2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUS Uncut: How 107 Superdelegates Robbed 11 Million Democratic Voters
http://usuncut.com/politics/superdelegates-robbed-voters-primary/
ow 107 Superdelegates Robbed 11 Million Democratic Voters
Tom Cahill | June 7, 2016
-snip-
The Associated Press (AP) has prematurely called the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton, despite some 11 million Democrats still waiting to vote in six states and one territory, based off the opinion of superdelegates who have yet to vote.
The dominant media narrative is that Sanders is asking superdelegates to thwart the will of the public in order to win the Democratic nomination. But the AP came to their conclusion by a phone survey of the 712 superdelegates, meaning Clinton was declared the winner due to private conversations between reporters and a relatively small handful of Democratic party bosses who wont actually vote for a nominee until the end of July.
Clintons nomination depends on superdelegates defying their states voters
-snip-
All of these arguments are right in that Bernie Sanders will need to rely on superdelegates to switch from Clintons side to his in order to become the Democratic nominee. But all three authors neglected to report that Hillary Clinton reached 2,383 delegates only with the help of 107 superdelegates from states Bernie Sanders won, who actively thwarted the will of millions of Democratic voters in their own states.
In Utah, where Sanders won by a 79-20 margin, two of the states four superdelegates are backing Clinton.
11 of 16 superdelegates in Minnesota are supporting Clinton, even though Sanders won the states March 1 caucus by a 62-38 margin.
While Sanders blew Clinton out of the water by a 73-27 margin in Washington State, Clinton has 10 of 16 super-delegates, Sanders has zero.
Six of Wisconsins ten superdelegates are supporting Clinton, while only one is backing Sanders. The Vermont senator won the Badger States primary by 14 points.
All nine superdelegates in Rhode Island have committed to supporting Hillary Clinton, even though Bernie Sanders defeated the former Secretary of State by a 12-point margin.
Sanders also has only one superdelegate in Alaska, same as Clinton, even after winning the state by an 82-18 margin. One Alaska superdelegate backing Clinton patronized and belittled a Sanders supporter who asked her to cast her superdelegate vote with how her states residents voted.
Comparatively, only 14 of Sanders 49 superdelegates have come from states Hillary Clinton won. Two of those superdelegates came from Arizona, where the US Department of Justice is conducting an official investigation due to widespread complaints of election fraud and voter suppression.
...more at link.

Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)and facts. you are free to dispute them with facts, events, actions and links. otherwise, all you have posted is an opinion.
boston bean
(36,651 posts)1) Hillary won more pledged delegates
2) Hillary won more state primaries and caucuses
3) Hillary won more than 3M popular votes over Bernie
4) Superdelegates will not overturn this mandate.
Skink
(10,122 posts)Yet she took all of them. Like winning 8 coin flips in a row.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)"Statistical tie" refers to an opinion poll where the result is inside the margin of error and thus it's possible that either candidate could actually be "winning." An election on the other hand doesn't have any margin of error. The vote count isn't the statistical extrapolation of a sample, it's the actual count.
Also if that "coin flips" comment was referring to the inaccurate reports of Hillary winning all the coin flips in Iowa? Nope, that was debunked within 24 hours of the caucus.
TwilightZone
(28,834 posts)They count the same.
As for the coin flips, that was debunked almost immediately.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)though, and this is their designated time to rage against the realities of democracy.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They threw him under the bus the other day: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041
Superdelegates aren't supporting Sanders because they don't think he's best for the party. Also, he got the fewest number of voter-chosen delegates.
By any metric, he LOST. He LOST more primaries, he got the fewest votes, he talks a great game but his fans don't go to the polls in sufficient numbers for him to prevail.
That's life.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and US Uncut is wrong to count all the voters in California as being "robbed" when a couple million of them had voted prior to the AP announcement.
and they didn't rob anybody. nobody was prevented from voting because of a newswire story, there were other races on the ballot anyway.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)it says they were ROBBED.
people were discouraged and disenfranchised from voting - this is the issue and the undemocratic action by the AP to declare her the nominee. they falsely claim she had clinched the nomination by using results from their phone call poll of the superdelegates.
not only california voters were discouraged from voting but voters from the other states holding primaries. this was the purpose of their ploy.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)disenfranchisement.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)or haven't you been keeping up with the reports? for starters, let's begin with the NPP's being given provisional ballots even after requesting a specific primary party ballot.
were you at the polls in east los angeles and other barrio or ghetto voting places? ...... didn't think so.
what diminishes disenfranchisement is people like you telling the disenfranchised what is "real".
Response to hopemountain (Reply #29)
SFnomad This message was self-deleted by its author.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)We were talking about AP calling the nomination early, and saying it disenfranchised people. IT. DID. NOT.
People may have been discouraged from voting .. but that was their CHOICE. Which is not disenfranchisement. And when you start calling things disenfranchisement that are not ... you diminish real disenfranchisement.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)sanders could not overtake hillary's popular vote totals
sanders could not over take her pledged delegate totals
sanders could not overtake hillarys superdelegate totals
he lost every major metric BEFORE california even voted
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... for the last month was that if he won BIG in California, he would have a viable argument to take to the SDs, and could convince them to flip to his camp. The same was said of the remaining states - that a BIG win would convince the SDs that Bernie had the "momentum" in the last days of the primary contests.
Ergo, the media announcing that HRC had clinched the nomination should have had no bearing on Bernie voters, who already knew that Bernie's ONLY shot at the nomination would be via flipping the SDs on the basis of YUGE wins in California and the remaining contests. In fact, it should have led them to get out and vote for him to ensure his numbers were as high as possible.
The fact that Bernie lost California by double-digits leads to the obvious conclusion that the BS votes were never there in the first place.
It had long been predicted that Hillary would clinch the nomination by July 7th, and the fact that the media called it the night before wasn't a surprise to anyone paying attention.
If you want to hold yourself out as revolutionists who are willing to do whatever necessary to "take back the country", it seems rather silly to now claim that those supporting "the Revolution" stayed home and didn't vote because it was too much trouble to do so, and whining about defeat after-the-fact was simply the more convenient option.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Clinton has received 116 Super-Delegates from states that Bernie won, or 20.8% of her SD total.
Sanders has received 15 Super-Delegates from states that Clinton won, or 31.9% of his SD total.
These numbers are from CNN.
kerry-is-my-prez
(9,531 posts)What fun is that??!!
Response to lancer78 (Reply #7)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)more were robbed from Clinton. Two can play that game.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)If the AP had waited, and declared HRC the presumptive nominee after the polls closed in New Jersey, would you still say the voters in western states were disenfranchised?
OPs like yours makes a mockery of people who have suffered true disenfranchisement.
Like the woman in Tennessee who had been voting for 60 years, but with new voter ID laws, was barred from voting.
People were not disenfranchised or prevented from voting on Tuesday. In fact, the AP story should have made Sanders supporters more enthusiastic, just to try and rub it in Clintons face by winning the western states and especially California. Why did they not show up?
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)like you who have the gall to attack disenfranchised voters who know what they experienced about "making a mockery of people who have suffered true disenfranchisement." get off your high horse.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)making a mockery and you know it. Some dumb millennial who forgot to register as a democrat IS NOT being disenfranchised like people without photo ID.
kerry-is-my-prez
(9,531 posts)and the poor. College kids should have the capability to research exactly what to do in order to vote and drive their car over to a polling place. There are people who are dirt poor who take three busses and have to take the day off of work and stand in line for 7 hours to vote.
I make sure I register properly and always double-check my polling place and that I'm registered in the right precinct as a Democrat in order to vote. Even then, I had a problem, being here in the state of Florida in a Republican area. I then had a hissy fit and demanded a provisional ballot. I also research what is the best way to vote, by absentee ballot, early voting, or voting on Election Day.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't take the above precautions or at least some of them.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)as I do for minorities and the poor."
Self-absorption and entitlement, with a "F__k everything" attitude--these qualities define the college experience for some.
I said "some", not "many", and much less "all".
senz
(11,945 posts)Sorry all you've gotten is Hill fans so far who don't want to look too closely at the situation, but it's excellent that we have the facts available.
These stood out for me:
While Sanders blew Clinton out of the water by a 73-27 margin in Washington State, Clinton has 10 of 16 super-delegates, Sanders has zero.
One Alaska superdelegate backing Clinton patronized and belittled a Sanders supporter who asked her to cast her superdelegate vote with how her states residents voted.
Clinton could have lost every state and still won the nomination with superdelegates
There is something so wrong about this primary.
onenote
(44,921 posts)Which makes the results in Washington State look like small potatoes.
In Mississippi, Clinton destroyed Sanders by an 83-17 percent margin. But Sanders has 2 of five (40 percent) of the SDs.
I think you should make Bernie's unjustified claim on those Mississippi SDs the subject of an OP
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)They always ignore this: http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/President-Democratic-Party.html
Yeah no wonder the Washington supers aren't going to Bernie.
LisaM
(28,933 posts)If you want to talk disenfranchisement, let's talk caucuses.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This argument is nonsensical.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)of the candidate they voted for.
Derdog
(10 posts)Say that.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Tarc
(10,585 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(100,515 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,376 posts)reflect the results of how their state voted. And the question none of you will answer--why no call to make Raul Grijlava switch since Hillary won AZ?
Bernie didn't do ground game in CA and that's why he lost here.
Another critical factor: The states primary rules favored candidates who were meticulously organized and mobilized at the grass-roots level.
In 2008, more than half of the ballots cast in California were mailed in. Those voters tend to be reliable Democrats, and they also tend to be older. The Clinton campaign zeroed in on individual ballots, securing thousands of votes before primary day arrived.
"We just had a far superior ground game that was laser like focused on the early vote. That was a strategic focus on the campaign," said Buffy Wicks, Clinton's California state director. "We focused on this diverse coalition: women, African Americans, Latinos, AAPI voters.
"California is a majority minority state and the diversity of this state really lends itself to her and the diversity of the country will really lend itself to her in a general election," she added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/08/how-hillary-clinton-won-california/
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)He was on NPR and making the exact argument that superdelegates should have to choose the candidate who won the popular vote in their state. The interviewer asked him if that isn't a problem for him since AZ was won by Clinton. He said no because he's so committed to Bernie and has been from the start... wtf?
Starry Messenger
(32,376 posts)Stunning. A lot of masks have slipped this year.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)Complaining about superdelegates supporting Clinton from states won by Sanders is such ridiculous cherry-picking. If the superdelegates should follow the democratic will of the voters in their states, then she wins easily. So basically they are saying if Bernie won their state, then they should have to support Bernie. If Hillary won their state, then they should still choose Bernie. I have never seen this level of hypocrisy amongst an entire group of people who purport to be "progressives".
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)And TPTB weren't going to let a little thing like elections get in the way....
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)
It's you.
obamanut2012
(28,171 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Bernie wants to steal the election by flipping supers to himself. In other words, superdelegates DO count when they are for Bernie. But they DON'T count if they are for Hillary.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)is a slap in the face to millions of voters, and they will not forget it.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)This is wrong.
More insider politics and cronyism.
All in who you know. And people wonder why so many of us are independent voters.
kerry-is-my-prez
(9,531 posts)politics works. It's an ugly business. That is why I quit campaign work. It's very depressing. After more than 30 years of working in it, I decided life is much more pleasant without having to make sausage and watching it being made. It just gets worse and worse too. If you really want to get sick, look into how the Republicans do it with their propaganda, psyops and dirty tricks.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Pretending that 100% turnout was going to happen in a primary is laughably dishonest.
Response to Lord Magus (Reply #40)
Post removed
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)according to the CA SOS, 3 more counties have flipped for bernie. santa clara county provisional ballots have not yet been counted.
TwilightZone
(28,834 posts)Perhaps, you should learn a little something about the system. Start with how delegates are assigned in CA.
Whimsey
(236 posts)popular vote went for Clinton.
It was the caucus goers insiders who went for Bernie.
No surprise superdelegates went with popular vote.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)that is a rule agreed to by the dnc - only the caucus votes counts - which bernie won.
you really should inform yourself. here is an FAQ: http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/2016-Presidential-Primary.aspx
http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results
Bernie WA Delegates: 19135
Hillary WA Delegates: 7136
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That doesn't make it any less of an expression of the voters' voice.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pisces
(5,860 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Superdelegates are allowed to vote for whomever they choose.