Superdelegates do not have to listen to the Voters in their States

[bravenak]

This is how Superdelegates work. They have been party members for years, they are the Establishment, they are the ones that one candidate is railing against; while the other works with them and appreciates their support. I have no idea why people think that online petitions and a bunch of angry messages and phone calls will change their minds.

But I can understand the WANT to pressure them to switch, but I sure hope the METHODS used are respectful. That vote is THEIRS. To do with as they please.



http://www.bustle.com/articles/140894-what-does-a-superdelegate-do-the-democratic-partys-rules-could-spell-trouble-for-bernie-sanders

[DemonGoddess]

1. Good link!

It's good for people to see what exactly a super delegate does.

[bravenak]

2. Maybe they can stop thinking the supers owe THEM their votes.

[Mike__M]

119. Neither do I owe MY vote

to Inslee, Murray or Cantwell. They can try to earn it if they want.

[DemonGoddess]

139. I somehow don't see that :(

[bravenak]

142. I'm a dreamer...

[Liberty Belle]

3. One could politely tell those elected officials who are superdelegates

That if they won't support the candidate who gets the most popular votes and delegates overall or at least in your state (whether that's Sanders or Clinton) you won't be voting for them in their next election.

If the Democratic party doesn't stand up for democracy, and respect the will of its voters to choose a progressive candidate (if Sanders is the leader) then its super delegates deserve to be voted out and replaced with new officials who will respect a democratic process, not a coronation by the party elite.

[bravenak]

6. The candidate with the most popular votes already has their support

[CorporatistNation]

89. State By State... fella... So They Should respect The WILL As Expressed By Their Constituents OR...

Expect to be VOTED THE HELL OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK 'EM!

[Thinkingabout]

103. Some of the super delegates are not currently serving so cant vote them out.

The super delegates are serving the DNC, in the capacity of super delegate they are not serving their constituents.

[Liberty Belle]

175. But the election is not over yet.

Wait until all the votes are in, and then let's see who has the most.

[bravenak]

176. I am perfectly fine with that.

[CalvinballPro]

11. America utilizes representative democracy, not direct democracy. How do you not know this?

Or understand it?

[ljm2002]

56. JFC...

...we're talking about the Democratic Party's primary system. The Democratic Party is free to choose their candidate however the hell they want to. If they wanted to do it via direct democracy there is nothing to stop them from doing it that way.

As it is, they did not used to have Super Delegates at all. And also as it is, the media has latched onto the Super Delegate totals as a convenient way to skew perceptions of how the primary race is going.

[SusanCalvin]

61. Yep. It's the media I have a problem with.

Right now I don't even want to hear about them, certainly not as part of the delegate count. I'll be interested in them when one candidate has a mathematical lock in elected delegates, not before.

[CalvinballPro]

122. It's dishonest for Sanders to decry the super-delegate system yet employ the man that designed it.

Tad Devine made the super-delegate system, and he's running Sanders' campaign.

[ljm2002]

124. Where has Sanders decried the superdelegate system?

I've seen plenty of it from his supporters, but not from him. But I may have missed it.

[SidDithers]

126. Many, many of the superdelegates aren't elected officials...

They're formerly elected officials, who are supers because of their many years of service to the Democratic party.

The "we won't vote for you" threat won't work on them.

Sid

[LiberalFighter]

164. That is not true.

There are automatic delegates that are included because they are either current Governors, Senators, and Representatives. Others are included because they are DNC members representing the state at DNC meetings.

There are also Party Leaders of which some of them are former elected officials. Only a few of the DPL are former elected. Most have top leadership position.

[hrmjustin]

4. I don't see DUers calling on Alan Grayson to switch his vote to Hillary.

[bravenak]

5. Of course not!!!!

[unapatriciated]

14. If she has the popular vote at the end of the primary

I as a DUer and Sanders supporter will do just that.

[hrmjustin]

17. An honest poster.

[unapatriciated]

113. Does your reply mean if

Sanders wins the popular vote you will join me in asking President Clinton as a super delegate to support him?

[hrmjustin]

117. If he won the popular vote i would say he should be the winner.

[unapatriciated]

118. thank you

[SusanCalvin]

63. Yes, exactly.

Right now I'm tired of seeing them lumped in with elected delegates.

[ljm2002]

65. Right now superdelegates tend to keep their endorsements...

...it's when it gets to the convention that I really care about it.

That said, I am all for superdelegates switching their endorsements during the primary to reflect the outcome in their state, or to agree among themselves to make their endorsements match the percentages in their states as closely as possible.

But that is not how it works nor how it was designed to work. The supers serve as an Establishment cadre who state their preference and retain that preference until the convention, in hopes of influencing the primaries and preventing "extreme" candidates from winning. Once at the convention, however, they have always given their votes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention.

Should Bernie arrive with the most pledged delegates, and should the supers decide not to change their votes at that time -- then I'll care, and I wager a lot of us will care. We'll see how it plays out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. You will when McDermott, Murray and Cantwell are pressured to see the error of their ways. n/t

[MoonRiver]

173. Yeah, I'm waiting for that to happen...

[CalvinballPro]

7. A super-delegate for Sanders from Nevada is on the record saying she won't vote as her state did.

This whole "vote the way your state did" literally only applies if your state voted for Bernie. If your state voted for Clinton, then the super-delegate is to ignore their voters and cast for Bernie anyway.

In other words, complete and utter hypocrisy from Mr Integrity.

[bravenak]

8. Oh hell yeah

We see the different standards applied constantly

[ljm2002]

69. Well Dr. Dean from Vermont has said the same thing...

...that he will vote as he sees fit, not according to the popular vote in Vermont, where Hillary Clinton was shut out entirely. So this is not all one-way, ya know.

Also, are you really implying that Sanders is responsible for that person's position? Your last sentence implies that, but I do not believe that to be the case. And if you are implying that, then presumably you also believe Clinton lacks integrity due to Dr. Dean's stance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. No. I believe the poster was referring to the Bernie-supporters' ...

"vote the way the state votes" hypocrisy.

[ljm2002]

98. Um, I'm one of those "Bernie-supporters"...

...and I am not in the least bit hypocritical with this. I don't care who they endorse now; but once at the convention I expect them to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, regardless of how their own stated voted.

Also: the poster I replied to was implying that Bernie has a direct hand in that superdelegate's position. If we are to assume that, then we can assume the same thing about Dr. Dean's position. If we cannot make that assumption (and I believe we cannot), then it is disingenuous to try and pin it on Bernie absence any evidence.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. Then, the hypocrite label does not apply to you ...

but there are plenty of examples of those that it would.

[CalvinballPro]

123. I think Sanders is a hypocrite. He was against super-delegates, until he needed them.

Screw that guy.

[ljm2002]

125. Link, please?

I have not seen Sanders come out against superdelegates. I've seen it from lots of his supporters, but not from him. I may have missed it though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Which is how superdelages work. Not how democracy works.

[bravenak]

10. It is the system

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's the "system" than many of us want to rid ourselves of.

[bravenak]

18. Not enough of 'us'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Yet.

[Punkingal]

30. Screw the system...it doesn't work for regular people, just elites.

[bravenak]

33. Rhetoric

[Punkingal]

35. Truth.

[Sheepshank]

107. The DNC can change their rules. Just not midway through a Primary

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)

You can work for future changes. Bernie knew the DNC Primary rules whe he jumped in the race. He too is attempting to create a false narrative, to change the rule mid way through th cycle. Really, super bad timing on that call for change.

[Punkingal]

108. I understand the rules can't be changed now. But they need to be after this election.

This isn't a Bernie issue for me. It is a democracy issue, just like voter suppression.

[Sheepshank]

129. Democracy and the democratic rule of elections are a constitutional construct

DNC is not a government agency, and as such can make their own rules. For so much wailing and gnashing of teeth and calling for some implementation of democracy rules, it is plain silly.

Fwiw, GOP removed that individual unencumbered vote from their SuperDelegates. They changed the rules for Mittens (I think). I'd bet a million dollars they wish they had the DNC rules right mow.

[Punkingal]

131. It can make it's own rules, sure.

And I guess it doesn't represent democrats? What we want doesn't matter?

[beedle]

166. You mean

Like how they couldn't change the contribution rules? But did.

[Sheepshank]

167. Some rules are actually law...some are operational policy

I have not known either one to be changed mid way though an election cycle. Do you have an example and a link?

[beedle]

169. here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

I guess there is a 'law' against changing things that might harm Hillary, but it's only an 'operational policy change' if it's changed to help her?

Very convenient how that works.

[Sheepshank]

170. Washington Post? Never mind, is does state it was a "guideline" for Obama's POTUS bid.....

“The guidelines that were previously in place at the DNC were guidelines that were instituted when Barack Obama, then Senator Obama, became the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Schultz said. “Those were guidelines that were modeled after his campaign for the presidency.”

That guideline was clarified and back to original policy almost a year ago, but Bernie is only recently complaining about it.

It was never a law to be changed or a formal operational policy. Your snarky comment attempting to rephrase the reality of changing laws on a whim, doesn't make it so.

[beedle]

171. Bernie only recently complained about it

because it was done on the hush, and no one other than DWS, in-the-know lobbyists (ie: Hillary supporter lobbyists) and her cronies knew about the change until recently.

And as for the super delegates, you do realize that with the debacle that happened in 2008 that there were all kinds of delegate rules changes right up until Aug. So this tripe about delegate "rules" being set in stone, is just that, tripe.

The biggest change came on May 31 as a result of the meeting of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which lessened the penalty initially imposed on Michigan and Florida. The party had excluded all delegates (including superdelegates) from either state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all these superdelegates (as well as the pledged delegates from those states) but with half a vote each.[25] That action added 55 superdelegates with 27.5 votes. The total number of superdelegates could continue to change until the beginning of the convention (Call to the Convention Section IV(C)(2)). On August 24th, the Democratic Party, at the request of Obama, awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida full voting rights.[26]

[unapatriciated]

12. The candidate who wins the popular vote

will more than likely be our nominee, regardless of the super delegates. I have been voting since 1972 a good ten years before the emergence of super delegates. I have yet to see them go against the popular vote. There has always been speculation but that is all it is speculation.

[bravenak]

13. Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.

[unapatriciated]

29. Only if you count Michigan and Obama was not even on the ballot.

kinda hard to know the true voter count of a state when only one name is on the ballot.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/seating-floridas-and-michigans-delegates/#

[bravenak]

32. Oh!! I remember why I considered it even now

Thanks.

[Major Nikon]

57. Results...

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"O",this person is just a troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[bravenak]

64. Thank you

[sheshe2]

137. What the hell????

You got alerted on for calling Obama O?



Hell!!!! I have posted his name as BO. I sure wasn't talking about Body oder. I adore our President.



?

Dear Goddess Bravenak, stalked much????????????

I loves ya babe!

[bravenak]

138. I'm sayin!

Sometime's you'll get a 7-0 leave when the jury did not agree. See it differently. But the alert made no sense at all.

[sheshe2]

140. Ya know....

Sounds familiar to a member that was trying to get me a hide. They said the same think "O" ....will try to find it.

[bravenak]

141. Might be the same person

Should send it in so they can cross check.

[sheshe2]

143. I just went to look.

Will get back to you.

[sheshe2]

144. Found it.

Will post you elsewhere.

Very similar. Hmmmnm.

[bravenak]

145. Ok. Hmmm. Mmmm hmmmm.

[seaglass]

58. Again Bravenak - for transparency - in this case it looks like the alerter is being alerted

and also timed out from alerting

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary won the popular vote against O if I remember correctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1587542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"O",this person is just a troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Textbook Freudian Projection
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the person who sent this alert you better believe I will be alerting on you when I get the results. Stop stalking my home girl
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post may or may not be accurate. But the following post acts as a correction. Let it be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The President's name is often abbreviated. The post, in and of itself, does not violate TOS or Community Standards. This poster often says unacceptable things, but this isn't one of them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[bravenak]

62. Just getting obvious at this point. I can see what's going on.

[SusanCalvin]

68. At least it was 0-7. Incremental improvements.....

[bravenak]

72. Yep!

[SidDithers]

133. The candidate who wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee...

The popular vote has nothing to do with it.

Sid

[shraby]

15. If superdelegates don't follow the way the people vote, it's time to chuck the superdelegate

system.
That's not how a democracy works.
I never liked the idea of having them since I learned about them. They were set up specifically to thwart what the voters want in a candidate which in my mind is totally wrong.

[bravenak]

20. They own their votes

It keeps the party from doing itself too much harm

[Punkingal]

34. Really? The party has done itself harm for many, many years.

so they need to give up that little experiment.

[bravenak]

36. The party is doing better than at many other times when we picked ideoligical purity

over Practical liberalism. We lost very badly trying to play oh so pure.

[Punkingal]

46. Are you serious? The party is doing awful.

We don't have the Senate, we don't have the Congress, we lost a lot of state houses and state legislatures. It isn't about purity, by the way. It is about the standards of the Democratic party, which no longer seem to exist.

[bravenak]

51. What did we have after we lost so badly to Nixon and Reagan?

We had HELL. That's what the establishment is preventing.

[Punkingal]

60. Naive.

[ieoeja]

168. What did we have? The House, Senate, and majority of Governors and States Legislatures.

Republicans have taken all that since the Clinton takeover of the Democratic Party.

I knew you were a self-admitted troll and am looking forward to your big reveal on election night. But I did not realize you were so unknowledgeable.

[George II]

162. If the Democratic Party is so damaged, why did Sanders choose to hitch his horse to this wagon?

[Stallion]

99. 2/3rd of the Registered Democrats in the "Party" Are Voting for Clinton

nm

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Not really. Only 20 Democratic Superdelegates are 'distinguished leaders' such as former Presidents

and VPs and Congressional Leaders, not simple Members. Those people have a vote that is their vote and they stand for no election. They fill no 'slot' allocated to such persons, so the passing of one does not cause the appointment of another.

The rest are all elected either to Governors offices or to the US Congress or to positions in the Party. All of them stand for election, each of them fills a slot that would be filled by anyone holding that office and anyone in that slot gets 'their' vote.

20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back.

[TeeYiYi]

67. Good post...

"20 Supers own their votes. The rest have those votes entrusted to them by others who can take them back."

TYY

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. So, as noted above ...

have you written to Alan Grayson and the Nevada super-delegate to "follow the way the people vote(d)"?

[bunnies]

19. Their votes are not owed to us,

And our votes are not owed to them. Works for me.

[bravenak]

28. Me too

[beedle]

172. they vote at the will of the party

their votes can be taken from then at any time. It's allowable and has been done before:

remember 2008?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#In_2008

So if 'rules are rules', the "ALL rules are rules' .. right?

[AtomicKitten]

22. Lee Fang @ The Intercept: Lobbyist Superdelegates Tip Nomination in Clinton's Favor.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/voters-be-damned/

[bravenak]

24. I have no idea what that has to do with this

They did the same for Obama AGAINST Clinton last time.

[AtomicKitten]

59. The point: Many superdelegates are lobbyists, not elected pols.

Their interests are not those of the American people.

[bravenak]

66. I really don't think that politicians have our best interests in mind either most times

Samesies. Depending on the issue.

[rachacha]

79. Right. Follow the money if you want to know who the super-constituents are.

[HooptieWagon]

23. Many of them are elected office-holders.

Voters are likely to remind them of unpopular endorsements.

[bravenak]

25. Maybe.

Maybe not. They are party loyalists who will have establishment backing and assistance. Helps them to win if they have support.

[hack89]

26. Incumbents have such an advantage I suspect they are not concerned at all

especially with a "revolution " that can't even turn out to vote for their candidate.

[HooptieWagon]

27. 75% of caucus goers yesterday called for a 'revolution'.

I imagine the superdelegates in WA, AK, and HI are aware of that.

[hack89]

37. But caucus goers as a percentage of GE election voters is tiny

lets not forget that simple fact.

[Henhouse]

75. Sanders is the incumbent in this primary...you think he has the advantage? n/t

[hack89]

97. No such thing.

He is a incumbent in the Senate. He is a losing candidate in the national primary that is ongoing. He will have no influence over super delegates after the convention. Neither will his supporters.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Of course they don't, they are free to be the first politicians in history to risk their own asses

for the advantage of another politician and they might do that. They also might all swear off money and become wandering balladeers. Could happen.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Isn't that, exactly, what DU:Bernie is asking of the Super-delegates? ...

AND wanting the super-delegates to do so for a politician that has, throughout his career, not shown them an ounce of loyalty or respect.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Not sure what you are attempting to say, but I think the superdelegates should vote for the

candidate nominated by the people in the primary process. I think they generally do so for the reasons I have explained.
People yap about the superdelegates every cycle, few understand how it words and a quick review of opinions on them from 2008 will of course demonstrate great reversals of opinion because in 2008 it was Obama challenging her massive Superdelegate lead. There is lots of material from Obama and his staff stating that the winner of the primary allotted delegates should be the nominee. Obama said "The American people are tired of politics that is dominated by the powerful, by the connected."
I agree with Obama.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/obama-memo-to-superdelegates/

[radical noodle]

40. They have a right to vote for whomever they want

just as we do. Not only that, but Bernie has super delegates in states won by Hillary, do some of you really want them to support Hillary instead? There is a reason for these rules as Brave has so correctly stated.

[bravenak]

42. It seems that there are many double standards

[radical noodle]

47. +10000

[libtodeath]

43. Thanks for promoting oligarghy instead of Democracy.

[bravenak]

44. .

[libtodeath]

49. Too bad you dont even like Hillary so snooze on.

[bravenak]

50. Caucused for her

[libtodeath]

52. Big deal.

A drum roll for you

[bravenak]

54. .

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I'm SOOOO stealing that!

[bravenak]

71. Ha! My favorite

[Vinca]

45. That's what bothers me about superdelegates.

It seems they can just about nullify a popular vote in a state if they want to which leads to the question, why bother having a primary? Just round up the superdelegates in a room and have them vote. At least be honest about not having a democratic vote.

[bravenak]

48. We are a representative democracy

It was set up like this for good reason I think. The best candidate will win the most delegates. Supers are pretty much tie breakers. The party decides the rules. If they see a candidate that they feel will not HELP the party, then they can try to put a stop to any damage they may cause by getting charge of it.

[Vinca]

120. But that is precisely the problem.

You may think one candidate might hurt the party and I might think another. Democracy is democracy is democracy. The funny thing is that I'm sure you would be arguing my point if Bernie had all the superdelegates.

[ljm2002]

53. Interesting that you support the idea...

...that superdelegates should ignore the electorate in their own states. They were created specifically to tamp down insurgent candidates. It must be really irritating that it doesn't appear to be working this go-round.

As you should already know, historically superdelegates vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, once they get to the convention.

If this year's bunch of SDs chooses to go against that, guaranteed there will be hell to pay. Like it or not, that would be an extremely divisive choice for the SDs to make, and it would tear the party apart IMO. Let's hope they choose wisely.

Of course, if Hillary arrives with the majority of pledged delegates, I would not want to see Sanders winning due to superdelegates either -- although that is not only unlikely but preposterously unlikely. Still, process is important. Surely you can agree with that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Have you called on Alan Grayson and the Nevada Super-delegate ...

to make your thoughts known?

[ljm2002]

94. As I have said elsewhere...

...I really don't care who they endorse up until the convention. Given that we have superdelegates, they will endorse whoever they please, up until that time. Once a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, then I expect them to fall in line as they always have before and vote for that candidate. That includes the likely scenario where Hillary is the one who has the most pledged delegates -- at that point I do expect Alan Grayson and all the others to do the right thing and vote for Hillary.

I'm torn on whether we should have superdelegates or not. On the one hand, it is a way for the party establishment to put their thumb on the scale. It has allowed the MSM to skew the primary narrative by quietly including them in delegate totals. Only recently have they started being a bit more honest about pledged vs. unpledged delegates. On the other hand, I see what is happening in the Republican party, where Trump is almost certain to win the primary. It does seem prudent for a party to have some way of preventing an extremist demagogue from becoming that party's nominee.

But then one has to ask, if the party's voters really have expressed a preference for an extremist demagogue, WTH is wrong with the party in the first place? In the case of the Republican party, we know it has encouraged this sort of divisive, nasty discourse for many years, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Let's hope that whoever we nominate wins!

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Oh ... Okay. I must have miss re-read your post(s).

[JPnoodleman]

73. Praise the glorious revolutionary DNC for ignoring stupid wrong voters... /s

[bravenak]

74. .

[JPnoodleman]

76. Party can ignore sanders voters as they wish, they aren't entitled to our votes.

*shrug* If the message is my vote doesn't count, I will read that loud and clear.

[bravenak]

82. I think people need to learn how this works.

[JPnoodleman]

86. How what works? Does the DNC or Hillary have some sacred divine right?

If you don't want to listen to people NOT praising the anointed one, maybe you should stop worrying what we think?

Seriously? Why do you give a shit about people whose opinion you consider worthless?

[bravenak]

87. I do not care what most people here think

You can respond to my ops or not.

[Punkingal]

102. Who made you the ultimate authority on these things?

[bravenak]

105. What has my thinking things have to do with being the 'authority'?

[ThePhilosopher04]

77. They don't have to listen to anybody, but constituents of a given state or district ...

have the right to hold those SDs accountable if they vote against their wishes. And they should be held accountable.

[bravenak]

78. They can try

[PufPuf23]

81. DU does not have to listen to Bravenak.

Superdelegates should represent the will and best interests of their constituents over and above maintaining their own privilege and power.

If not, they have a problem in character.

[bravenak]

83. That is nowhere in the rules

[mythology]

163. The will of the people and the best interests of the people are not always easy to define

For example even in the deep red states, raising the minimum wage polls well and thus can be seen as the will of the people, who then vote for Republican candidates who run against raising the minimum wage, thus indicating that the people don't really care about the issue. Likewise, Congress as a whole has an abysmal approval rating, but everybody gets reelected.

And who defines what is in somebody's best interest? Can the super delegates decide it's in the people's best interest to vote for a particular candidate?

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Is this attitude what brought you to Clinton, or the reverse?

Have you always been drawn to establishment, plutocratic governance, or did you abandon your previously held belief that democracy was generally a pretty good idea because it was incompatible with support for Clinton?

[bravenak]

88. Very personal

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. I'm genuinely curious.

I've always thought that autocracy was incompatible with being a democrat. Either that wasn't true, or something about Clinton is so compelling that it inspires people to abandon their beliefs.

[bravenak]

95. No. I just see how messy the whole thing is now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Democracy is supposed to be messy. n/t

[Autumn]

85. No they don't have to listen. I'm sure if they don't the voters will be happy to remind them.

Such desperation.

[Politicalboi]

93. Bet most of Hillary's have been paid in some way

But if they ignore Bernie and he is the rightful winner in the end, they will be the ones to blame when she loses.

[mhatrw]

101. Weird how some people still think the USA is a democracy.

Some myths are difficult to extinguish.

[Sheepshank]

106. I've tried to explain this over and over

The prevailing false talking point is that the SD vote the way of the majority of voters/poll participants. the primaries are so much more of a poll than an election.

One moe time: the SuperDelegates represent their own desires and reflect the desires of the DNC not necessarilymthe people casting a ballot. It very nice and much less messy when they align however.

[bravenak]

110. Thank you!!!!

Nobody cares. They will not listen.

[AZ Progressive]

109. Reince Priebus approves of this thread

The best thing for the Democratic Party to Republicans is to appear to be the undemocratic party.

[strategery blunder]

157. Yeah no shit lol

We even have that kind of dynamic here in WA state.

Few years ago, WA voters passed a binding voter initiative to go to primary elections. The state Repubican party honored the vote and went to the primary, while the state Democratic party establishment sued for the right to go back to caucuses, and won.

So now we have to listen to state-level Rs bloviate about how the Rs are more democratic than Democrats, and thanks to the idiocy and self-serving impulses of the Democratic party apparatus, they almost have a point. Blech.

[MFM008]

111. Super delegates no different from elected delegates

My sons girlfriend volunteered to run for delegate out of 8 for Hillary Clinton and many people probably keep this pledge in mind
They don't want to blow it off because someone elses supporters want them to.
Our group elected 3 delegates and 2 alternates, people expect them to represent our votes.
No its not the VOTERS in general, but 70 some people showed up for our district for both sides yesterday, the only people howling about delegate distribution were Sanders people even when 4 HRC voters were turned away for not making the 11AM cut off. If their votes would have been counted she would have won the district. She lost the 28th by 2.
Can you >>> I M A G I N E<<< the screeching if those had been Sanders voters??

[bravenak]

112. I can imagine it

I watched them act the same way yesterday and try to get some of H's voters struck from the count after it had been certified.

[blueintelligentsia]

114. Is only you were born as Rubert Murdoch...n/t

[bravenak]

116. I am too cute

[blueintelligentsia]

136. Very cute...

[NorthCarolina]

115. Because, if they thwart the will of the voters, Democracy fails.

eom

[AzDar]

121. How democratic!

[bkkyosemite]

127. The vote should not be theirs! It should ONLY the peoples vote!

[liberalmuse]

128. We need to do away with Superdelegates.

It's obvious most of your "representatives" are woefully out of touch and could care less about the will of the people, unless they're corporate lobbyists. Let the people pick their candidate, not these establishment dinosaurs.

[George II]

130. Here's my take on the superdelegates. As you rightly point out, they ARE the establishment....

...of the Democratic Party.

With Sanders berating and fighting THEIR party for decades, and essentially pointing out in each and every stump speech and rally that "the establishment is bad", I can't see many, if any, who have come out in support of Hillary Clinton changing at any time to support the candidate who has been insulting them since his campaign started.

As the old saying goes, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar", and Sanders has gone through gallons of vinegar while is supply of honey is still in his cupboard unopened.

[bravenak]

132. I agree with that.

And this method I see recently to get them in his side is not any better than what he has already been doing.

[George II]

134. It will only make matters worse with respect to superdelegates supporting him. Frankly....

....I'm happy to see that behavior. It means more delegates for Hillary Clinton.

[bravenak]

135. It does help her out alot

[jfern]

146. Half of superdelegates are white males.

So you're in favor of giving disproportionate power to white males?

[bravenak]

147. I did not do that. AMERICA did. Thank the nation for creating that by not allowing the rest of us to

Vote until recent history.

[jfern]

148. But you are defending superdelegates, which are half white males

Meanwhile, Bernie got 70% of the vote in Hawaii, which is about 11% white males.

[bravenak]

151. I'm interested in affirmative action

[jfern]

154. So there aren't enough white males in the Democratic party so, they needed half the superdelegates?

[bravenak]

156. Unintelligible

[AgingAmerican]

149. That's how Republicans win elections

The Democratic establishment ignoring the will of we the people

[bravenak]

150. We the other people like them

[AgingAmerican]

152. Divide and fail

[strategery blunder]

153. I'm waiting until after June 7th before I start contacting local elected superdelegates

I've been on record before as saying that if Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, and supers give it to Hillary anyway, the party will have a 1968 problem on its hands.

It'd be hypocritical of me to demand that my local elected supers switch to Bernie at this point in time, before the full pledged delegate results are in.

So I'll wait for CA, and the other states that vote that day, to have their say before I revisit these arguments.

I did find the petulant demands from Hillary supporters that Bernie drop out during his best week of the primaries thus far amusing, can we please all get a chance to vote first!

[bravenak]

155. That is a good idea.

We can just wait until somebody hits 2383

[strategery blunder]

158. 2383 is majority of pledged+supers

This discussion really only becomes an issue if the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates doesn't get to 2383 on the pledged delegates alone, which has been my biggest fear this whole primary.

I've always dreaded what would happen if Bernie won the pledged delegates, but supers gave it to Hillary, but now with other Bernie supporters trying to flip the supers early, I must now consider what happens if the shoe is on the other foot.

[bravenak]

160. I am doing it this way because the contest is officially over at that point

Any supers still there at 2383 are not switching. But with all the closed primaries coming up, I am feeling confident that that day will come early.

[Cha]

159. Super Dels want the nominee who is going to be the best candidate in the GE and the best

President.. those who are pledged to Hillary know her and know she will be the best.

Mahalo, brave~

[bravenak]

161. Yep. They usually form relationships

They do not deal well with demands. They are there to help us win against reoublicans. Not many here seem to get that.

[Gothmog]

165. Sanders will not be successful in appealing to super delegates

I do not see Sanders being able to flip many super delegates.

[bravenak]

174. I agree

[CoffeeCat]

177. Super delegates are elites and party power brokers. The vast majority are the 1 percent...

...which is why Superdelegates suck and should be banned from our party.

The PEOPLE should decide the vote, not a bunch of party mucky mucks.

I mean, Jesus--can the Democrats at least have their elections be as fair as the Republicans?!?

Pretty sad, that this is where we are.

[bravenak]

178. This is where we have been for a long time

I think you know that better than I.

[CoffeeCat]

179. Yes, and maybe this election will help us screw our heads on straight.

Super delegates are a stupid idea.

Nothing we can do about it this cycle, but maybe we can all use common sense and become as fair minded as the Republicans.

[Dem2]

180. Thus the "super"

I prefer "badass" myself.

[R B Garr]

181. K&R! nt