Will the DNC Use Super-Delegates to Steal the Primary Election from Bernie Sanders?

[red dog 1]

Last edited Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

OpEdNews.com
January 21, 2016
By Benjamin Kall


After watching Sunday's Democratic debate I came away inspired to take a look into what it would take for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination.
In doing so, I came away with a sad picture of a party likely to commit election theft by the use of super delegates.

In the coming months we will be voting for a candidate.
As polls have been showing, Bernie Sanders is quickly gaining support, while Hillary, the presumed favorite, is losing her lead and, in some polls, already behind.
It really depends on who you ask, but there is definitely support for Bernie out there.

Is it enough to defeat Hillary in the Democratic Party is the real question that needs to be addressed.

The Democratic Party has a built-in system to eliminate popular candidates with the populace but not as favorable to party leaders by way of Super delegates.

Super Delegates carry just about 20 percent of the voting power in the nomination of a Democratic presidential candidate.
These Super Delegates do not have to answer to a voting public.
They do not have to follow what the people have voted and they can make a choice based solely on their personal discretion or relationship with the candidates.

Read more:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-the-DNC-Use-Super-Del-by-Benjamin-Kall-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Delegates-160121-566.html

[Thinkingabout]

1. No, there will not be a need for the super delegates to "steal" the election.

Hillary will have more delegates from the primaries than is needed to win.

[Metric System]

4. Exactly.

[MeNMyVolt]

2. No. He'll lose it on his own.

I can picture Ann Margret singing Bye Bye Bernie.

[restorefreedom]

3. they sure as hell WILL have to answer to us

they can kiss their precious money grubbing party goodbye if they even TRY this.

oh, and goodbye ge as well, downtickets,....

if they go nuclear, they will destroy themselves as well as all of us...

[Agschmid]

5. No.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. That's the game plan.

McGovern,Mondale need we say more why.

[merrily]

32. Wellstone

[Ken Burch]

67. No candidate imposed by the party to stop McGovern would have done better.

McGovern lost big because the party regulars leadpiped him out of spite.

Mondale was the establishment choice, as was Dukakis. There were no magically superior candidates to their right who could havr donr better against Reagan or Bush.

[Wellstone ruled]

71. Seen a couple of Campaigns similliar after that on the State level.

They thought they had the dam thing in the bag,and just putzed along. That was in the days of the Democratic Party thing of well it is his turn. And the rest was history,a real learning curve as to the power of Image making and total control of messaging.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe if the election is close they will, that's less likely if Bernie wins the primaries

by a large margin, turnout is critical to Bernie and the movement's success.

Thanks for the thread, red dog.

[red dog 1]

11. Your welcome, Uncle Joe

[PFunk1]

27. I agree. But it all depends on the margins

The larger the margin, the less likely they will use the SD's to give it to Hillary (unless they prefer a repug victory-then all bets are off). But it looks like Bernie is headed in that direction-gaining large margins that it.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Precisely, PFunk.

Peace to you.

[PatrickforO]

29. I agree.

If he wins by big margins, the superdelegates, many of whom are elected officials will do nothing.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Without the minority vote, Bernie is T-O-A-S-T. Done. Stick a fork in him.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Minority approval is mutable, is changing for the better and I believe that positive dynamic

in Bernie's favor will continue to improve.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. His cardinal sin: he wanted to primary President Obama in a time when he was being attacked

daily by the media and Republicans. African Americans were outraged as they watched President Obama being vilified in the press and get the least favorable coverage than any Republican in 2011-12. Then Bernie goes on Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann's shows and suggested that maybe it would be a good thing to primary the first Black American president.

They have not forgotten. YOU might have, and you might forgive him for it, but you can be sure they haven't and won't. Last Sunday, in South Carolina, we all got a taste of how unpopular Sanders is there. He got a tiny taste of the firewall that's sure to beat him after Iowa and NH.

Latino's will remember his no-vote on comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 that included an early version of the DREAMact. They'll remember Sierra Blanca. He won't win Nevada.

The numbers don't look good for Bernie in either South Carolina or Nevada, and I don't see any shift there. None.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Bernie didn't want to primary Obama, he just thought a challenge would help the President

see the light in regards to chained CPI; of social security and other programs which damages the most vulnerable

Bernie changed his mind about the matter a week later.

Hartmann got a very pro-Hillary call (Louise) that was looking to try and put Sanders down in a big way and brought up the primary challenger BS that Clinton herself repeated tonight in the debate. Go here to see how he responded to this caller, and noted that Hartmann in his response noted that Bernie was randomly responding to a caller on the topic of how Obama on his problems with chained CPI and Bernie saying that he thought perhaps Obama facing a primary challenger might get him to see the light of why that position was not something that people wanted, and took it back in the following week's show. Go here to this link and go to the 1:45:22 mark in the show video to hear the comments and Hartmann's response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511024398

https://www.freespeech.org/video/thom-hartmann-program-january-11-2016

Regarding African Americans' views of Bernie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128088506

Three Spanish Language publications in Nevada have just endorsed Bernie and his poll numbers are going up in that state as well.

NBC's new post-debate poll carries the blaring lede: "NBC Online Poll: Clinton Wins Debate, Re-energizes Core Backers." And indeed, it found a majority of Democrats thought Hillary won the debate and that she held a steady 14 point overall lead.

But below the headline there was a major shift in narrative.

A typical July poll found Hillary leading Bernie 73-3 among Hispanics. With findings like that, it's not surprising the media churned out story after story trumpeting Hillary's lock on America's Hispanic voters.

But according to this new NBC poll, that 70-point lead has now shrunk to 42-35, and with a 7.7% margin of error, this means Bernie and Hillary are in a current statistical tie among Hispanics.

Of course Nevada, where 30% of the population is Hispanic, is the third voting state:

(snip)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251693874

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders received the endorsement of three Spanish language publications Wednesday in his bid for the Democratic nomination. Ahora Latino Journal, El Reportero and Tú Revista Latina announced their support for Sanders in a Wednesday news release. The endorsements come just one day after former Las Vegas Assemblywoman Lucy Flores pledged for Sanders as well. El Reportero and Tú Revista Latina are Las Vegas publications while Ahora Latino Journal is based in Reno. Ahora publisher and editor Mario de la Rosa said he decided to support Sanders because he seems trustworthy.

“His concern has always been for all people suffering from inequality and lack of opportunities,” de la Rosa said. “That is one of the great appeals to him. He sees all people just as humans. That’s why we support his policies.”
~snip~

De la Rosa said once the Latino community hears Sanders’ message, they’ll begin supporting him.

“Once people start knowing and listening to Bernie Sanders, they’ll see what’s going on and they’ll see very clearly,” de la Rosa said. “He’s really trying to fight for the middle class and the low-income class and for all the people that are suffering. Not just the 10 percent or the one percent.”

cont'

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/20/three-spanish-language-publications-endorse-sanders/79075958/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511039216

[BlueCaliDem]

61. Hold on to that TIGHTLY, Unca Joe. I hope it will give you peace of mind

when all the propaganda and all the incidences that accumulate to exactly nothing in this big political contest for the White House won't be able to save Sanders' run for the White House.

Posted Jan 15, 2016 02:02 PM EST
Written by Selena Hill for Latin Post

Not only does Hillary Clinton have a strong lead in the 2016 Democratic presidential race, but a new poll shows that the front-runner has overwhelming support from people of color, while more white Democrats are leaning towards Bernie Sanders.

According to a NBC News poll released Tuesday, Clinton has a huge lead over Sanders with African Americans, 63 to 20 percent, and Hispanic voters, 54 percent to 33 percent. She also holds a 15-point lead over the Vermont senator among Democrats nationwide, with 52 percent of voters compared to his 37 percent. The poll, which was conducted from Jan. 4 to Jan. 10, shows former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley coming in with just 2 percent of the vote.

**snip**

Earlier this month, a Gravis Marketing poll conducted from Dec. 23 to Dec. 27, revealed that former Secretary of State Clinton had a 23-point lead over Sanders in Nevada -- a state where Latinos make up a large voting bloc. She received 50 percent of support among likely Democratic caucus goers, compared to Sanders, who received 27 percent.

After Iowa and NH comes South Carolina and...drum roll...Nevada.

[Uncle Joe]

64. I hope you have peace of mind as well, BlueCaliDem.

Peace to you.

[BlueCaliDem]

69. Thank you, Uncle Joe.

Peace to you, too.

[red dog 1]

73. Thanks for that, Uncle Joe

[Empowerer]

74. Because Sanders thought the first black president needed to be "schooled" in order to "see the light"

And you wonder why African Americans aren't "feeling the Bern?"

[Uncle Joe]

78. 1. Why did you use the word "schooled" in quotes when no where on my post was that word used, the

key words were political pressure.

2. Why do you believe a black President should be different than a white President when it comes to applying political pressure to obtain a stated goal in this case eliminating chained CPI which most damaged the vulnerable, and elderly.

One only needs to look to the Civil Rights Era to see a white President needing political pressure to pass civil rights.

As my post makes clear, Bernie had also changed his mind about applying political pressure via a primary challenge against President Obama within a week.

"I don't wonder why African Americans aren't the feeling the Bern" that's another false assumption on your part.

I'm convinced that ultimately most African Americans; will support Bernie for President as they come to learn about him, they're not a monolith engraved in stone.

While Hillary had major name recognition since the 90s, Bernie didn't, I have no doubt that's why Schultz's DNC scheduled so few debates at times when they would least likely be viewed, and also why the corporate media conglomerates blacked out Bernie for so long until his rising popularity left them with little choice but to cover him.

[Empowerer]

82. Why do you assume that most African American voters don't already know about Bernie Sanders?

Of course, we're not a monolith - that's why some African Americans are supporting Sanders now while other support Clinton. But I think it's wrong to assume that black voters don't support Sanders because they don't know any better. Black voters are very knowledgeable and very savvy - it's very likely that most already have determined for whom they want to vote and the fact that the majority doesn't support Sanders is based on their own learned assessment of him, not ignorance.

FYI, I put "schooled" in quotes because I used it as slang, not to suggest that I was quoting you. But I realize that because I did quote you in the heading, it may have appeared that way. My apologies.

[Uncle Joe]

84. More African Americans are coming to know Bernie but from the start Hillary

had much greater name recognition, First lady, in the 90s, Senator from one of the most populous states in the nation, primary opponent against now President Obama, Secretary of State, while being a two edged sword countless scandals have kept Hillary's name front and center in the American Peoples' psyche.

Bernie on the other the hand, while serving in government for even longer than Hillary, has represented a small, mostly white state, unless you're a political junkie, most people never heard of him before his campaign started.

Most Americans of all colors don't even tune in to politics until just a very few months or weeks before the primaries begin and as I stated in my previous post, Schwartz's DNC and the corporate media conglomerates blackout of Bernie have done their best to freeze the peoples' awareness of the candidates, trying to keep Hillary's name recognition advantage out front for as long as they could.

That's just beginning to change for the better thanks in large part to the people power of the Internet, we're slowly getting the word out about Bernie and his message despite the corporate media conglomerates resistance.

Having said that our democratic republic would be in much better shape now if the corporate media conglomerates; had focused more on serving the best interests of the American Nation/People as a whole versus their own narrow self-serving concerns.

[Sancho]

68. You are correct; the immigrant vote in the Sunbelt remembers Bernie's record in Congress.

They also don't like some of Bernie's other proposals. In short, Sanders is Bernt Toast in states (like FL) where there are many more delegated. Hillary won't need the super delegates.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. Without the majority of the immgrant vote, Bernie can't win. NO Democratic candidate can.

I surmise it's why Bernie's trying to attract the young White vote and pull them from Trump. He's making zero inroads with young minority Millennials. And although a few are playing footsie with support for Bernie, in the end they'll turn out overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, just as they had waffled a little with President Obama but ultimately cast their vote for him in both 2008 and 2012 by over 70%.

[closeupready]

8. Let's say Hillary loses unless they use the super-delegate votes. So they use them.

That will only sharpen opposition to her, playing to the perception that the Establishment has become so corrupt, it's actually willing to short-circuit democracy itself, if it serves their selfish ambitions.

[CorporatistNation]

25. Absolute Guarantee That If Bernie Is Prevailing, BIG Shenanigans Will Be Introduced By The PTB!

This Is "THE ESTABLISHMENT" that everyone is talking about... Already talking sliding Biden in there if Hillary shoots cats eyes in Iowa and NH! The corruption is what happens in a Corporatist Nation! Such a disaster if it were to occur may result in the cleansing of the American BIGMONEY Political System that is so sorely needed.

[PatrickforO]

30. Capitalism breeds corruption.

Because its natural tendency is toward monopoly.

[daleanime]

34. +1

[emsimon33]

9. If they do, they guarantee a Republican president and continuation of the status quo

and it will be the end of the Democratic Party.

[daleanime]

35. Problem is some appear to prefer that....

over a President Sanders.

[emsimon33]

57. Yes, the Democratic Party establishment who will still ride the gravy train if a Repug is president

Such as DWS who should not only be fired by replaced with a real Democrat!

[red dog 1]

75. President Obama is the only one who can fire DWS,

and don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I wish DWS would just resign as Chair of the DNC, she is too divisive.

Whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary or Bernie, the party cannot be "split" like it was in 1984, when Mondale got the nomination, despite losing ALL the primary elections west of the Mississippi to Gary Hart; and then, instead of picking Hart as his running mate (which would have "united" the party), Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro, and Reagan easily won reelection.

We can't let that happen again.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I hope she chooses Bernie as her running mate; and, conversely, if Bernie wins, I hope he chooses Hillary as his running mate.

A divided Democratic Party will not be able to defeat the GOP nominee, regardless of who that person is.

[peacebird]

85. If Hillary prevails i hope Bernie remains in the Senate to hold the next presidents feet to the fire

Bernie as VP, to attend a few functions and funerals? What a classic, monumental waste that would be.

And IF Hillary loses, and Bernie prevails the very last thing his administration would need is Hillary as VP.

[red dog 1]

86. "If Hillary prevails" how many Sanders supporters might "sit out the election"?

or vote for an Independent such as Bloomberg (If he decides to run)

Like I said, a divided Democratic Party will NOT win in November.

As far as "IF Hillary loses", don't you think asking her to be Sanders' VP would unite the party?

If Sanders does win the nomination, will Hillary's supporters "sit out the election"?

(I would like to see a Sanders/Warren ticket myself; but I doubt if that will ever happen).

[peacebird]

88. I stand with what I wrote. Sanders joining Hillary as VP would not unite the party

Sanders supporters would see it as Hillary triangulating and trying to silence Bernie. Would anyone actually believe she would listen to him? No.

Oh, and I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I will write in Sanders if she wins the primary.

[red dog 1]

89. Is that your dog on your avatar photo?

(Just curious)

[peacebird]

90. Nope, my beloved pup is a chocolate lab!

[PowerToThePeople]

10. The superdelegates changed over to Obama

When he won the popular vote.

I do not think they will steal it.

But, if they did, it would prove to me that this nation's government is a totalitarian state and I will hasten my plans to leave to a better nation.

[merrily]

38. I don't know that we can rely on 2008 as a bellwether for 2016.

I firmly believe that, in 2008, Obama was the pick of the Dem Party's powerful. That first dawned on me when I heard about Reid's describing him as articulate and so forth. I thought, to whom was Reid trying to sell Obama with that riff?

Daschle claimed he was one of the people who convinced Obama to run in 2008 because Obama thought he would need more time in the Senate under his belt. It came out that Reid repeatedly asked Obama to run and so on. The media sure was not in the bag for Hillary over Obama in 2007-08, the way they have been in the bag for Hillary over Sanders. Also, Obama had been a lifelong Democrat and Obama was selling hope and change (from Bushco), not a revolution. The New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, which "houses" most of the Super Delegates, has a lot to lose going forward if Bernie is the nominee.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. In 2008 Clinton pursued precisely this strategy

after it became clear that she would not have a majority of the primary delegates. I see no reason why she would not do it again and I suspect the party establishment would go along.

[SheilaT]

13. Historically the super delegates

end up voting with the majority of delegates. In the relatively short time they've been around, they have never made a difference in the nomination.

I don't understand why so many people here are freaking out about the superdelegates.

[mythology]

40. Because some like the author of the linked oped

need to believe in silly conspiracy theories.

[merrily]

41. Sanders is not the kind of candidate we've seen historically. See Reply 38. IMO, it's a toss up

what the super delegates will do.

[SheilaT]

43. No, it's not a toss-up about what the super delegates will do.

They'll end up supporting the candidate that most voters want. That's what they do.

[merrily]

46. I understood you the first time you posted that. I don't agree that the past is prologue

necessarily in this case.

[synergie]

65. It's the conspiracy theory they are brewing up in case the polls are not as wrong as they hope.

[Vincardog]

14. Not unless they want a 60% decliner in registered voters.

[merrily]

47. They don't seem to care or we would not have the head of the DNC acting as she has been.

[Vincardog]

62. That verifies the fact they are working for the monied elite not democratic voters.

[pinebox]

15. The DNC would have a slaugher on their hands

and it would mean people would leave the Democratic party in droves. As it is, people are already leaving but this would really give millions a big boost to no longer stick around.

[PatrickforO]

33. Yes they will.

But there's more to it. If they do this and then Clinton wins the WH, this nation will be simmering toward a pitchfork style revolution. I give it maybe a decade unless we get a real populist in there to FORCE the PTB to throw us just a few bones - a 21st century New Deal. See, the oligarchs are myopic, because they don't understand that if they just loosen up a TINY BIT - single payer, stronger Social Security, MUCH cheaper college - things that can encourage social mobility and a bigger, stronger middle class, they can continue to fleece us for the next 75 years. Seriously, they'll make plenty of money.

But, alas, they just want a LITTLE more, and that's probably gonna be the end of them. Fortunately I'm getting old so I'll probably have kicked off by the time it happens because who wants to live through shit like that? But my kids and grandchildren - they will live it. And I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry this world has to be polluted by a few greedy fucks when it COULD be a really good place for everyone instead of a shithole for most.

[senz]

16. Well they'll sure as hell try.

After all, they've already done so much for her.

[hobbit709]

17. +1000

[red dog 1]

20. + 1001

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. They will try, but WE THE PEOPLE WILL WIN.

Political REVOLUTION - THE MOVEMENT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. They can't stop it.


PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[sadoldgirl]

19. Yes, they will try with the justification

that Bernie is not electable, and that the voters were fooled
by him. They may not care about a tremendous loss to the
party or that the repugs would win.

TPTB will insist on the status quo, then later blame the loss
on those "idiots with pony dreams",who refused to see
"reality". Of course should this happen, since most super
delegates sit in Congress or in state government, these
people might lose their jobs as well.

Question is: Do they really care? I doubt it by now.

[daleanime]

37. Yes, 'electable' will be their cover story....

they definitely would prefer a republican before Bernie.

[emulatorloo]

21. FFS no.

[LongTomH]

22. If they pull this shit.....it will be Chicago '68 Redux!!!!

Bernie supporters will leave the conference hall in droves and take to the streets, and the police will brutalize them, just as in '68.

The result: a massive stay-at-home vote and a loss to the GOP.

And....NO! I'm NOT telling people not to vote for Hillary if she wins. I'll try to persuade my friends to vote for Hillary as the lesser of evils.

As one of my liberal friends stated: "You vote for the lesser of two evils, and you get less evil."

Another of my liberal friends replied: "Yes, but you still get evil!"

[PatrickforO]

36. You know, that reminds me...

You work your fingers to the bone and what do you have?

Bony fingers!

You're right though.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. ...

REVOLUSHEEEON!

[redstateblues]

55. Revoluuuusheeon is the correct spelling!

[red dog 1]

77. "The Evil of Two Lessers"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016142318

[Samantha]

23. red dog 1, I would like to add a link to your thread for those interested in this subject

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/2/1398743/-How-will-Bernie-overcome-the-superdelegate-problem

The above article might have been posted here before. If so, I did not see it. Here are a couple of paragraphs:

HOW WILL BERNIE OVERCOME THE SUPERDELEGATE PROBLEM:

We like to think that the Democratic primary is all about one Democrat, one vote. But in fact certain leaders of the Democratic party get 6,650 votes to our one. These few people alone make up 38% of the votes needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

* * *

So, to insure that those in power stay in power, the concept of the "Superdelegate" was developed. These would be the faithful, party leaders whom, after all, should have (in their own view) final say over who the nominee is. These 718 Superdelegates have, collectively, 38% of the votes necessary to get the nomination. So a wild card candidate, say a Bernie Sanders, if they could not capture a significant number of these leading Democrats, would have virtually no chance of getting such a huge majority of the "one person, one vote" delegates that they could take the nomination against the will of the party faithful.

* * *

So if these Democratic leaders, the party faithful, who hold so many of the cards, have already cast their lots with Clinton, can Sanders possibly win the nomination, no matter how much Democratic voters prefer him? Can the Superdelegates be convinced to throw their support to him, or is he too far outside the party? Will the party force Clinton on us as the nominee even if Sanders gets a large majority of the popular vote in the primary?

End of quoted material.

A note of interest: Only the Democrats have Superdelegates; the Republicans do not (according to another article I read....)

My question: Is this Constitutional? Maybe Bernie needs to consult a Constitutional lawyer.

I agree that if Superdelegates in the Democratic party try to force a candidate to become the nominee who did not win the majority in the primary, the resulting consequence of that will be extremely detrimental to the party itself.

Sam

[Jim Lane]

24. About Republican superdelegates

The term "superdelegate" is more commonly used only in the Democratic Party. If you put terminology aside, the substantive question is whether Republicans have some convention delegates who are not chosen through presidential primaries or caucuses, but who are instead seated automatically and are therefore free to vote for any candidate regardless of the will of the voters. The answer to that question is: Yes, the Republicans have them, but not as many as the Democrats.

Oversimplifying somewhat: Democratic superdelegates are Democratic National Committee members plus high-ranking elected officials (all Democratic Senators, Congressmembers, and Governors). On the Republican side, the superdelegates (or whatever you want to call them) are just the Republican National Committee members and state party chairs. The result is that such delegates are less of a factor in the GOP (i.e., a smaller percentage of the delegates to the national convention).

[merrily]

44. Democrats had super delegates long before Republicans had them, but I'm not sure

what the internal working of the Republican Party has to do with this thread?

[Jim Lane]

50. I was responding to Samantha's post stating that Republicans don't have superdelegates.

So it was topic drift. So sue me. Or better yet, her.

[merrily]

58. I had missed that comment in Samantha's post, but the RNC did go semi-undemocratic well after the

the DNC had.

I don't want to sue either of you, so sue me!

[Samantha]

60. I made that comment after reading this article

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections

It was during that experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders. High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later. The Republican party, by the way, has no superdelegates.

I have been familiar with the term superdelegates and who it generally includes for a very long time. But that statement that the Republican party has none startled me.

I did not overlook your statement saying the Republican party has the equivalent but they are just not called superdelegates.

My question is, regardless of what terminology is used to describe these people, is this Constitutional? I think only a Constitutional lawyer can answer that, and I believe Sanders should ask the question now. I have a very specific reason for focusing on that very simple question.

Sam

[Jim Lane]

66. My guess is that it is constitutional.

The parties don't have an unlimited right to set their own rules. That was settled in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), overturning a "white primary". This was a method of disenfranchising blacks in the Jim Crow era. The Fifteenth Amendment said that blacks couldn't be denied the right to vote on account of race. Texas said that the Democratic Party was a private organization and could do whatever it wanted in its primary, including restricting the vote to whites, as long as blacks could vote in the general election -- a general election that was in practice meaningless, because the Democratic nominee almost always won. To Texas's argument that there was therefore no state action, the Supreme Court answered:

The United States is a constitutional democracy. Its organic law grants to all citizens a right to participate in the choice of elected officials without restriction by any state because of race. This grant to the people of the opportunity for choice is not to be nullified by a state through casting its electoral process in a form which permits a private organization to practice racial discrimination in the election. Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly denied. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 307 U. S. 275.

The privilege of membership in a party may be, as this Court said in Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45, 295 U. S. 55, no concern of a state. But when, as here, that privilege is also the essential qualification for voting in a primary to select nominees for a general election, the state makes the action of the party the action of the state.

The decision relied heavily on the Fifteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, I suspect that the result would be the same if, for example, even without an ERA in the Constitution, a party tried to exclude women from voting in a primary.

What would probably save the superdelegate rule is that there's no such discrimination. The elected officials who are superdelegates attained that status through elections for public office in which everyone could participate. The party leaders' mandate is more indirect. What's most common, I think, is that the people (possibly only registered party members) elect local party leaders, who then elect the leaders higher up the chain. Of course, few people pay attention to the vote for party leadership positions. They could, though. Blacks and women (and whites and men) and any other group that might claim unconstitutional discrimination have an equal right to participate in the internal party processes that produce these superdelegates.

ETA: I am a lawyer but my practice almost never involves issues under the Constitution or concerning election law.

[red dog 1]

72. Thanks for that link

[Renew Deal]

26. Do super-delegates have a right to vote as they wish?

[Jim Lane]

52. Yes. (n/t)

[zappaman]

31. No. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

39. No.

[sadoldgirl]

45. Wrong! They are not totally bound by their first decision.

They may pledge a friendly support in the beginning,
but they can switch, as happened with Obama.

[merrily]

48. Can, yes. Will, maybe.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. No. Obama actually won more delegates and super delegates than Hillary Clinton. That was her mistake

one she won't make again. Bernie is falling into that same trap. He will NOT win the nom.

He can't get any minority group to "feel the Bern". Angry White male/female votes aren't going to cut it since most of them vote Republican anyway.

Maybe he'll win a few strays among minorities here and there, but in the end, not enough to give him what he needs in order to overcome Hillary Clinton. Minorities will NOT vote for the guy who's been pro-gun, anti-Obama (<--especially this one), and anti-immigration (until he decided to run for president, that is).

[Dems to Win]

54. No.

The supes will follow the popular vote. Even if they are currently endorsing Hillary, they'll switch if Bernie gets the votes. To do otherwise would kill any chance of victory in November.

Not to worry.

[Live and Learn]

63. They sure seem hell bent on trying to and seem to be proud of it.

But we are as hell bent on making sure they don't and we will prevail.

[99Forever]

79. Let 'em try.

The blowback will destroy the Democratic Party.

[KittyWampus]

80. If it came down to super delegates votes making a difference THAT IS NOT STEALING

It's how politics work.

If you don't like, Sanders doesn't like it, you and he should have joined the party and worked to change it.

What a bunch of thin-skinned, self-absorbed whiners.

[Tanuki]

81. And all of this before one vote has been cast! All the pissed off indignation of having been

cheated out of the presidency already by evil superdelegates, or somebody. All that free-floating hostility, looking for the latest target, real or imagined.

[Kentonio]

83. If you think for one second the party membership would tolerate having their votes ignored

You really don't know the party membership very well.

[red dog 1]

87. + 1

Well stated!

[firebrand80]

91. Kick nt