Should superdelegates make Sanders the nominee even if he has fewer pledged delegates?

BS is too thin skinned to deal with trump.

And this pro, rah rah Trump stuff just has to stop here at Democratic Underground.

nixed moving forward.

I am certain they would not go to Bernie if Hillary wins the PD race, barring something seismic.

But, I also support Bernie taking it to the convention and making the pitch to the supers, regardless of pledged delegate count, because the rules as they are require the supers to be the deciding factor in this race.

And "being the better person" would require defining

If ever there were a valid role for superdelegates at all, preventing a Clinton disaster is it!

Who are you to say that the votes of women and people of color who have given Hillary Clinton her large popular majority shouldn't count?

And the candidate refuses to drop out. That's what they are there for. If Hillary is indicted and refuses to drop out, then they should step in.

Bernie is asking SD's to respect the voters in their states.

That is democratic. It is ethical. It is honest. It is not a flip flop.

from the states he won. Now Bernie wants ALL SDs to make their decision based opon how he's doing so much better than Hillary in the polls against Trump.

from popular candidates, or from a disasters such as a last-minute indictment.

However, this is what Bernie is actually saying, unless you have a counter-quote to back up your claim:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/

When Rachel Maddow held his feet to the fire the other day, Bernie was singing a completely different tune from the link you posted.

Sanders has stated that SD's who are officials that represent states where there is a clear margin between he and Clinton should go with the winner in that state.

Representatives from states that are close should have leeway.

SDs who are not currently elected representatives have the ability to make up their own minds.

It is also true that a lot of SD's went for Clinton when the was the default candidate, and perhaps the only candidate. Since then Sanders has made a strong enough showing that he at least merits consideration.

The Super delegate system sucks. Bit he's trying to work with what he's got, just like any politician.

Clinton did the same thing in 2008.

He NOW wants convention superDs to switch to him based on his polling against Trump. He wasn't saying that when he first brought up the subject of super delegates.

That is NOT disinformation.

I already listed where he is not going against the will of the voters.

Overall the SD's made personal decisions to go for Clinton, before the votes and with no regard for election outcomes or votes.

It's a sucky system, but he's trying to work with it.

It's not like he is holding their pet kittens hostage. Any SD is free to agree with his case or not.

on that, "vote for me". That's what he's using now to make his claim on the SDs. It's far different from, "SDs from the states I won should support me".

Since I respect you Armstead, I won't call it a "flip flop" on this particular post, but it is a "readjustment" from what he has previously said.

and Clinton has won a majority of the pledged delegates, then honoring the voters in their states would just result in the same outcome, wouldn't it?

Actually, what Bernie suggested is that in states where one candidate or the other won a lopsided (double digit) victory, the supers should go with the winner. But that doesn't help Bernie either, since Clinton has more double digit wins and in states with more supers than Bernie.

treatment after the fact.

Supers should follow the will of the voters.

If Bernie can't win with Democrats, what's to say he could win with Republicans? If anything, Hillary would be more likely to siphon off Republican voters than Bernie?

As a Bernie supporter I believe whomever gets the most votes should win the democratic nomination. "Super delegates" should honor the voting majority and not be a power unto themselves. It is a shame how the democratic party decided to water down their voters' votes with super delegates. ..Even if Hillary wins after all of the lies, cheats and dishonest things she and her super PACS has done.

Bernie should run as an independent if he loses the democratic nomination. He will have name-brand recognition and time will be on his side as more people learn about him. Screw the establishment, they have moved too far to the right and I will never vote for republican-lite (Hillary).

"undemocratic"

I was afraid he would pilfer enough votes from Clinton to elect Trump. Now I am not so sure as it seems their supporters overlap.

regardless of whether it's HRC or SBS who wins the higher number of pledged delegates. If that were to happen, the party should change its name because it would no longer be democratic in its most foundational sense.

Holy cow the exaggeration on that side is astounding.

Let me explain it in small words:

Bernie is asking Superdelegates to respect the voters in their states.


That is all.

Although after Super Tuesday there was some talk by Weaver that pledged delegates were not really bound at all and could switch, but that talk was quickly set aside. My point was about super delegates and Sanders' plan to go to the convention to ask super delegates to make him the nominee. There aren't enough super delegates in states that he won to flip the nomination to him, so he'd have to go beyond those states to get the nomination.

Indiana is the first of several upcoming Sanders victories.

"And then I think the super delegates are going to have make a very difficult decision and that is, if a candidate wins in a state by 40 or 50 points, who are you going to give your vote to?"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/bernie_sanders_to_superdelegates_if_a_candidate_wins_your_state_by_40_or_50_points_who_are_you_going_to_give_your_vote_to.html

He's asking SDs to respect the voters in their states. Frankly, it's just common sense that most SDs would be idiots not to do so, because they are elected officials.

If we were to allocate super delegates based on who won each state, Sanders would still come up short. He could win more states, but he will still trail in pledged delegates and the super delegates are NOT going to overturn a pledged delegate lead.

And seriously, you have to stop pretending there are no more primaries coming up. That's offensive to CA, OR, NJ, etc.

Let me break it down for you:

Pledged delegates are delegates allocated based on the amount of the popular vote won in each state. Right now, Clinton has a majority of those pledged delegates. As long as she has that majority, the super delegates are not going to vote contrary to the pledged delegate count.

I never said that there aren't other states left to vote, but even if Sanders won all of them, he still wouldn't catch up.

See, "Right now, Clinton has a majority of those pledged delegates" is false.

A majority means more than half (half of 4051 = 2025.5); she has 1683.

State Date ▾ Delegates Clinton Sanders Delegate
(2,382 Needed to Win) - 4763 2205 1401 - -
Delegates Won - 4051 1683 1362
Superdelegates - (712) 522 39

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

You know damning well the poster meant of the already proportioned delegates. And given the proportional allocations and the substantial lead Clinton has, there is no realistic path to get Sanders the lead in pledged delegates. He won Indiana and fell further behind the target needed to catch Clinton's pledged delegate lead.

"Pledged Delegates" has a specific meaning, and I am unwilling to allow you to twist it into a falsehood. Sorry, that's not going to work here.

In that she has more than Bernie.

... then the party rules would say that.

Bernie wants the SDs to operate as if the rules were different from what they actually are.

Its not going to happen.

1) Most super delegates already support Hillary.

2) Bernie and his supporters spent much of the campaign vilifying the SDs. Not a great way to get them to join you.

Can you read?

The SDs pledged to Hillary before the primaries started. They were not elected.

Bernie is simply saying that the SDs should vote in accordance with the voters in their states. And in Hillaryland, that's ...undemocratic...? You seem very confused.

Hillary's lead in delegates is too big. Bernie's problem is that he failed to win many large states. He didn't "win" enough super delegates to make a difference.

Get used to it; Hillary is not the Annointed One.

it is impossible for you to construct a reasonable scenario that makes Bernie the nominee. Give it a try.

You can't just twist the truth and expect me to ignore it!

answered the question asked - should the SD's vote for Bernie even though he has less pledged delegates. No lies. No twisting of the truth.

I was civil. I expect the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/?_r=0

His statement is not in any sense undemocratic.

All I ask is that we discuss what he actually says and does, not some looking-glass version of it.

it simply asks - should SDs vote for Bernie if he has less PDs

I shouldn't blame you for that.

are free to support whomever they want to they should do just that.

...particularly given the radical difference between the state of the election when most of them endorsed Hillary (Sanders 40% behind) and now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511899803

Sanders isn't just the only liberal/progressive candidate on all the issues. He is also the candidate who can defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Trump will bury Secretary Clinton in the November election if she captures the nomination.

She has a ton of baggage and is disliked and not trusted by most voters.

Clinton will defeat Trump also.

There is no cloud of possible indictment hanging over him. He brings in New Democrats, especially youth, to ensure the party's future. Not to mention his platform is better for the 99% and the country as a whole. That's reasons enough why the superdelegates should support Sanders.
The reason they won't is that they're as corrupted by corporate money as their candidate is, and they want the gravy train to keep on rollin'.

that's the question. Not whether Bernie polls better than Hillary. It is whether the voters have a real say in who is the winner.

Sanders brings in millions of independant voters to the GE polls, who haven't been able to vote in closed primaries. They will vote down ticket races, already vulnerable because state party donations are being funneled to her campaign through the DNC. Sanders gets quite a few Republican crossover votes. Sanders does not have the possibility of a federal criminal indictment hanging over his head.
The convention is still a ways off. Several western states yet to vote...Bernie will do very well in them, narrowing the gap considerably. The republicans will rally behind Trump, just like they did behind unpopular McCain and Romney. Superdelegates may just examine all this, and decide Clinton is the riskier choice, Sanders the safer choice, if their intent is to win in Nov and the future.

Because voters can't be trusted to get it right? OK

Considering that is the only way Bernie will be the nominee.

Free.
As in they don't have to care about your favorite candidate.
As in they don't have to follow your ideas of what is correct.
As in they can vote the any way they want to.
Free.
What is so hard to understand about that?
If they go for Clinton then fine, she wins. If they go for Sanders then fine, he wins. If they vote against the majority of the popular vote then fine, they are free to do so. Free, freaking free. If you think that is undemocratic, fine you are free to do that just like they are free to vote however they want.
Why should their vote be controlled by anything other than what they want to do? Is that undemocratic?
Did I mention they are free to vote how they wish?

Sid

he's more photogenic!

Just assemble a committee of party grandees aka "superdelegates" who the candidates need to impress in debates, interviews, and town halls. Then have the superdelegates pick the candidate they want. Simple.

these are the rules we all agreed to. If he chooses to and is able to use those rules to win and then affect the change he wants to, I am ok with it. But I haven't heard that is the case. I heard him lay out the case on Sunday in that presser from the National Press Club in DC.

The nominations has not always been decided by the voters, it could return to the old process. Sanders agreed to follow the rules of the DNC, I would hope he would honor his word. The super delegates has a responsibility also, hopefully they take this responsibility to the fullest.

eom

Assuming that election results are fair and honest, that is objective data - clear snapshots in time. The "will of the voters" however is not - not when elections are strung out over several months. People can and do change their minds for numerous reasons, certainly over the course of months a significant portion of people do - that is consistently revealed in polling data.

The most blatant example of how volatile the "will of the people" can be consists of circumstances where explosive new information is introduced into the public sphere. To use an extreme hypothetical example, yeah, I would turn against Bernie and regret my vote for him if it suddenly was factually revealed today that he secretly belonged to the KKK. Voters in California would have benefit of knowledge I didn't have in New York when our primary was held. I would expect Sanders would lose by a light year if such a revelation happened. But he still would have won Wisconsin. Some what more plausible though still unlikely, Hillary could get indicted before the Democratic Convention. Were that to have happened before the NY primary she would have lost in NY. If it happens before the California primary she will get buried there, but still could lead in overall pledged delegates heading into the convention.

Those are extreme examples. More difficult ones to call are cases where the wheels start totally coming off the campaign of a front runner for any combination of reasons but not soon enough to erase the former positive light that candidate was seen in during early primaries when that person started racking up delegates. In some cases it would not take that much reflection to realize that those early voters might now be suffering severe buyers remorse - especially if a strong consensus was emerging that the early front runner was now headed toward certain defeat i November.

For the record I am not suggesting that current circumstances could support overturning a majority of pledged delegates at the Democratic convention. But the race isn't over yet and it is not inconceivable that the question could be validly revisited under some scenarios.

Until then, all the SDs should vote with the majority of PDs.

The superdelegates exist for a valid reason and are a bulwark against both outside interference in party priorities and the possibility of plurality shenanigans. Neither is particularly relevant this cycle however so I expect a rubber stamp.

Otherwise, no, of course not. The voters must decide in a democracy. I support Sanders and I'm disappointed that more voters did not learn about his record, his integrity, and his commitment to working people.