthebush]

102. Why would we do that, seaotter?

This process works great.

[seaotter]

107. Maybe, but it is an option.

[72DejaVu]

113. Perhaps, if Bernie does not prevail

his supporters can work within the party to change those rules in the future.

But, he joined the party in full knowledge of how the process works.

[seaotter]

115. Rules could, theoreticaly, be changed by the rules committee just prior to the convention.

No need to wait.

[BlueMTexpat]

125. Can you please cite to a rule that allows

this to happen in the middle of an election cycle? Otherwise, you are spouting nonsense.

Please also be aware that you are posting in the Hillary Clinton Group.

We are staunch supporters of Hillary here and we actually LIKE her. So if you just want to drop your little tidbits to cause dissension, please go to GD-P or Bernie's Group and have at it.

Either play nice or get gone!

[72DejaVu]

134. Well, that's true

But then, it would be the Clinton supporters who would feel they had been cheated.

And,if it will be difficult for Hillary to prevail without winning over the Sander's supporters, it's hard to imagine Bernie carrying more than a handful of states without hers.

[Treant]

43. You fail to understand

This isn't an election where popular vote wins. It's a nomination where party leaders are given a voice in who gets elected to represent their party.

It should be little surprise that officials are hesitant to endorse a carpetbagger and constant historic critic of the Democratic party, and are unwilling to cede complete control to a process that frequently allows Republicans to intervene.

Also to the point, when Bernie runs in his own party, he can create the rules as he wishes. Bernie decided to run as a Democrat, and agreed to the rules. He doesn't get to whine about it now, or claim he didn't understand the rules. If he didn't read it or wasn't clear, he should have been before he changed parties and threw his hat into the ring.

To date, he's made very little effort in amassing superdelegates, a part of the process for forty years. That's his failing and his fault.

[KitSileya]

51. Good point!

I'm not sure I'd use a term as historically loaded as 'carpetbagger', but when Sanders decided to seek the Democratic nomination, surely he read up on the process.

[Treant]

60. We'll agree to disagree.

I call him a carpetbagger to the whole party since he declared his candidacy before the ink was dry on the party change form.

Which I might be able to forgive (although I didn't with Specter in Pennsylvania and refused to vote for him). But when you spend decades complaining about the Democrats and suddenly want to become one (then instantly declare as a Presidential candidate), there's no way I'd take him seriously.

[KitSileya]

76. Yes, we'll agree to disagree on the word choice,

but I totally agree with you on the opinion.

Months ago, I was fifty-fifty on Clinton and Sanders, liking his economic policies and her policies on intersectional issues. But reading DU and other places, and seeing how inflexible and closed off to constructive criticism he is and how much fortitude and grace she has, I am now a Clinton supporter. Considering how much they howled for her to run, how they hounded her to run, only to start attacking her like crazy when she started to run - well, I'm surprised she hasn't said f%&k this and gone home. She has been working to help women, children, minorities on the national stage for over 25 years. She has ample bona fides as a Democrat. While Sanders and his supporters are acting so entitled - they claim she feels she is entitled to the Presidency, but he and his supporters feel entitled to have the entire Democratic party just follow him like a docile dog. Democrats aren't dogs, they're jackasses, and ornery ones as well!

[Treant]

79. If I were her,

I would have said "*@ this, I'm going back to my speaking engagements. Have fun."

Of course, I don't consider the Presidency as a job I would ever wish to have, so there's that, and I'm completely not a people person. I do not kiss babies.

And yes, I'm ornery, too. I was low end neutral on Sanders at first (that whole wasn't a Democrat thing reduced his initial score, so to speak), but the more I looked, the less I liked.

Am I 100% on Clinton? Of course not, she's a bit further right than I prefer on social issues, and has other problems. But she's a good, solid candidate for President...and I don't feel Bernie is.

[KitSileya]

86. Yes, of course Clinton isn't perfect.

I don't expect her to be. I want my candidate to listen to criticism and advice to become better. I feel that Clinton does that. She is willing to listen. She is willing to work with the other side, and as much as I would like to burn down the play house in order to stick it to the Republicans, that's not what the country needs. It will only give the victory to the republicans. The pipe dream that Sanders has of peoples' power sweeping Washington - well, he clearly didn't learn from Wendy Davis, who brought a huge protest to bear, and still lost. Or the protesters against Scott Walker. I mean, it irks me that the President has to work with the absolutely batshit insane teabaggers, I want purity politics too. But it won't accomplish anything, while Clinton has it on record that she is able to get moderate republicans to co-sponsor legislation, and get things done bit by bit. Just look at Flint - she asked what needed to be done, while Sanders postured. I don't see that the Governor has resigned yet, even though Sanders told him to.

[BlueMTexpat]

127. Bottom line for me too.

[treestar]

139. Exactly!

Great post!

[seaotter]

53. "party leaders" will fall in line with the votors, or they will no longer be "party leaders"

[leftofcool]

59. Nope!

[seaotter]

65. Yup.

[wysi]

70. So where were all the Sanders supporters, progressive warriors to the last...

... in 2014? Stayed home I guess. Fat chance they'll show up to vote unless Bernie is on the ticket.

[seaotter]

80. Your wrong.

most "progressive warriors" that I know always vote. I do.

[wysi]

82. Anecdotal evidence is not admissible

Dem turnout in 2014 was staggeringly small. Progressives stayed home in droves.

http://prospect.org/article/one-reason-democrats-lost-so-big-midterms-exceptionally-low-voter-turnout

[seaotter]

84. Someone stayed home, maybe it was 3rd wayers.

[Lucinda]

49. Our primaries are to nominate the DEMOCRATIC nominee for the presidency

So, some of us tend to find people who have been repeatedly told about the delegate process to be a little comical when they finally see it working as we said it does, and are now getting all bajiggity.

And if I am correct in reading that it's being spun as the DNC "awarding" supers rather than those individuals making their own choice, which has been going on for decades, and which COULD have gone to Bernie if he worked with Dems much, as somehow corrupt, then I think the arrogance you speak of isn't with the Clinton supporters.

[seaotter]

55. A moot point, as the "supers" will fall in line with the voters.

You can count on that.

[leftofcool]

62. No they won't

What part of "this isn't a popularity contest" don't you get? Super delegates will nominate a Democrat, period!

[seaotter]

66. Yup, one of the two running.

[Lucinda]

72. Well yeah, because Hillary have the delegates she needs soon enough.

But the vast majority stayed loyal to her in 08.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html


So should Sanders do well and it be a close race, Hillary's supers will make the difference, just like they did for Obama in 08.

[seaotter]

81. If that's the way it goes, ok.

[Lucinda]

83. The super delegates have been part of the primary process for almost 50 years

There really isn't anything abnormal about it. Bernie's problem, and why he only has a handful of supers as opposed to other election years, is that he spent the last 25 years trashing the Dem party. Very few of his peers support him at all. That should tell you something about how he would be as POTUS.

[seaotter]

85. No one "has" the supers until their votes are cast.

And, the rules could always be changed. And "supers" do not sit on the rules committee, or the credentials committee.

[Lucinda]

87. They are committed. And rarely change unless someone drops out, then they shift.

And the supers are party leadership. That is sort of the point of it all.

[seaotter]

88. No, they are NOT "committed" Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Lucinda]

91. This is the list as of right now:

It includes those who are publicly supporting Sanders, OMalley (which will shift) and Clinton.
There are still 341 who have not yet endorsed a candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

[seaotter]

92. This has nothing to do with the FACT that the "supers" are only "committed" to themselves.

They can change on a whim. Unlike delegates selected through the primary process. At this point, they can only be regarded as "endorsements". That is a fact, however painful it may be.

[Lucinda]

93. Nonsense. Find an election where they didn't support until their candidate dropped out.

You may find a handful of people here and there, but not enough to shift any single election. The ONLY way Bernie combats the numbers, is to pick up all the currently uncommitted, and win a whole lot of the remaining primaries. He certainly could do it, I don't think it is likely.

[seaotter]

96. Cite the rule that "commits" them.

It aint there. Most of them are not so loyal as to damage their own name by going against the voters. If push comes to shove, most will vote for the nominee selected through the primary process. Remember what they say about counting eggs.

[romana]

106. Primaries

Primaries are not popular vote contests. The popular vote is for PR, the real race is for delegates. Clinton and Obama had very close popular vote totals in the 2008 primary, yet Obama was the clear winner in delegates.

[seaotter]

111. The primaries have no affect on whom the "supers" vote for.

They may cast their vote as they wish. They can change their minds as often as they like before they cast their vote. Nope, they are NOT bound, at all.

[romana]

114. I didn't say they were

But you seem to be arguing that they are obligated to follow the popular vote. Or at least that they will, but that isn't in the rules either as far as I know.

[seaotter]

117. No, they are not bound by any "obligation"

But, that said, most will not jeopardize their own careers just to appear "loyal". Politicians will be politicians. (it's in their nature)

[wysi]

61. I'm not about to support a guy...

... who is not even a member of the party I've been voting for for many years, and who in fact has made many derogatory statements about the party. And I'm quite unconvinced that his supporters have any real commitment to or concern for the party as a whole, a party which serves to advance liberal policies across the country, at all levels of government.

[seaotter]

89. So, you will stay home if Sanders is the nominee?

That flies in the face of this sentiment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=44622



I, as usual, will be voting for the Democrat, whom ever that may be. I do not like Republican policy.

[Stuckinthebush]

101. Somebody has the vapors

Oh, my!

Shameful, shameful!

Go back to Bernie town and pretend he is going to be the nominee. This is the Clinton group.

[BlueMTexpat]

131. I got banned from the

Bernie group merely for asking politely that his supporters stop using GOPer memes to describe Hillary.

You think that you can come to the Hillary Group and lecture US - the nth degree of hypocrisy.

Hillary is trashed 24/7 everywhere else on DU by BS supporters and you find us "shameful."

Go back and join your like-minded folks and complain about us there. Please leave us alone here.

[Lucinda]

42. They didn't mind so much in 08 when Obama ended up with the nomination

Of course, the election newbies, or "new Dems" may not be aware of the process...but many a longtime Du'er should know the ropes.

[dchill]

58. Oh, never mind.

[Gothmog]

78. These are part of the Democratic primary process

[riversedge]

104. By reading a lot of the posts out there, I do not think many of them

know--or maybe are just becoming aware of how a Dem primary works--its rules. Really are some sophomoric posts.

It is like so many just discovered the supers exist.

[Stuckinthebush]

112. This is a first time for many of them

I give them some slack.

But, to argue that it is undemocratic is funny to me. The super delegates work beautifully in the way they make sure that the party gets to decide who will be their nominee.

But the bigger funny is that they really believe that Sanders could be the nominee since he won NH. For god's sake, the man couldn't even win Iowa which was made for a big win for him. NH is so far from representative of the Democrats as a whole. They really don't seem to understand the South or even mid-west. Sanders doesn't play well in most of the other states. This is his high water mark. Do they not see that we are not even sweating over here? Why? Because we know how this game is played.

So does our next president, Hillary Clinton.

March is coming!

[BlueMTexpat]

132. "Sophomoric" is about

the kindest thing that can be said about them.

[riversedge]

135. I actually paused after I typed the s----was doing to

say something not so kind.

[GusBob]

137. This is the sort of thing that really really bothers me

If you don't understand what the heck you are talking about don't say a word.

Every word you say is an excercise in ignorance. In essence you are broadcasting how little you know.

That's being kind, I could use harsher terms. It is embarrassing to watch

[BlueMTexpat]

122. I believe that the majority of Dem voters

- who have been Dems all along, not just those who waited until the last moment to declare - in most states of the US will show that they are solidly behind Hillary Clinton.

I can't believe how one side seems to believe that the party's rules should NOT apply to their candidate.

[Stuckinthebush]

123. Oh, there is no doubt that Dems will support Hillary

The Sanders fans are jacked up on the NH win like a raver on molly.

The crash is coming very soon.

[fleabiscuit]

124. It’s not necessarily a good thing. At least at the state level.

“…The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling…”

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

If you like reading and thinking about the wonky stuff:

“…The party primary was an Oregon innovation, passed by initiative in 1904, at a time when the two political parties were controlled by party “bosses” who determinedly ignored the problems of everyday life. The idea was to give rank and file voters in those parties the ability to nominate their own candidates. It worked as long as party candidates were attractive enough to win the crossover vote needed to win office.

That system has lost its utility as Republicans and Democrats represent smaller percentages of the whole electorate. The solution is not a third party. The election laws -- written by Republicans and Democrats -- are deliberately rigged against third parties and independents as Ben Westlund’s unsuccessful run demonstrates. The first step toward election reform is elimination of the primaries and one all-comers race in the fall where all voters have a real choice.”

http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/

[Stuckinthebush]

128. The existence of Political Parties is a great point for discussion

I often wonder if the parliamentary system is superior because it allows for more parties with smaller parties helping to control agendas due to a need for majority.

But, as it stands, our system is dominated by two major parties. They control who they nominate. I guarantee you that the GOP is sorry that they don't have super delegates. Their nomination process is a freak show and the party is losing control of the party.

It'll sink them.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

126. There's a book out now on the 1912 election and the birth of the primary process

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2016/02/10/46278/just-how-did-we-end-up-with-this-presidential-prim/

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Stuckinthebush]

129. Now that looks good!

I will buy one. Thanks!

[oasis]

130. Non party guy? But..but..he has plenty of non party supporters

just longing to be Democrats. So that oughta count. Party poopers.

[fleabiscuit]

133. Ha! :-) eom

[wildeyed]

136. I don't like the system either.

But those are the rules, now we play by them. And it helps to know the rules before you start playing.... They are all, SHUT UP olds!!!!! You don't know anything about anything!!!! But hey, we olds knew about this already, because we have done this part before. And we know about a bunch of other things too, if anyone would ask or listen. Sigh....

Hey, guess what else this old ass person knows? How to completely undermine the-two party system with just ONE WEIRD TRICK! Easier than a "revolution" and safer too Just ask me, lurkers, I shall tell