Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(10,469 posts)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:13 PM Jun 2016

Why do Sanders supporters seem to want it both ways, regarding superdelegates?

The hue and cry for awhile now has been that superdelegates are an elitist group that can thwart the will of the voters, especially if they pledge to one candidate even though their state's primary or caucus is won by the other candidate. But, as Sanders is so far behind in the pledged delegate count and is almost certainly unlikely to catch Clinton in that area, his hope rests on wooing the superdelegates to his side despite that.

But this seems to raise a bit of a conundrum; is Bernie committing a bit of a moral faux pas if he solicits superdelegates from states that Hillary won? Should he feel obligated, on moral/ethical grounds, to refrain from contacting superdelegates in;

American Samoa
New York
North Carolina
Northern Marianas
South Carolina


By my rough/quick count of the superdelegate list, there's 198 superdelegates in states that Bernie has won, of which he already has 27...but if we're to be fair he'll have to renounce the 13 that are from Hillary-won states. These calculations go by winner-take-all-the-supers btw; figuring out a proportional allocation would be a bit time-consuming atm.

So if Bernie plays by the right way to do things, can he get enough supers?

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies


(10,469 posts)
6. I guess that's one word for it. :)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jun 2016

Every Sanders supporters argument about the superdelegates exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are, what the system is for, and what the implications of every weirdo scenario ("supers must vote with their state!", "supers must be proportionally allocated just like pledged ones are!", and so on are.


(4,012 posts)
5. There is no super delegate count yet.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jun 2016

That happens at the convention, so Bernie still has a chance to save the Dems from themselves. Hillary will be a disaster for liberalism in America.


(10,469 posts)
7. That didn't even remotely address the point, would you care to try again?
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jun 2016

We've held Democratic primary elections where ~25,000,000 so far have weighed in.

Premise: the superdelegate system is undemocratic at the state level, e.g. one common DU argument is that Minnesota's superdelegates should either all be compelled to endorse Sanders or that he should get 61.6% (his voter %) of them.

If that were to be the new standard, then does Sanders have the right to ask superdelegates from states that Hillary won to endorse him?


(4,012 posts)
14. I was not trying to address your point, but the super delegate system is undemocratic IMO.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:34 AM
Jun 2016

I was addressing the situation that now exists. Since they exist and cannot vote until the convention, they (being the SDs) should at least not influence the primary by declaring early. This looks bad to the independent Bernie voter, and in the general Hillary is (possibly) going to need all the help she can get.



(18,115 posts)
8. Super delegates are undemocratic and should be nixed. AND
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:24 PM
Jun 2016

they are there today to usurp the will of the voter, in case of emergency as deemed by the party insiders.

We could be in an emergent situation this year. It's still unknown. Bernie's only chance at the nomination is to be theonky one standing in case of an emergency prior to the convention.

Does that mean I am hoping for an emergency or that Sanders is? Of course not. It's a safety measure for him to stay in.


(10,469 posts)
9. Now that's actually a semblance of a point
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:42 PM
Jun 2016

Which is more than most have managed today, though I still disagree with it. The voters have chosen...or to be perfectly pedantic and precise, cause some around here like that, are about to choose...Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

Hell or high water, you dance with the one you brung. There would have to be absolutely, 100% crystal-clear dire doom afoot if we were to ever let a small group of people override the will of the primary voter, and I'm sorry but "I think my guy can beat the GOP" is not it. "She might be indicted" isn't it. Hell, let's pretend that Hillary literally was indicted, I'd STILL see it through, because the goddamn voters have picked it. We get who we deserve in a democracy, to paraphrase someone I don't care enough to google atm.

The only...literally the O-N-L-Y...scenario in the 40 years of the superdelegate existence I'd support the supers overthrowing the people would be if Lyndon motherfucking Larouche somehow wound up with the pledged delegate lead in one of his perennial campaigns. And that is only because I support any and all forms of disobedience, civil and otherwise, to disrupt racists. That's why I freely call for people to disrupt Trump's so-called "free speech" rights at his rallies.

If you're going to usurp a democratic process, you best be damn sure that bar is high. "Hillary might lose" is just a form of ends-justify-the-means



(2,367 posts)
13. Honestly I'm ok with superdelegates. Yes it's undemocratic and maybe rules should be
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:49 PM
Jun 2016

put in place for when they can push the red button... buy I'm ok with a red button being there for emergencies.

I'm just not ok with counting superdelegates in the media as already won, since they can change their vote. And yeah it's not good for superdelegates to be there for just "who is more electable" or "who does the establishment like more" but it is good for last minute scandals, criminal charges, injury or incapacity, etc.



(241 posts)
15. We don't want it both ways....
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:35 AM
Jun 2016

we think it is a stupid system but within this election there is nothing we can do about it. So all Bernie is going to do is play by the rules.


(3,897 posts)
16. Why does Clinton want to have it both ways regarding Citizens United?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:08 AM
Jun 2016

And which "we don't like it, but as long as it's there we're going to use it" do you think is worse?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why do Sanders supporters...