I'm sick and tired of the delegate counts...
I'm sick and tired of Democratic delegate counts that lump in the superdelegates with the pledged delegates. Hillary is currently leading Bernie by 250 pledged delegates.
But my local news and the national news, they all report that Hillary is currently leading by 688 delegates. Then they comment on how "difficult" it will be for Bernie to overcome such a big lead.
That is very misleading, as superdelegates can - and often do - switch their allegiances at convention time. To pull ahead, Bernie has to overcome a 250 delegate lead, not a 688 one.
Do these news sources not understand how superdelegates work? Or are they just trying to discourage Bernie supporters, and portray Hillary as the inevitable nominee?
Hillary's super delegates are Democrats and will not support an Independent. They are as Hillary is, vested in getting Democrats elected.
Bernie is not helping other Democrats with his contributions as Hillary is.
So go ahead and be " sick and tired of the delegate counts.." but Bernie is at fault for the way it is.
Bernie has every right to run as a Democrat. There should not be any superdelegate supreme council for deciding who is a Democrat, and who is not. Here's who should decide that: the voters!
But you are absolutely right that Bernie needs to do more to help other Democrats. I wish he would talk more about that.
I don't know much about how the Republican delegate system works, but if they don't have superdelegates, then I'd certainly prefer their system.
The whole superdelegate system is just indefensible. A nominee should be picked by delegates who were selected by primary voters, period. Anything else is a form of elitism, and has no place in a democratic process.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans put in place their own superdelegate system for 2020. Trump's goofy campaign has Republican insiders scared, and insiders don't like to be scared.
the nominee should be pick by the Party's rules, period.
Anyone can start their own political party and their own rules for picking their nominees.
to benefit the establishment. their system is just as screwed up, just in a different way.
neither is democratic.
A 600 delegate lead fits their narrative better than a 200 delegate lead. They know who wants to cut off the gravy train of unlimited campaign contributions (and unlimited political ad spending) and they really don't want him to win.
Sanders is fooling himself if he thinks that his refusal to support down ballot candidates will help him flip super delegates http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-sanders-differ-down-ballot-democrats
Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaigns goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.
Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million [emphasis added].
The first part matters, of course, to the extent that Sanders fundraising juggernaut is eclipsing Clintons operation, but its the second part that stands out. How much money did Sanders raise for the DNC and state parties in March? Actually, zero. For the quarter, the total was also zero.
And while the typical voter probably doesnt know or care about candidates work on behalf of down-ballot allies, this speaks to a key difference between Sanders and Clinton: the former is positioning himself as the leader of a revolution; the latter is positioning herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. For Sanders, it means raising amazing amounts of money to advance his ambitions; for Clinton, it means also raising money to help other Democratic candidates.
As Rachel noted on the show last night, the former Secretary of State has begun emphasizing this angle while speaking to voters on the campaign trail. Here, for example, is Clinton addressing a Wisconsin audience over the weekend:
Im also a Democrat and have been a proud Democrat all my adult life. I think thats kind of important if were selecting somebody to be the Democratic nominee of the Democratic Party.
But what it also means is that I know how important to elect state legislatures, to elect Democratic governors, to elect a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.
The message wasnt subtle: Clinton is a Democrat and Sanders isnt; Clinton is working to help Democrats up and down the ballot and Sanders isnt.
Super Delegates will be taking this difference into account in deciding which candidate is best for the party
It depends on where the pledged delegate race finishes and how much pressure gets put on super delegates by Sanders supporters after the last primaries finish in June.
I still love the attacks made by the bernie bros on Senator Warren to "force" her to endorse Sanders. How did not work out for these bernie bros?
As I noted earlier, I think the whole superdelegate system stinks.
But that aside, suppose you were a superdelegate pledged to Candidate A, and Candidate B won your state by a convincing margin. It would seem to me that the moral thing for you to do would be to respect the vote, and support Candidate B.
That same sort of argument can - actually, must - be made when the Electoral College meets to vote for President of the United States. Those electors don't legally have to vote the way their states did! But shouldn't they?
Sanders will not be flipping super delegates
Can't wait till this is over and Hillary locks this up. Sander's just lost his chance for a position in a Clinton administration with his "disqualification" comments. Bye bye Bernie.
in 8 southern states? As if they could win the nomination just running in 42 states out of 50?
Don't blame everyone else because your candidate and his staff are idiots.
Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)