Why would a superdelegate who has endorsed Clinton change?

[MineralMan]

I can see such a change if Bernie Sanders had a majority of pledged delegates at the time of the convention. Then, such Democrats, most of them elected congressional representatives and Senators, would probably change their vote to confirm the vote of the people.

However, if he cannot get the majority of pledged delegates, which seem increasingly likely, why would they change their vote for Clinton? Again, they'd be voting with the majority of primary voters.

While it might happen that a small number of superdelegates might change their minds, it seems unlikely to be very many. The superdelegates who have already endorsed Clinton will not change their minds, unless the voters give Sanders a majority of pledged delegates and the popular primary vote.

It's pretty simple, really. There's no earthly reason for them to change unless the voters indicate that they want that change by voting in the majority for Sanders. They are not doing that so far, and it seems unlikely that they will do that nationally by the convention.

Trying to get them to change is a waste of time. They will vote as they wish, as is their privilege. If Sanders wants their votes at the convention, he will have to win a majority of pledged delegates first. If that happens, he will be the nominee. If it doesn't, he will not. The will of the majority of Democratic primary voters will be honored by the superdelegates.

[whatchamacallit]

1. Because their conscience finally prevailed over their professional self interest?

[MineralMan]

7. Really? See, the thing is that

many, many people feel that Hillary would be the best candidate in the GE. Many, many people think she would get more done as President, too.

Conscience? Do only Sanders supporters have an operating conscience? Is that what you're implying?

My congressional representative is Betty McCollum. I know her. Her conscience is in fine working order, I assure you. She is a solid progressive House member. She is also a superdelegate, and has endorsed Clinton. My Senators are Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. They have also endorsed Hillary. Are you opining that those people's consciences are defective? On what grounds?

Partisanship is a good thing, but it should not take the place of reasoned argument.

[JaneyVee]

28. "Do only Sanders supporters have an operating conscience?"

Welcome to the Bernie bubble where his fans think any dissent is surely due to a lapse in conscience and intellect.

And they wonder why the "revolution" isnt going as planned. Doesnt feel very inclusive now does it?

[MineralMan]

35. Well, partisans are partisans.

Partisans have a firm belief that their opinions are the only valid opinions. Often, they discover that their opinions are not shared by others when the candidate they support lose. The reaction to that varies.

[floriduck]

107. You finally got it. I'm so proud of you for that.

It's never too late for Hillary supporters to develop a conscience. Give it a try. You might like it.

[JaneyVee]

111. Develop a conscious.

[Fawke Em]

69. "Many, many people think she would get more done as President, too."

Yeah. I'm very scared of that, actually. We see how she likes to play nice with Republicans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Does your conscience instruct you to overrule the will of the people

Does your conscience instruct to overrule the will of the people which will be the case if Secretary Clinton arrives at the Convention with more popular votes and more pledged delegates?

Thank you in advance.

[whatchamacallit]

14. If she arrives at the convention with all the goodies

then the super delegates should not override the national mandate. I was only answering why one might be inclined to flip. BTW there have been lots of posts from your side defending right of SDs voting independently of the people's choice.

[Beacool]

66. It's undemocratic and would cause a backlash to deny the nomination

to the candidate who has the most pledged delegates.

[PoliticAverse]

2. "Trying to get them to change is a waste of time." - indeed Clinton learned that in 2008. n/t

[hrmjustin]

3. If Hillary wins the popular vote, more states, and more pledge delegates there id no way they would.

If they did there would be a holy hell in the party.

[think]

4. Ethics?

[MineralMan]

9. Ethics?

My congressional representative and both of my Senators have endorsed Hillary. Do they lack ethics? Betty McCollum, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. Go look them up. If you want to accuse them of being unethical, I'd sure like to see your evidence of that.

Ethics require supporting the candidate you think would do the best job, according to your own principles. Ethics would also require voting in line with the popular vote, which determines the pledged delegate count. My reps will do exactly that.

Accusations of unethical behavior require some support, I think. Have you any evidence?

[think]

17. I'm referring to Hillary. Shall we go there? Where do you want to start?

[MineralMan]

23. I'm talking about superdelegates here, not candidates.

I'm talking about the primary process. Your opinion of Hillary Clinton is not relevant to the discussion, and I won't entertain a discussion of that by responding.

[think]

27. Hillary's ethics might be a reason for a super delegate to switch if they didn't know what she did.

I use to think Hillary was just fine.

Then I learned of the many questionable things she's done. It changed my opinion on her ability to hold the highest office in the land.

Ethics matter...

[think]

33. 1. Hillary increased weapon sales to a dictator with a history of human rights violations

This was done after that dictator donated to her foundation. This is something I did not know previously. It adds to the list of things that lead me to question Hillary's ethics....

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

BY DAVID SIROTA @DAVIDSIROTA AND ANDREW PEREZ @ANDREWPEREZDC ON 05/26/15 AT 8:44 AM

~Snip~

Sales Flowed Despite Human Rights Concerns

Under a presidential policy directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to specifically take human rights records into account when deciding whether to approve licenses enabling foreign governments to purchase military equipment and services from American companies. Despite this, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such sales to nations that her agency sharply criticized for systematic human rights abuses.

In its 2010 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.” The report said the Algerian government “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria -- nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose Algeria’s donation until this year -- a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration....

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

To be clear Algeria was a dictatorship when Hillary made the decision to increase arms sales and the foundation took the donation:

The world's enduring dictators: Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria

By JOSHUA NORMAN CBS NEWS June 10, 2011, 2:00 PM

Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria

Length of rule: 12 years. After having term limits abolished, Bouteflika won a third five-year term as president in 2009, having won that and the 2004 election with an absurd margin of victory. He first won the presidency in 1999 with the backing of the military, in part by promising to end the violence that rocked the country after the cancellation of parliamentary elections in 1992, which an Islamic party was allegedly set to win.

Most despotic acts: Bouteflika has battled militant Islamic movements throughout his time in office. After being in place 19 years - a length of time that precedes his ascension to power - Bouteflika recently lifted the state of emergency, enacted at the onset of a violent ten-year civil war, which had turned human rights into a secondary concern in Algeria. Regardless, Bouteflika has continued to aggressively squash protests against his rule inspired by uprisings in neighboring North African countries. While the emergency rule was in place, Bouteflika's regime was accused by the UN Human Rights Committee of "massacres, torture, rape and disappearances." The U.S. State Department reports that Bouteflika's regime has repeatedly failed to "account for persons who disappeared in the 1990s and to address the demands of victims' families." While food shortages and general discontent led to many of the smaller Tunisia-inspired protests that state security forces violently squashed, rampant corruption was among the protesters' chief complaints, a problem that could result in "an explosion (of protests) if the government's promise of change doesn't come fast enough," NPR writes...

full article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-worlds-enduring-dictators-abdelaziz-bouteflika-algeria/

[MineralMan]

38. As I said, this thread is about primary elections and

superdelegates. It is not about the candidates, either of whom I will support enthusiastically if nominated.

In this thread, we are not talking about the characteristics of the candidates. Just the process of the nomination.

You can start another thread to discuss your point. I won't participate in a thread shift here.

[think]

42. Sorry you misunderstood my post. Still you asked for proof of unethical behavior. I provided

proof to back my assertion that if super delegates weren't aware of Hillary's questionable ethical behavior they might want to back away from their endorsement.

Again sorry I wasn't more clear in whose ethics I was referring to.

[MineralMan]

44. I see. So, do you consider the superdelegates to be

"low information voters?" If so, perhaps you are not aware that most are very well informed about such things. If they were not, they would not have been elected in the first place.

[think]

45. Do you feel Hillary acted ethically in increasing military aid to that dictator?

[think]

55. I don't think super delelgates are aware of every thing Hillary has done. If they did hopefully

they would reconsider their endorsement. She's done some whoppers.

And no. I don't consider them low information voters. I didn't know about the debacle with Algeria until the last few days.

Were you aware of this for some time? You seem to imply that this is something everyone knows about if they follow politics.

[NurseJackie]

5. RE: "Trying to get them to change is a waste of time."

Trying to get them to change is a waste of time.

The cynical side of me thinks that Bernie knows better, and instead, it's political theater that's intended to give (false) hope to his donors. And, maybe to cause a bit of worry among Hillary supporters.

But, as you point out... the likelihood of this having any meaningful effect is so small that it's approaching zero.

Watching politics is fun and interesting (and sometimes frustrating), isn't it?

[Vinca]

6. Because the people in their state preferred the other candidate?

If you're going to be a delegate, you should probably represent the majority of the people in your state.

[Garrett78]

11. That's the only semi-reasonable argument I've heard.

But even then it's not all that clear cut, since there are disingenuous people who vote in open primaries/caucuses. Not to mention that only a fraction "of the people" vote in each state.

Furthermore, in a very close contest, it's hard to argue that all of the superdelegates from that state should give their support to the 'winner'. Instead, the superdelegates should be allocated proportionally just like pledged delegates are. Better yet, do away with superdelegates altogether.

[MineralMan]

13. That's not necessarily true for the superdelegates.

Although elected in their own states, they also have national priorities to consider.

As I said, the superdelegates will support the choice of the majority of voters. The candidate with the most pledged delegates will be elected as the nominee at the convention. It is that simple. Any other outcome is not going to occur.

You want Bernie to be the nominee? Help him get that majority of pledged delegates. If he doesn't, he won't be the nominee. Nothing could be simpler or easier to understand, really.

[TDale313]

43. That was honestly the only case I heard Bernie make.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but if Hillary does clinche the pledged delegates I see no reason any significant number of the Supers would or even should switch. I think the system of Superdelegates is just wrong on its face, but that's based on my opinion that people should actually have a say in who the nominee is. I wouldn't want that say overturned by the Super delegates in either direction.

[MineralMan]

48. The superdelegates will not go against the majority

of pledged delegates. There is not even a chance of that happening.

That would be political suicide, and every last one of those superdelegates is a politician who definitely does not have a career death wish.

If Bernie wants the nomination, he and his supporters will have to win more pledged delegates than Hillary. It's that simple. Nothing else matters, really. Can he do it? I think that's extremely doubtful, but I'll keep watching primary results.

I have no stake in the matter. I will gleefully support either candidate in the General Election. We will have a nominee after the convention. That nominee will be our next President.

If you prefer Bernie Sanders, then try to help him win more primary elections or caucuses, so he can get the majority of pledged delegates. That is the only path to the nomination, and it won't happen here on DU. I suggest focusing on states with large convention delegations to allocate. At this point, that will be essential.

Frankly, what happens in Idaho or Wyoming isn't going to matter much in that regard.

[TDale313]

56. You have more confidence than I do that the Superdelegates

Will go the way of the pledged delegates, particularly if Bernie gets the most pledged. I hope that's the case. Many seem very entrenched in supporting the status quo candidate.

I absolutely agree with you on this- Bernie needs to win the pledged delegates to have any shot. And that probably should be the case.

I will ask you this, though. If the Superdelegates will never, ever go against the pledged delegates- why even have them? They are there specifically so the party has a safety valve in case they don't like the will of the people.

[MineralMan]

61. The superdelegates exist to resolve a convention that has

more than two delegates. In such a case there might not be a candidate with a majority of the pledged delegates. In a two-person race, that will not occur, so they aren't actually needed this year. They will vote in accordance with the pledged delegate count to make sure that the majority winner is the nominee.

If you look back at the history of the superdelegates, you will understand it better. They're not there to override a candidate with the majority of pledged votes, and they wouldn't do that. It would be political suicide.

Now, some might vote for the other candidate, but the will of the voters will be confirmed.

Why would they do otherwise.

[TDale313]

71. Why would they do otherwise?

Because they see Bernie as a threat to the status quo which has served them just fine, thank you very much. Because they (mistakenly, IMO) believe she'll be a stronger candidate? Many of these supers are not even currently seated politicians btw- some are lobbyists, some are former politicians. All are seen as having been helpful/influencial for the party. But Howard Dean made it clear that he wasn't representing anyone in his role as Superdelegate and his vote had nothing to do with the will of the people. The establishment in the party really, really do not want Bernie to win. They've put their thumbs on the scale every chance they had- and in the supers they have a two ton anvil. I don't have faith they won't use it.

[Vinca]

47. Let's just agree to the obvious, though.

The only reason for superdelegates to exist is to make sure the party bosses get their pick. Otherwise, all delegates would be chosen by the people and - horror of horrors - we would have a purely democratic vote.

[MineralMan]

49. Not really. The superdelegates are there to deal with

primaries with more than two candidates. They really have no role in a two-person race. One candidate will have a majority of pledged delegates. The superdelegates will confirm that majority. That's what they will do.

Now, if we had three or more candidates, there might not be a majority. That's when the superdelegates come into play. Truly. Watch, and you'll see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. FIXED

"If you're going to be a delegate, you should probably represent the majority of the people in your nation. "

I have lived in New York, Florida, and California, but I will always be an American. This isn't antebellum America with regional loyalties.


Senator Sanders needs to win a majority of the popular vote and pledged delegates or go home.

[Vinca]

46. I think it would be best if we didn't have superdelegates.

It gives the impression the people do not make the choice, the party bigwigs do. And I guess, in the end, they do.

[MineralMan]

51. As you will see in July, the candidate with the majority of

pledged delegates will be the nominee. No other outcome will occur.

[Yavin4]

16. So, that would mean that Elizabeth Warren would have to vote for Hillary, right?

Since Mass. went to her.

[MineralMan]

24. She will vote for, endorse and support the candidate with the

majority of pledged delegates. I guarantee it.

[firebrand80]

10. The Bern, they'll feel it. nt

[stone space]

12. The same reason they did in 2008.

But Bernie has to win the majority of pledged delegates for that to realistically happen.

If he does, then I'd expect enough supers to switch to give him the nomination as a matter of course.

If he doesn't, it'll be tough going, to put it mildly.

I'd prefer my chances at winning the Powerball at that point. Even without purchasing a ticket. I'll just keep my eyes on the ground and hope I spot the winning ticket lying there.

I mean, it could happen!

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. The pledged delegate count will determine the winner.

Nothing could be simpler. Whoever has the majority of that will be the nominee.

No other result is acceptable, frankly. That's what will happen.

Bernie needs to win more delegates than he has in the past. Good luck to him.

If he does, then I'll be campaigning for him in the General Election.

[Yavin4]

19. Right now, Hillary has 2.7 million+ more votes than does Bernie

That's the will of the people speaking clearly and loudly, and the Supers will follow.

[Land of Enchantment]

76. yes she does and they mostly came from the deep south. Why don't we see

how the REST of the nation votes? I don't think the south should be the region that determines who our candidate will be.

[Beacool]

79. It makes no bloody difference from what part of the country they came from!!!!

The person who has the majority of the pledged delegates WILL be the nominee. The super delegates will not deny the will of the people.

[Yavin4]

80. I'm fine with that.

If she maintains or increases her popular vote lead after every state votes, will you concede that the Supers should vote with the majority of the voters?

[Chan790]

20. A short list.

* Their sanity and sense of decency has returned.
* Perhaps they changed SSRIs and the newer ones having them thinking clearer.
* They no long think she's the best candidate.
* They no longer think she's electable.
* They now believe she might be indicted.
* They like Sanders new tie better than Hillary's new pantsuit.
* They're embarrassed by the "Hillary barks, Putin laughs" ad.
* They wagered it on a bar-bet.
* Coin flip
* Their constituents convinced them to vote in line with the public majority in their state.
* Their constituents convinced them not to vote in line with the public majority in their state.
* Jesus spoke to them.
* Satan spoke to them.
* Elvis spoke to them.

Who am I to tell you the mind of a superdelegate on why they'd make such a decision? Their vote like ours is theirs to do with what they wish. You're not being realistic if you think we're not going to try to lobby them to change their vote though. If the shoe was on the other foot, Clinton and her supporters would be doing the same thing.

It's how the thing works.

[Tiggeroshii]

21. Do they respect the will of their constituents?

If so, then if their state's voters voted for Bernie, they should too. Callous disregard for the electorate is ignoring the results in places he got landslide victories in and still voting for Clinton regardless of what your state wants.

[JaneyVee]

32. But Republicans can also vote in Dem primaries.

[Tiggeroshii]

88. ...elected officials of the states current or prior dont also represent Republicans?

A states will is a states will and all delegates from that state should honor it.

[Kip Humphrey]

22. because Obama was the better candidate for the country at the time?

[MineralMan]

25. No. Because he had more pledged delegates than Hillary.

Obama 1766.5 Hillary 1639.5

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

That information is easy enough to find. That's why the superdelegates voted as they did.

[Beacool]

112. No, the super delegates went to Obama because he was ahead in the pledged delegate count.

He had a tad over 100 more pledged delegates than Hillary did. THAT's why they switched allegiance from Hillary to Obama. Also, because she released them from her promise and gave him all her delegates.

[basselope]

26. Because he may have more pledged delegates at the time of the convention.

[MineralMan]

31. Just as I said. If he does, then he will be the nominee.

The superdelegates will vote to make that happen.

However, the odds of that are vanishingly small, I believe. You may have a different belief.

The nominee will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention.

If you want Bernie to win, you need to help him get them. Trying to convert superdelegates is a losing battle. It won't work.

[basselope]

40. Hardly small.

The pledged delegate race is fairly close and the majority of pledged delegates remain.

Bernie only needs to win 58% of the remaining pledged delegates... not a herculean feat given the states that remain.

I hope for the country's sake he does.. because we all know that Clinton won't win in the general election.

[MineralMan]

41. The moment you say "we all know,"

you are automatically incorrect. You cannot, in any conceivable way, speak for us "all." You think she won't win. You are one person. Others may even agree with you. But "all" do not, I assure you.

What you know does not necessarily reflect the knowledge of anyone but yourself.

Logic 101.

[basselope]

50. I know she won't.

This isn't very difficult to predict.

I have the unfortunate pleasure of being 100% correct on presidential elections since before I was old enough to vote.

Saying I know Clinton won't win is one of the easier ones.. with TWO caveats. However, I will first explain why barring the two caveats, she won't win.

Obama lost 10 million voters between 2008 and 2012 and the democratic party has lost virtually EVERY election since Obama gave away the public option in 2010. She's now running basically as a 3rd Obama term. Over 70% are unhappy with the direction of the country. They want "change". Obama promised that "change" in 2008, but failed to deliver on it in any meaningful way, which is why the number is STILL over 70% (down from 90 in 2008), but still too high for an incumbent.

With Trump the GOP is offering pretty radical change. Clinton can't get the turnout necessary to overcome that because she stands for nothing.

Now, the two caveats.

3RD party run. If the GOP establishment is so terrified of Trump, they MAY back a 3rd party candidate. This would have an interesting impact. It would secure their senate and house positions, but likely cede the presidency to Clinton. A sacrifice they MAY be willing to make knowing they can gridlock her completely and have another go at her in 4 years after she accomplishes nothing.

They leave the SC seat vacant. IF (and I highly doubt) they leave that SC seat vacant, it could serve as a wedge issue for Clinton. But, I suspect they are going to look at the poll numbers and their vulnerable senators and abandon their current strategy, because they don't want to lose the Senate.

Beyond those 2 unlikely scenarios... Clinton has no chance and yes, I KNOW it and deep down in your heart, you know it too.

[MineralMan]

52. Yah, OK, then.

I'll leave it at that.

[basselope]

60. Yeah.. you know it as well.

[MineralMan]

62. I'm done with this subthread. It's off-topic for the thread.

[basselope]

82. No, its on topic.

B/c one could easily argue that if the democrats WANT TO WIN.. they switch to the only candidate who has a chance.

But, like I said.. You know it deep down in your heart that she can't win, which is why you have become so defensive.

[leftofcool]

83. Nice try but you leave out a couple of things

Trump can't win without the AA and Latino vote. It is now impossible in this country. He won't get either of those. He also will not get the female vote.

[basselope]

85. He will EASILY get enough of them.

Last poll taken said 50% of women wouldn't vote for trump.

Well.. that means 50% WILL.

And NO REPUBLICAN is getting the majority of the AA or Latino vote.

however, there is a % of both groups who WILL vote for Trump.

No group is a lemming voting block. Trump has gotten Latino support in the primaries. He doesn't need to peel that much off, ESPECIALLY given the low voter turnout Clinton will "inspire".

You know it.. she can't win unless something else happens.

[Live and Learn]

29. Because they have a conscience? I don't expect many do though. nt

[JaneyVee]

34. The Bernie bubble.

[Live and Learn]

36. Pardon, did you say something? nt

[Gothmog]

30. Super delegates will vote in the best interest of the party including down ballot races

I have a hard time seeing Sanders convincing any super delegate to switch. Sanders is not raising money for the party and many of his positions would hurt down ballot candidates.

[Schema Thing]

37. They want to vote for their own and their party's ideals and interest?

[MineralMan]

39. Of course. That's why they will vote for the candidate

with the higher pledged delegate count. This year, that will be a majority of the pledged delegates. One of the Democratic Party's ideals is that the will of the majority of voters should be honored. In fact, that's one of the party's highest ideals. Democrats focus more closely on that than do the Republicans, who use winner-take-all policies in some primary states. Democrats do not. In all 50 states, delegates are allocated according to the vote of the primary elections or caucuses.

Democrats are democratic in their ideals. Would you like to change that?

[merrily]

53. Why would a Hillary supporter be concerned about the Sanders'

campaign wasting time?

[MineralMan]

58. My state's caucuses are over.

I'm in observer mode at this point. I have not spent any time at all campaigning for Hillary Clinton, nor have I made any donations. I don't really do much with regard to primaries.

I supported Hillary and still do. However, as I have said more times than I can count, I will be enthusiastically campaigning for and canvassing for the Democratic nominee during the GE campaign.

I find the entire election process to be overwhelmingly interesting. So, I watch it closely. On DU, I post about it. Why should I not be doing that? I don't consider it a waste of time at all. I find it exciting and fascinating.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. So, do you think that the superdelegates will do anything other than support the will of the voters by confirming that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates will be the nominee? See, that's the subject of my original post. If you have an opinion about that, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

I have an opinion about the eventual nominee's identity. However, I'm no longer involved in any way in the primary process, so I'm discussing the mechanics of the selection process.

[merrily]

63. You may be an observer, but you are not a neutral one. My state primary is over too.

We loved seeing Bill walk into polling places here and chat up people standing on line to vote.

Caucuses being over has no more to do with your post than the primary being over has to do with my post.

Thank you for taking time to reply to my question. I wish you had done so with more sincerity and fewer words, but it is what it is.

[MineralMan]

64. I did not know that I was required to be a neutral observer.

Is there a rule about that? No, I'm not. I'm just a Democrat with an opinion, just like you.

[still_one]

54. That is exactly how it works as you described.

[Jefferson23]

57. One can argue the veracity/democratic nature of super delegates and that would be

fair to have a conversation about. I am not sure what the condemnation is centered
on here for Bernie, he is making a plea and not one that will likely work...so its kind
of meh to me.

On one hand he has MoveOn with a petition:

The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.

That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia. ( end )

What he is doing now makes their efforts compromised and I don't think this was a
well thought out strategy on the part of Bernie's campaign leaders.

[yodermon]

59. I think he's just trying to project strength and confidence for the sake of the states that

haven't voted yet.

That or, he's telegraphing that he's got inside info on a pending indictment that would require Hillary's pledged delegates to shift to him to avoid nominating a candidate with criminal charges. Highly doubtful of course.

[Beacool]

65. This is the one strategy from Sanders' campaign that has made me furious.

To suggest, as Sanders did with Rachel Maddow, (Weaver & Devine did too in a conference call) that super delegates should switch to Sanders even if Hillary has the majority of pledged delegates is subverting democracy.

I'm shocked that after ranting against the super delegate system, which Devine helped to draft, that they would have the nerve to want super delegates to vote against the will of the people and deny the nomination to the person who is ahead in pledged delegates.

Imagine the outrage if Hillary and her campaign staff had suggested something like this if Sanders was ahead in pledged delegates.

They WILL get to see a revolution if they follow this strategy. If Hillary is ahead in pledged delegates, and the super delegates switch to Sanders and deny her the nomination, Trump will be president. The backlash will be something to behold. That's the one scenario where I, and many others, wouldn't vote for Sanders.

[MineralMan]

68. I have complete confidence that the superdelegates

will confirm the will of the voters and nominate the candidate with the most pledged delegates. I cannot, for the life of me, conceive of any other outcome. The superdelegates are politicians themselves, after all. They know the drill.

[Beacool]

77. I know that it will never happen, but that a candidate and his campaign

would even suggest going against the will of the people has me hopping mad. I expected better from Sanders. Rachel asked him more than once to clarify his statement, he hemmed and hawed. I'm disappointed in him. I think that Weaver and Devine are giving him bad advice. Whichever candidate wins the most pledged delegates wins the nomination, period. To suggest otherwise is undemocratic.

[CalvinballPro]

72. If you're mad about that, did you miss the plan to try to convince pledged delegate to switch?

As in, "Vote for Bernie instead of Clinton, despite what the voters in your state had to say about it."

That infuriated me far worse than the stuff about the super-delegates. The SDs are a vague concept anyway, but pledged delegates are PLEDGED for a reason. Tad Devine should know better, and it's only a sign of his growing desperation that he even brought it up.

But Tad Devine is milking the Sanders campaign for every last penny. Too bad Sanders supporters don't know their money is lining Devine's pockets, and as long as that's the case, he has zero incentive to advise Sanders to bow out. We're going to watch a principled man get ruined by the staff he hired to run his campaign.

[MineralMan]

74. Tad Devine was talking out of the orifice at the

other end of his digestive tract when he said that. It was ridiculous and nobody should take that seriously in any way, I think.

[Beacool]

81. Seriously???????

Who the HELL does this guy think he is to propose something so outrageous???? Does he want to destroy his own candidate? If they do try this strategy, the hounds of hell will befall upon them. They want to see thousands of people march to Washington? Well, let them try to deny the nomination to the rightful winner and a revolution will take place, even though it won't be the one they envisioned.

[Fawke Em]

67. Because the people from their state prefer Bernie.

Looking at you, Howie.

[MineralMan]

73. They won't do that, at least most of them.

That's not their job. The states elect pledged delegates. The superdelegates are deliberately unpledged, and represent about 17% of the total number of delegates at the convention.

They have a specific function, and that is to create a majority if there is no majority of pledged delegates. In a two-person race, like this year's that will not occur, so they will vote to confirm the will of the voters, as reflected in the pledged delegate count.

Mathematically, a tie is possible, but it is so unlikely as to not be an issue at this year's convention.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

89. Welcome to DU!

We must be related!

[GreatGazoo]

75. you know history so you know what can and has happened in the past

We know Biden was ready to step in at one point so it is possible that the WH knows something we don't yet know.

Another scenario would be that Trump does not get the nomination on the other side and the Supers and the party go with whoever matches up best against Kasich or Cruz.

[tularetom]

78. Possibly a federal indictment might make one or two of them think twice

[HumanityExperiment]

84. is this a meta discussion cncerning the role of super delegates?

I read post like this one that poke at the edge of the 'value' of Bernie's continued run for the candidacy so now we are bringing up super delegates now... good times...

So my counter to this post and question, what is the value of super delegates and their role in the Democratic Party primary process...

I get that we have them but to your point, why? please explain why you are pushing this OP and why we should care and should super delegates even exist after this election cycle?

[Beacool]

86. No, this is about the Sanders' campaign suggesting that super delegates should switch to him,

even if Hillary goes to the convention ahead in pledged delegates. That scenario is undemocratic. This is not an abstract discussion about the role of super delegates. This OP is based on comments made by Weaver and Devine in a conference call, and by statements made by Sanders last night on Rachel Maddow's show.

[HumanityExperiment]

92. No, this is about the role of super delegates...

they are the embodiment of 'special interests' within the party that's trying to fight the very premise of special interests.. the irony is mind blowing

considering that super delegates pledge themselves before a single ballot was cast by the public is telling and obviously lost on the HRC supporters...

[MineralMan]

87. It is just a discussion of something in the news.

I posted and people are replying. I'm not pushing anything. If you want more information on why we have superdelegates, I suggest this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

I don't feel like paraphrasing that page.

[HumanityExperiment]

90. So...

you're ok with super delegates posting their votes before a single primary vote has been taken?

reading this "The superdelegates who have already endorsed Clinton will not change their minds, unless the voters give Sanders a majority of pledged delegates and the popular primary vote."

is telling, it is crystal clear that a special interest class has put their finger on the scale before the voters, the public has cast their votes on whom they would like as their 'special interest' in the party

So again, is this a meta discussion concerning the role of super delegates and if it isn't should it be?

maybe it just falls in line with the whole HRC is bought and paid for by special interests and adding in the party establishment is just another nail in that coffin with this super delegate debacle

[MineralMan]

91. An endorsement is not a vote.

The superdelegates will not vote until the convention.

[HumanityExperiment]

93. LOL...

really, that's your thoughtful response to the point?

you do realize the 'importance' HRC supporters have placed upon 'endorsements' during this election cycle? should we copy paste all the OPs concerning those same endorsements here to prove the point?

if your pivot is to try to make the claim that it's 'just an endorsement' and not a 'pledged vote' I"ll give you the chance to reconsider and try again...

do you really believe that their ability to 'endorse' doesn't carry the same weight as their 'pledged vote' at the convention I would merely point out how the mainstream media is reporting on super delegates all this time and will continue to do so until the primary process is over...

do HRC supporters have any shame, any at all when it comes to intellectual dishonesty?

[MineralMan]

95. I'm sorry. I don't know you. So, I can't really speak

coherently to your questions. I don't do "pivots."

Apparently you don't know me either. In time, you'll have read more of what I write and will, perhaps, understand me better. With that, I'll discontinue replying further in this subthread.

[HumanityExperiment]

100. noted...

one, my 'questions' aren't difficult

second, your pivots are those that drift away from my repeated attempts to get you to address the role of super delegates

lastly, you're correct I don't 'know you' nor do I have to 'know you' to debate you on this point, unless this is some sort of prerequisite you're operating under that requires that...

I bid you adieu, too bad you couldn't answer the simple question I posed concerning super delegates role

[pdsimdars]

96. because they've come to their senses and want to win the General Election

Hillary has better support among Democrats, or about 30% of the voters.
Bernie does great among Democrats in head to head against GOP candidates, but does MUCH better than Hillary in the other 70% of the voters. And it's THAT reality that will make the difference. After all, that other 70% get to vote in the GE. Sometimes it doesn't seem that the Hillary supporters realize that.

[MineralMan]

97. Here's the thing: We have Democratic primaries so that

Democratic voters can select the nominee they want to run for President. Sometimes, they choose a winner and sometimes not. The voters decide. In each state, they vote for the candidate they prefer, and delegates to the national convention are allocated according to the results of that state's primary election or caucuses.

It's up to the voters, not anyone else. That's why superdelegates will support the candidate selected by the voters, as demonstrated in the delegate count. That's why our party is called the Democratic Party.

Superdelegates were created to deal with situations where there were more than two candidates, leading to no majority. That has caused huge problems at past conventions. This year, that will not happen.

[Jitter65]

98. You usually don't get to become a super delegate by trashing the party and those who support it. nt

[MineralMan]

99. That's true. The bulk of superdelegates are

democratic congress members and Senators, along with Governors of states. A minority are members of the Democratic National Committee, and are elected at their state's conventions. I've met a couple of Minnesota's DNC members, and they are completely party-oriented and are dedicated to the party organization. All are Democrats, and mostly party loyalists. They're not going to go against the collective will of the voters of this party. It won't happen. You're correct, I'm sure.

[guillaumeb]

101. Perhaps the superdelegate lives in a very progressive area that voted heavily for Sanders?

One possible reason.

[MineralMan]

103. Then, perhaps that superdelegate will take that under consideration.

Perhaps I will leave such decisions to the individual superdelegates.

[Purveyor]

102. Perpwalk. eom

[MineralMan]

105. What perp walk, pray tell.

If you're referring to Hillary Clinton and the email thing, there's not going to be such a thing. When was the last time you saw a former Secretary of State being frogmarched in handcuffs, I wonder?

There will be no indictment of Hillary Clinton.

[TexasBushwhacker]

104. It depends on when they committed to her

If it was very early in the election cycle, when Bernie seemed less viable, choosing to support the front runner is a pretty easy choice. Now that Bernie has gotten considerable support, some who supported Hillary may be rethinking their choice. They may also be from a state or district that favored Bernie in the primaries.

When they get to the convention, it's about choosing who will be the most viable candidate in the GE. Fair or not, the e-mail investigation is still going on and the head of the FBI is a Republican. Unless she is exonerated prior to the convention, the ongoing investigation could be seen as a liability. Do they risk the possibility that she could be indicted or impeached? As I said, fair or not, the e-mail server is still an issue.

[MineralMan]

106. Superdelegates simply do not vote until the convention.

They're all smart, well-educated and thoughtful people. Otherwise, they would never have risen to a position where they become superdelegates.

They will vote at the convention, and barring something completely off the wall, they will vote for the candidate with a majority of pledged delegates.

If you're hoping for an indictment of Hillary Clinton, you're going to be disappointed, I'm afraid. Do you remember any Secretaries of State who have been indicted? I can't, and I remember some who should have been. It is simply not done. Investigated? Yes. There's nothing indictable about the email thing for a Secretary of State.

It isn't going to happen.

[TexasBushwhacker]

109. Hoping for an indictment?

Of course I'm not hoping. Nothing indictable? How would you know? If the FBI is investigating, I assume that there is the possibility of a crime.

I guess your question was just rhetorical, because you seem to assume there is only one right answer and it's yours.

[MineralMan]

110. It is my answer, and my answer only.

I do not speak for anyone but myself.

How would I know? I'm a student of history. So, go find a cabinet member who has been prosecuted for anything done while in that position. You let me know what you find. It's not how we do things here. Especially over a mistake in handling emails. It's simply not indictable. Not for a Secretary of State. No way.

And that is my answer. Others may have different answers. You can listen to whatever answers you prefer.

[HumanityExperiment]

114. simply do not vote until the convention...

Really? Then explain why you and the media use their totals now if they don't 'vote' until the convention?

Would purpose does it serve for these super delegates to show whom they've 'pledged' for BEFORE they have voted eh?

[MineralMan]

115. I do not use superdelegates count in any posts.

I regularly post current pledged delegate counts, though. I do that after every primary date. Hillary has a substantial and growing lead in the pledged delegate count. The superdelegates will vote in keeping with the pledged delegate count. That is the entire point of my original post. What the media dies and what I do have nothing to do with each other.

Please do not say things about me and my posts that are not so. Thanks.

[HumanityExperiment]

116. Oh I see...

So ignore the benefit you gain by the fact that super delegates pledge before the first ballot is cast in a primary, how convenient, I get it...

a bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part is going on here wouldn't you agree?

[MineralMan]

117. No, you don't see.

I'm done with this. Go look at my posts.

[jg10003]

108. To prevent Trump from winning

The GOP has their convention first. If Trump is the nominee then the democrats should nominate whoever has the best chance of winning. I don't care if that person is Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Warren, or the guy in the Dos Equis ads. The possibility of a President Trump is too frightening to contemplate. If Trump wins there may not be another election. This is not hyperbole, the structure of our constitutional republic is very strong but it is not indestructible. Preventing an American version of Putin is a lot more important than the primary results.

[TexasBushwhacker]

113. Best answer! n/t

[WVUCavalier]

118. Based on what

Some stupid polls that you have seen that show Bernie Sanders further ahead of the Republican nominees. I love how Sanders supporters think they are political experts when they say "they've seen polls."? Those polls mean jackshit right now. Also polls showed Dukakis with a 15 point lead over Bush after the Convention in 1988. It should be based on the will of the majority of the voters.