What if Sanders wins the popular vote, but loses the delegate count due to super delegates?

[Kurska]

I'd expect an absolute revolt on the progressive left of the party. It would probably end up costing us the election. I could really imagine a huge stay at home effect if something like this happened. It would also make the democratic party look very undemocratic, even to people who might not have a strong preference between the two. The party convention would be absolute chaos and the democrats would look unorganized and unprepared for the election.

The super delegate system is an idea out of time. With the amount of anger pointed at the political establishment by both party bases the idea that DC insiders could literally decide a primary election is toxic.

If the super delegates refuse to fall in line with the winner of the popular vote, then we might as well just cancel the election. No way would we have a democrat in the white house if party brass stab voters in the back and override their democratic will. I'd expect it would result in the lowest youth turnout in the history of presidential elections. This would kill our party.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I'd say exactly that.

It will end up with Clinton losing the GE if she 'wins' the nomination by the will of regular voters being overridden by party insiders.

[razorman]

120. I think you're right. But, it looks to be headed that way.

There is already an asterisk beside her Iowa "victory", with delegates apparently having been quietly switched from Bernie to Hillary by the party apparatus. Now, it looks like she is getting more delegates from New Hampshire, despite losing the primary massively. The convention could be 1968 all over again.

[Mbrow]

2. Friend, you ain't kidding.

It would be the stupidest thing they could do, but why would I not be surprised if they did?

[djean111]

3. If that happened, I would be out. That's a cold, hard fact. n/t

[farleftlib]

4. Jusst heard MSNBC Delegates HRC 44 - SBS - 36?

How can this be? They were tied in Iowa and she got creamed last night.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. She got 8 Superdelegates in Iowa and whatever in NH

sort of. That could change down the line.

[CoffeeCat]

38. They shouldn't be reporting the tally like that!

That is ridiculous! The "score" so far, is the delegates earned from the contests. Super delegates should not count.

If the media is reporting the score that way, it is an intentional manipulation to try and deny Bernie his lead.

Super delegates ALWAYS go the way of the electorate! Always! They are a moot point until this contest is decided.

Clinton pulled the "super delegate" argument in 2008. It was bunk then. It is bunk now. The SDs will fall in line with the will of the people.

So shitty that the SDs are being included in the official "score" of this primary. It's never been done that way. Wasn't done that way in 2008.

They're trying to deny Bernie the optics of his wins--and the fact that he truly is the frontrunner!!!

[demosocialist]

41. My thoughts exactly

I wake up and the first thing I see is Joe and MIka blubbering over Clinton leading in the delegate count.

I was so happy going to sleep last night...

Leave it to the media to make me cynical and morose within 5 minutes of waking up!

AND WHY THE FUCKITY FUCK ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT TRUMP, SANDERS WON BY YUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE MARGIN!

[CoffeeCat]

56. We see this lie-based "meme" is being disseminated via the media--being pushed online too

We see it here on DU.

My God, is there ANYTHING that the Clinton machine does that is not steeped in manipulations, lie-based spin and pure, unadulterated bullshit?

The current delegate score is the hard delegates that both Clinton and Sanders won in Iowa and NH. PERIOD.

Anything outside of that equation is hot air.

Super delegates are not firm. They never are until the end. They were overwhelmingly for Clinton in 2008. When Obama became the nominee, they evaporated.

[7962]

93. Dont forget, HRC will do whatever it takes & use whatever means needed

Look at how fast Bill got nasty when the national poll numbers came out showing a virtual tie, when 6 months ago HRC was leading by 50+

[farleftlib]

52. I was in total disbelief

The attempts to marginalize him are getting really old. Every victory brings a new smear. On one hand I try to dismiss it as desperate and pathetic and easily debunked, but most people will not trouble themselves to look beyond what the MSM reports. This is going to be an ongoing problem and will only get worse as Bernie surges ahead.

[CoffeeCat]

66. You can bet that the Clintons grabbed the media by the scruff of the neck yesterday

and told them how the Democratic primary contest and scores would be reported.

It's never been done this way.

It's always the hard delegate count that is the reported, official score.

I think the Clinton camp is a bunch of weak pansies. They can't even handle the truth being reported. Their campaign dies unless they manipulate and spin everything to their benefit. Even if that means hiding the REAL score of the primary.

"Bill! Quick! Get the Comcast CEO on the horn! Demand that Scarborough fold the Superdelegate counts into the hard count! It's our only chance! We must hide that we are losing! We have to win, Bill! Remember our motto, "A rising tide lifts all yachts!'. We must prevail!"

Oh brother.

I really, really hope that Mark Halperin and John Heilemann are working on "Game Change 3: The Clintons Come Unglued."

[rocktivity]

96. It's a form of intimidation and demoralization

which didn't work the other time Hillary tried it:




rocktivity

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. Enough Superdelegates will endorse Bernie to put him over the top

Hillary might even concede.

Otherwise, there will be blood. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to worry about that today.

[RedCappedBandit]

6. I'll vote straight blue, as I have in every election, as long as the process is democratic. nt

[Deny and Shred]

9. If Bernie decisively wins the popular vote

and Hillary gets the nomination because of super delegates, would you consider the process democratic?

[RedCappedBandit]

10. No. nt

[Deny and Shred]

12. IMO, That would be a very unfortunate outcome

I don't see how Sec. Clinton could win the GE after losing the popular vote in the primaries and using establishment influence to take the nomination.

[Hortensis]

27. Superdelegates have always supported

the popular vote. I wouldn't get all excited over something that has not happened and almost certainly will not.

Scary as the prospect of putting Sanders up against the GOP/corporate oligarch/righteous conservative/religious right force is, and as potentially disastrous as it might be, Sanders is a valid candidate and I can imagine no reason for going against a majority vote of the Democratic Party membership. They would know the rest of us would back him in the general. Now, if he were a Trump? But he's not.

You might start getting excited about what we're facing from the right, though, and what losses up and down the ticket, and eventual takeover of the Supreme Court by anti-progressive/pro-fascist forces, could mean.

[Dustlawyer]

77. We need to make that very clear on this site that if they try to steal the election with pre-paid

Super Delagates we will walk and Hillary will twist in the wind! I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she wins the Primary straight up, but if it comes down to Super Delagates that she hooked up with her Donors it's game over.

Only if they see ahead of time that we will not forgive her for stealing the Primary would they not try it! Even then I am not so sure, she wants it soooo bad!

[jwirr]

136. Exactly.

[Kurska]

13. ...

[Deny and Shred]

16. Brilliant (nt)

[JackInGreen]

46. +1

Can we have some peasants and serfs show up to the convention if they're even talking about trying to overturn the popular choice with super delegates? we can have some sincere 'HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED.'.....nm, funny as it would be, it would be counter productive.

[RiverLover]

8. The Green Party will get a WHOLE lot of new members. /nt

[marble falls]

32. You have no idea how right you are.

[KingCharlemagne]

53. For more "true" Socialists, I might also add that the Party for Socialism and

Liberation promises to run a fine candidate in most states this year.

[pinebox]

91. Yup! I'm a Green who switched to Dem to caucus for Bernie

[dana_b]

103. me too! Well, not caucus but vote in June

I'm in California.

[pinebox]

104. Good stuff! This is what Hillary supporters don't understand

Bernie is growing the Dem party however Hillary isn't. I have yet to see a single person who has switched in order to vote or caucus for her.

[HooptieWagon]

127. Bingo.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. That would be a first rank malfunction and the death of the party. nt.

[HereSince1628]

14. If that happens, it's the end of the Democratic Party as we know it...

BUT, it's felt like a wake for the New Dems many times since 2004. They just don't stay dead.

[Divernan]

30. The political Undead!

When Hill loses the 2016 primary she will
(1) immediately update her revenge/enemies list
(2) start laying plans to run in 2020, followed by 2024, 2026, etc.

Her campaign theme? To Infinity and Beyond!

She's the Buzz Lightyear of perpetual candidates.

[marble falls]

33. I thought that was Harold Stassen.

[FSogol]

15. Did that happen before with Obama?

If Sanders gets enough support to put himself over the top, the super delegates will follow suit. No tin foil hats required.

[mythology]

22. This is the correct answer

It was the correct answer all of the previous times this silly conspiracy has been offered.

Short of a situation where the winner of the primaries is caught curb stomping puppies before the convention, this will never happen.

[JackInGreen]

49. I don't know if it's a conspiracy

I think it's a genuine fear, and something that the party has the capability to do. I think that so many of us give voice to it, if not a boat-load of credence, is the mistrust that the party has bred into us of their ability and will to serve their constituents. Lets try and set it at ease, instead of mocking (calling the idea and it's indulgence silly, mild mockery, but still, tense times) the people that are inquiring or concerned about it.

[FSogol]

108. No, silly unprecedented fears deserve mocking. Here's the thing, the establishment is always

going to be the establishment. If Sanders gets enough delegates to win the nomination, he becomes the establishment and all the super delegates move to his side. The idea that the super delegates (actual elected democratic officials) would suddenly go rouge is total nonsense and completely unprecedented.

AAR, ALOCA!

[JackInGreen]

112. If they go rouge they'd better have matching eye shadow

More seriously though, it's something heard often enough "the super delegates won't let bernie be elected" (both directly and indirectly) is alarming enough to some that we should be quelling those fears, not mocking them. Though if that's your idea of conflict resolution be my guest, I don't think it's productive.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Not to mention HRC herself, if history

rather than hysteria is a guide.

[Marrah_G]

17. If that happens I may walk away from politics forever

If that happens it means we do not live in a democracy.

[A Simple Game]

92. What part of super delegates do you think in any way is democratic?

The system was put into place to thwart the will of the voters if the establishment didn't like who they picked, no other reason. Unless it is a complete blowout I don't think they will switch to Bernie, that's not why they are there. With President Obama it didn't matter, he didn't threaten their way of life, Bernie does.

[Marrah_G]

147. none

[A Simple Game]

148. My apologies, my previous post wasn't meant for you. n/t

[onehandle]

18. Hillary is far ahead by millions in polls. After March 1st, she will be too far ahead to catch. nt

Last edited Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[Matt_in_STL]

21. How is she ahead by millions of votes?

I'd like to see the math on that one.

[cascadiance]

29. Hmmm... He CLEARLY won REAL vote margins in New Hampshire, and in Iowa it was just about a draw...

What democratically cast votes at this point have Hillary ahead. Answer? Bernie is currently ahead in votes cumulatively between the two states where CITIZENS have cast their votes.

Hillary is only ahead in PROJECTIONS of UNDEMOCRATIC "votes" cast by super delegates that actually don't get cast until the convention, which hasn't happened yet.

Apparently these super delegate votes are being cast by being bought. I wonder, since so much emphasis in this election more so than previous elections we throw in the super delegate votes in to the announced counts so much more, if people will say, "Hell, if they are going to sell their votes, maybe I should be able to sell mine too". And we'll get people selling their votes on ebay, etc. since the party seems to be endorsing that practice that in the past was regarded as illegal.

[7962]

95. There hasnt BEEN a "million votes" cast yet

[HooptieWagon]

128. ^low information voter^

[Sancho]

19. that happened in 2008...

Hillary won the popular vote, and lost the delegates

[mythology]

23. Not really

She won the popular vote in the states with primaries. But she generally lost caucus states where vote totals aren't always available. Also Obama didn't compete in Florida or Michigan due to DNC rules after those states tried to jump ahead.

[Sancho]

28. Yes, really....

If the Fl primary had occurred correctly, Hillary would have beaten Obama...Fl and MI have more people in a county than most of the caucus states. It is not the candidates fault when state legislatures foul up the primaries. At any rate, Hillary was way ahead in 2008 in Fl, and she is way ahead of Bernie here now.

You can argue all you want, but if you looked at it accurately, more Democrats voted for Hillary in 2008, and she lost the delegate battle - Obama had a better strategy. It was close.

At any rate, Hillary learned the lesson, and she is doing better this time on gathering super delegates, endorsements, and putting resources into organizing the larger states. Endorsements from Edwards and some top Democrats made the 2008 primary swing towards Obama, too. Unions and celebrities (like Oprah) helped Obama and split for the primary. This time, Hillary did the early work to get them on board.

[Lucinda]

47. Yus.

[SheilaT]

82. Endorsements, yes!

Hillary was endorsed by every major newspaper and elected official in New Hampshire, and that of course guaranteed her overwhelming win in that state.

Oh, wait a minute. I think I got something wrong there.

[backscatter712]

24. Except the popular vote count...

...did not include caucus states, where Obama dominated, and didn't include Michigan and Florida, who got slapped for moving up their primaries against Democratic party rules.

So the popular vote count isn't that cut and dried. I strongly believe that if the popular votes were somehow tallied from the caucus states, Obama would get the win.

[Sancho]

31. And if Florida was included, it would have overwhelmed the smaller states..

so we all know it's a crazy system...

[Joe the Revelator]

20. In 08 Hillary kept saying how she had a superdelegate firewall. They switched to Obama as he started

winning.

[Matt_in_STL]

26. You can already see that tactic at play here this morning

Posts are trying to prop up her delegate count with super delegates, going so far as to say she won New Hampshire, against the will of the people. I guess if it worked in 2008....oh wait....

[backscatter712]

25. If that happens, I would write in Sanders in the general.

Playing that sort of game would be a pyrrhic victory for Clinton.

[Fuddnik]

64. A write-in vote is a stay at home vote in Florida. Doesn't count.

Unless a candidate is registered as a qualified write-in for the election, before qualifying ends, any votes for them are tossed out.

I guess Mickey Mouse won too many elections down here.

[HooptieWagon]

129. But a Green vote for Stein is counted in Fl.

That is an FYI statement, not an endorsement.

[bravenak]

34. .

He won. She has been had those delegates! Been getting them for months. Can't change the rules mid race. That would be unfair.
He knew she had them and could have tried to get them first. Takes effort but he coukd have tried. He still can get some. Takes effort.

The delegates are 'establishment' democrats and I don't think he likes establishment stuff. Maybe that has something to do with his low delegate totals. I guess fighting the part puts one behind with the party. Hole to climb out of. Started out way behind. Not much time left to go and make some friends.

[morningfog]

43. He can still get ALL of them. They are unpledged.

They can switch horses at any time, even the convention.

Super delegates are little more than endorsements by elected Democrats. They don't *really* factor in the delegate count win/loss.

They go with the candidate with the winning majority of pledged delegates come the convention. The idea is silly and undemocratic.

[bravenak]

48. He has 11 days to gain 20 pts

Good luck. Momentum leaves after losses back to back like that. Supertuesday is next after that. He has so little time to devote to each state.
Why would they switch?

[Matt_in_STL]

55. The most recent Nevada poll is from December.

I'm going to guess he has made up a little ground since then, momentum and all.

[bravenak]

63. He had spent months in IA and NH.

There is not much time. I'm sure he gains but,2 losses will slow him all the ways back down

[Matt_in_STL]

65. He also didn't have the name recognition when he started there, or the momentum

He sure does now and he has put Hillary back on her heels. The memo she released yesterday and her new going negative with the kitchen sink strategy just leans more toward her internal polling not looking so hot. Until we see some actual numbers from Nevada this week, nobody knows what they are thinking.

[bravenak]

69. Then he should relax and rely on his name recognition

[Matt_in_STL]

72. Nah, that's a Clinton strategy. It doesn't work.

[bravenak]

75. Then he better get out there

[morningfog]

68. Huh? NV is Feb. 20, and I am not expecting a loss there.

Coupled with the momentum he'll carry from IA and NH, I think SC is going to be much closer than expected.

All bets are off if he takes NV and shows strong in SC. Already at least on poll shows him within 2 points nationally.

My point is that supers are unpledged and if he were to take this contest through to the convention, it is not implausible that he wind up with the majority of the pledged delegates. At that point any or all of the supers could move over.

I don't expect any supers to switch between now and Super Tuesday, although that would be fantastic.

[bravenak]

70. Ok . 10 days

Momentum. That is the best part that people rely on that like Romney did.

[morningfog]

71. The better word would be movement. Bernie is moving and that is undeniable.

The margin of victory last night is unprecedented. The results in IA were impressive and unexpected.

Nevada has not been polled since December. We have no good data from there at this point.

[bravenak]

74. We know he has not put in any time there.

SC yeah, but, they are not moving any ways near fast enough. She has people fanning out as we speak and people discuss his momentum and name recognition.

You ever see people doing something unproductive and telk them for months whats wrong and they just get pissed and then way later they say ' i should have listened to you'?

I feel that thing coming on. I'm going to keep saying whats wrong. It's so crazy watching it though. I wish people had listened in July.

[Kentonio]

97. He's done a number of events in Nevada already.

He also has a paid staff and a string of offices there plus a good group of volunteers who have been working their asses off for months. Hillary is the one who put all her eggs in the Iowa basket, not Bernie.

[bravenak]

98. Hillary has stuff going on there more than he does.

And the south. She is deep in the south. 200 black female cekebrities are stumping as we speak. Angela bassett , vivica fox, and many more!
I do not see what you see.

[Kentonio]

100. Sorry, you're wrong about Nevada

The Clinton campaign has opened seven field offices since July 2015, and the Sanders campaign has announced 11 organizing offices since October 2015.

http://nvdems.com/press/caucus-memo-with-one-month-to-go-nv-dems-ready-for-successful-caucus/

That was Jan 20th. This is from Feb 9th..

Mr. Sanders’s team didn’t arrive until October, having given priority to operations in New Hampshire and Iowa and wanting to make sure the campaign had enough money.

Since then, a Sanders campaign flush with cash opened a dozen offices and hired more than 90 campaign workers. His campaign has been airing television ads steadily in Nevada since December, making use of Spanish-language TV and radio. The Clinton campaign, for its part, won’t say how many paid staff it has in the state. It has fewer offices but also makes use of volunteers’ homes, aides said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nevada-caucus-offers-new-test-for-democrats-1455070933

Making use of volunteers homes? Really..

[bravenak]

117. Yeah

She is

It's called surrogates

People already know her

Who is he?

A guy from waaaaaaaay over there who never says boo

[Kentonio]

121. We'll see soon enough.

[HooptieWagon]

130. Nevada polls are from last year.

The landscape has changed a lot since they were taken.

[bravenak]

138. Then relax abd dont even bother working to help him

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

36. Unless neither of them concedes before the convention, this will not even be an issue.

[morningfog]

44. Exactly, which is why including them in the count is stupid.

[Vinca]

37. Super delegates aren't written in stone.

If it becomes evident Bernie is the preferred candidate, I'm sure they'd support him instead. If not, it would probably be the end of the Democratic Party . . . at least for this election cycle and probably beyond.

[leftofcool]

57. Nope.

Hillary won the popular vote in 2008 and Obama got more super delegates. Hillary has all the super delegates this time. They will not vote for Bernie. Why would they? He has already called them "establishment." Sanders would have to get 63% of the total delegates to win. Not going to happen.

[jeff47]

109. Wrong.

Hillary won the popular vote in 2008 and Obama got more super delegates.

Nope. This meme does not count the caucus states, where Obama got most of his delegates.

You can't call it "the popular vote" when you throw out a large chunk of voters.

Also, Clinton had far more superdelegates early in the election. They switched to Obama. For example, John Lewis endorsed Clinton in 2008, and then switched his vote to Obama when Obama won Lewis's district by a large margin.

[rurallib]

39. this very scenario crossed my mind this morning

glad you asked.

My thought was would the superdelegates risk a revolt of half the party or more to prove they are right? I doubt it.

[notadmblnd]

40. What if there really are unicorns and they really fart glitter?

[AnnetteJacobs]

78. What if...

[Zorra]

42. The Democratic party would never win another election. nt

[Tarc]

45. This is how the Democratic Party works, yes.

[fbc]

50. Current delegate count: Clinton 394, Sanders 42

https://www.google.com/search?q=democratic+primary+results

[gcomeau]

58. That is a completely meaningless total.

The supers can say they're supporting anyone they want now, once the pledged delegate totals are in they will line up behind whoever won those. Period.

[Bryce Butler]

62. If you take away the super delegates

Sanders: 34
Clinton: 32

[KingCharlemagne]

51. I would leave the Democratic Party forever. I would actively encourage Sanders

to launch a 3rd-party bid and would volunteer and donate to it.

[dana_b]

107. me too

and I would campaign very actively for him.

[gcomeau]

54. Will never happen.

One thing the Superdelegates are not is suicidal. And that would end the Democratic Party for at least the next election cycle.

[yourout]

76. +1....it would be political suicide.

[dragonfly301]

59. I assume the media reports

whatever the DNC gives them to report. DWS rears her ugly head again.

[DCBob]

60. He wont.

So dont worry about it.

[CentralMass]

61. The super delegate system has to go. If the party ends

up forcing their will over the choice of the voters, I will be on the long line of voters who will sit on on my keester for the general.

[Moostache]

67. 1) End of Democratic Party; 2) Third Party Candidacy for Bernie; 3) President Cruz with <40%

IF (and it remains an "if" even though I am a supporter and want to see it become reality) Sanders wins the popular vote and HRC still snags the nomination through back-room deals, chicanery and "super delegates" the youth of this nation will turn off from politics and will utterly reject the Democratic Party in droves.

IF that is the legacy that HRC wants, then so be it...I have to believe that if the vote totals suggest that she loses that she will come to her senses. She may want to be the first woman president, but she CANNOT want that over the good of the people and the health of the party...

[BillZBubb]

80. I agree with most of your post, except Bernie will not run as a 3rd party candidate.

The Democratic party will lose a whole generation of voters--which would be catastrophic.

[HooptieWagon]

132. Bernie won't break his promise not to run third party.

However, a good number of his supporters won't vote for Hillary in the GE if she steals the nomination...probably won't vote Dem downticket races either. The DNC would be committing suicide.

[MineralMan]

79. The popular vote, nationally, has nothing to do with the nomination.

Only the delegate count matters. In each state, delegates are selected proportionally according to the popular vote, more or less. There are instances where the count is off a little, due to rounding issues, since the number of delegates from each state is far smaller than the number of voters. But...pledged delegates are still selected proportionally.

At this point in the process, it's very premature to talk about something that is very, very unlikely to occur. After a few more than two states have had their primary caucuses or elections, then we'll begin to see trends develop that will indicate who the most likely nominee will be.

Superdelegates do not count until the convention. They are free to vote as they choose for the nominee. Just because they say now that they support one or the other candidate is not important. They can decide to change their vote at any time.

When watching delegate counts, just look at the pledged delegates. You'll see any trends that develop. It's still very early in the process, and the two states that have held events send few delegates to the convention. Larger states send many more.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. 'Super Delegate' is a slang term, in Party regulations they are called 'Unpledged Delegates' and

that describes their status exactly. Those delegates who are 'for Clinton' are not pledged to her because they do not have the authority to commit their vote is by nature and purpose unpledged.
The vast majority of such delegates have their vote because they hold elected office. If they betray the will of their constituents they risk their own seats, and few will do that for any other politician.
In 2008 Hillary started with a 2 to 1 advantage with unpledged delegates, that reversed itself as time passed. Largest single migration to Obama was 50 unpledged delegates in one new cycle.

They are not 'super' they are simply uncommitted. Anyone saying they have committed is not being honest.

[jwirr]

137. Much of what you are saying rings a bell with me. But I have

always understood that we vote for a slate of delegates in each state who must remain true to their commitment until after the first floor vote at the convention. These are called regular delegates. They do not include the elected officials from states, party leaders and former presidents etc.

It is these last delegates who many of us are calling super-delegates. You are right they do remain uncommitted until the convention. But they are extra convention voters who were not selected when we vote in our primaries. They should not be counted in any data polls until the convention.

[LS_Editor]

83. It would destroy the party.

[NurseJackie]

84. It won't happen.

[Cryptoad]

85. Much bigger things to worry aby

like how will the Old White Dude win another primary now that the state of Independents' primary is over.

[Feeling the Bern]

86. I hate the idea of Superdelegates. Why not just let the party brokers

decide everything and remove the pretense of choice and one person, one vote all together?

[pinebox]

87. This would ensure a Hillary loss in a GE

and many would not ever vote for her and possibly cross over and vote for the Republican candidate.
Period. Full stop.

[Bohemianwriter]

88. I've been pondering that for a little while now..

In the environment of venom going towards Bernie as well as his supporters both from Hillary supporters as well as Hillary herself, I suspect that many will either stay home, or go 3rd party if your scenario were to become real.

I wonder how much DNC and DCL are willing to gamble on the future of the party by alienating a growing voting block by the day...

[Le Taz Hot]

89. If you were alive in 1968 or if you've seen footage

of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago -- that's what's going to happen. But worse. What is that quote? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[HooptieWagon]

133. Video:

http://www.history.com/topics/1960s/videos/violence-batters-1968-democratic-convention

[Cary]

90. Oh no! The "progressive left" will revolt! What will we ever do without them?

The same as we always do without them.

[Kentonio]

99. Typical of the contempt your side of the party have always felt towards progressives.

Enjoy watching your third way grip on the party being destroyed.

[Cary]

114. Right

Attack me personally for my opinion. Call me "third way" or other names.

Kentonio, I am a private citizen with a vote, just like you. You're not superior. You don't have better answers than I have. You are most likely not anywhere near as well educated as I am and you probably cannot in your wildest dreams match my experience. You are most certainly judgmental, for no real reason.

What I am is a Democrat. Beyond that you're out of line. For about the 50th time, I have never said anything bad about Bernie Sanders. I favor defeating Republicans and "conservatives" and you have no good argument against that, or against me.

In the meantime I stand unrebutted. We have won without the radical left, and that's a fact. And we can continue to defeat Republicans without the radical left if that's what it comes down to.

You don't have to like that reality. It's okay, and it doesn't matter.

[Kentonio]

119. Oh spare me..

Your original message was dripping with contempt for progressives and openly said we were unimportant to the party.

As for your education and experiences, that's a foolish game to play with anonymous people you know nothing about.

Feel free to continue writing us off as 'radicals' though. It's working out well for you so far this season.

[Cary]

140. Oh spare yourself

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll post as I wish to post, within the TOS. You can whine about it, that's within the TOS too.

I don't have any power to "continue writing us off." I can only find behavior that I encounter to be odd and, in my own judgment, dysfunctional. What I notice over and over and over is this attitude that you "us 'radicals'" (or whatever it is that a few hundred posters here at DU are) display. The most salient feature that you all seem to possess is this idea that you are something special and, apparently, resurgent along with your inability to focus on issues and an apparent obsession with attacking anyone who doesn't toe your line.

Notice how you are once again changing this subject from whatever it is to some kind of bizarre attack on me. The irony of it is that you are really saying nothing whatsoever about me, and everything about yourself.

[Kentonio]

141. Nice spin

You started out on the attack as the posts clearly show. That's the great thing about forums, your words remain right there for anyone to read.

As for us feeling 'special', personally I'd be more than happy with being given the same voice as everyone else, and not having the issues that I care deeply about written off as unicorns and fairydust.

[Cary]

142. You call it spin, and I call it reality

My reality is that I am a Democrat and I will support the Democratic nominee, and I'm not going to trash either candidate.

I don't write anyone off. It is my opinion that you whatevers (and I do have a word for it) marginalize yourselves because you aren't the least bit pragmatic or tethered to reality. Reality is that both of our candidates are excellent and will build upon what our outstanding president has done, but both will be severely hampered and constrained by evil "conservative" Republicans.

And I don't think you are helping our cause one bit by being so ideological and so detached from that reality. I think you cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sure you regard that as an attack on you personally. I really wish the world worked the way you imagine it to be. I really wish we could change things over night just by whining and moaning. Unfortunately our real enemies are venal, craven, and powerful. And they don't give up.

Even your erstwhile savior says that we have to coalesce, so you whatever you are are indeed quite alone when it comes down to it. You don't have to like that reality. You are free to be a denier in the face of overwhelming evidence. But I really do have to laugh at how you react and I would apologize to you if laughing at you were some kind of transgression.

In spite of your protest, it isn't illegal, unethical, or immoral to laugh off foolishness.

[Kentonio]

143. On the flip side..

I find what you call 'pragmatism' to be little more than short sighted cynicism that delights in a sense of superiority that is completely unearned. I'm frankly tired of hearing that the only way to make progress is to aim low, hope for minor incremental improvement and meanwhile end up losing ground to an opponent who we should be stamping into oblivion (GOP just to be clear).

Your way has led us to losing hundreds of seats from county to congress, compromised on core Democratic ideals, and allowed monied interests to balloon in wealth and power. But no, we're on the left are the ones who are unrealistic.

[Cary]

144. Interesting

Of course I am being Bro-ed. I can't come here without being Bro-ed and the go to tactic for Bros is always to deploy the old two wrongs make a right red herring.

That's no different than any other ideologue. You can't just let me or anyone else who isn't in lockstep with you have ever my own opinion. You have no discipline and not much decency, and that is a glaring weakness not a strength.it shows immaturity and a poor.self image.

[Kentonio]

145. Self pitying twaddle

You attack me on fundamental issues and then cry when I return the favor.

You're free to have whatever opinions you want, but you don't have a right to not be challenged on those opinions.

[Cary]

146. odd

I wonder what it is exactly that you think you're defending

[Fumesucker]

101. Lose the Presidency but win for the establishment

It's becoming steadily more obvious that the Democratic party establishment would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders, another couple of weeks and it will be glaringly evident to all.

$10 million in 24 hours for Sanders while Clinton has to keep her fund raising on the down low because of where the money is coming from. Her campaign will end up strangled for money eventually they were not planning on a long drawn out primary fight so loaded their expenditures up front in Iowa and NH.

[jeff47]

110. You'll lose. Badly.

But you'll feel so good attacking them on message boards for the next 20 years.

[Cary]

115. I'll lose what?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[jeff47]

116. Elections.

How'd that "we don't need the left" thing work out in 2014 and 2010 and 2004 and 2002 and 2000?

[Cary]

123. What makes you so sure that it was "the left?"

Most people, the vast majority, have no idea what you're referring to when you talk about "the left." Most Democrats just don't bother to vote especially in off year elections.

As for 2000 it's a bit cheeky for you to be holding that out as some kind of example of the power of "the left." Whenever it is said that Nader was partially responsible for Gore's defeat "the left" squeals like a stuck pig.

And when I suggest we need party unity people here, presumably of your "the left," jump all over me for whatever.

I don't know what to tell you except that I think your "the left" is a mess and cleaning it up is not my responsibility. If you are stupid enough to scuttle Democrats and elect people like George W. Bush, or Governor Bruce Rauner, or Scott Walker, or Brownback, or any of the current Republican miscreants then that is all on your "the left" and only confirms my assessment.

Pfeh.

[jeff47]

124. Polling.

The difference between 2008 and 2010 turnout was largely due to Democratic-leaning independents. They are to the left of the median Democrat. Same with 2014.

As for 2000 it's a bit cheeky for you to be holding that out as some kind of example of the power of "the left." Whenever it is said that Nader was partially responsible for Gore's defeat "the left" squeals like a stuck pig.

If I was blaming it on Nader, that would be true. I'm not. It was the same depressed turnout among Democratic-leaning independents.

And when I suggest we need party unity people here, presumably of your "the left," jump all over me for whatever.

There's two problems with your stance. First, you don't get to demand only others surrender on behalf of unity. If you want unity, you have to give up something too.

Second, Democrats are 30% of the electorate. We can not win elections with only 30% of the electorate. We need people outside our party, and your demands for surrender....er....calls for unity are even less appealing to people who are not part of the party.

I don't know what to tell you except that I think your "the left" is a mess and cleaning it up is not my responsibility.

Then you lose elections. But you'll get to feel self-righteous as you attack the people you need to win elections.

[HooptieWagon]

135. If you think Clinton can win without the Left, you are in for a rude awakening.

Liberals and progressives on the Left have solidly supported the Democratic nominee, even though we often had to hold our noses. More Dems voted for Bush than Nader. Most of Naders support was Greens and Independants.

[rocktivity]

94. We just do what we did in 2008

Put out the word that anyone who overrides our majority votes of Bernie gets voted out themselves.


rocktivity

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

102. I will not vote for Hillary under those conditions

If Sanders wins by vote, but super delegates put Hillary on top, I will not vote for her. At that point, it will be apparent that the establishment dems have taken the party away from us.

If Hillary wins the regular delegate count fairly, I will, of course, vote for her.

[Marty McGraw]

105. this won't be anything

worth worrying about this time.

Hear that rumble....? The Landslide is just getting Underway!

[DemocraticWing]

106. I will vote for whoever gets the majority of delegates awarded in primaries/caucuses.

If that's not the same person that wins the Democratic nomination, then I'll have to write them in.

We are the DEMOCRATIC Party, not the Oligarchic Party.

[NowSam]

111. "Little people vote however you like but the establishment

will still choose our candidate". That is how I perceive the message.

[AgingAmerican]

113. Then Hillary would lose the general election

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. The party would be obliged to add "not very" to Democratic.

[Matariki]

122. A history lesson we should all know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

When it came to choosing a candidate, on one side stood supporters of Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and who was seen as the peace candidate. On the other side was Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate who represented the Johnson point of view. In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼. The perceived cause of this loss was the result of Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley, and President Johnson pulling strings behind the scenes. Humphrey, even though he had not entered a single primary, had won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.

[Erokese]

125. SuperDs overturning the popular vote would guarantee a general election loss and here's why

Voter Exit Poll Question: "However you voted today, you consider yourself a <fill in blank>"

Democrat: 58% of voters
....Clinton: **********************52%
....Sanders: ******************48%

Independent or something else: 40%
....Sanders ****************************************73%
....Clinton *******25%

Republican: 2% of voters

If the superDs decide the election, would ANY of the independents supporting Bernie, vote for Hillary in the general? I doubt it. This one would not!

Look at these numbers. Even if Hillary wins the nomination without the superDs, how confident are you, all those independents would vote for Hillary?

source: NBC news NH Poll.

[dchill]

126. Bernie is GROWING the Democratic Party.

The Clintons would seem to demand a purity test. Either way, the will of the people will prevail. And they know it.

[BainsBane]

131. In that case the Super Delegates would switch

as they did with Obama.

[Chezboo]

134. Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Super-delegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit.

...Make no mistake: That’s the point of this kind of messaging. To discourage, dismay, and dishearten, in the wake of something that should feel really positive for Sanders supporters. Reality check: The system is bigger than you, and you can’t change it, so go home... Are they (super delegates) even relevant to the primary race? Barely. Certainly not now, and probably not ever. Are these messages deceptive, even subtly? Yes. Absolutely. And they’re propagated by people who are withholding the full story in the hopes that people like you and me are too stupid and complacent to find out on our own..... Super-delegates can change their votes.

After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Super-delegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

[JPnoodleman]

139. Hillary's unelectability goes from theoretical to absolute fact. /nt