Elizabeth Warren pours cold water on Bernie's plan to have the superdelegates sway the election

[Cali_Democrat]

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who remains publicly unaligned in the 2016 presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, is no fan of super-delegates.

Because she is a top Massachusetts elected official and a party leader, Warren is a super-delegate, meaning she isn't bound to a candidate at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

"I'm a super delegate and I don't believe in super delegates," she said.

"I don't think that super delegates ought to sway the election," Warren said before giving a talk focused on income equality as part of the Massachusetts Democratic Party's annual state convention.

------------

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/sen_elizabeth_warren_i_dont_be.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Anyone who wants the super delegates to make the second place finisher the nominee

does not truly believe in democracy.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Exactly. nt

[TwilightZone]

9. Yeah, I really don't get that argument.

The insistence that the superdelegates should switch to the runner-up en masse for reasons no one can seem to delineate other than "Bernie good, Hillary bad" has never made much sense to me.

[woolldog]

11. Bernie supporters are saying they should switch due to electability concerns.

Clinton was making the same (specious) argument in 2008.

I could see it being a legit justification if Sanders were clearly more elctable than Clinton. But I don't think he is. And no, I'm not buying the polls saying he is, because he's a relative political newcomer nationally and has hardly been attacked this cycle. The GOP would make mincemeat out of Sanders.

Clinton's negatives are baked into the cake. I feel more confident in her electability.

[TwilightZone]

12. I understand that's the argument; I don't agree with it, either.

They've spent most of the election cycle demanding that democracy be allowed to determine the nominee and that all voices should be heard, then decided when that didn't work that we should suddenly base the nomination on a bunch of meaningless head-to-head polls before the primaries are even over, essentially disregarding the entire primary process. Polls which effectively reflect a three-person race at the moment, no less.

I also agree that Clinton is a mostly known quantity and Sanders has yet to be vetted in any meaningful way. There is little doubt that he would be hammered by the GOP should he become the nominee. He's also low on cash and he hasn't developed the national campaign infrastructure needed to win a general election. The electability argument for Sanders conveniently leaves out a lot of factors.

[Sheepshank]

15. There has also been more than one pollster that has explained

The results comparing Bernie to Trump and Hillary to Trump is problematic because, Hillary supporters are more likely to vote for Bernie given the Bernie/Trump alternative, Bernie supporters less likely to make the same assertion if the choice is Hillary Vs. Trump.

[TwilightZone]

16. Agreed. It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Assuming that some Sanders supporters are voting Trump in Trump vs. Clinton polls (as the gap between Trump vs. Clinton and Trump vs. Sanders among the same voters in the same polls would seem to indicate), they can better justify the electability argument (to themselves, anyway).

[Hortensis]

22. Exactly.

But perhaps he doesn't. A lot of Americans do not, although not all of them realize it of course.

[Triana]

3. Superdelegates....

...should either not exist or they should be required by law to vote at the convention for the candidate chosen by their state in the primary. NO goddamned Howard Deans IOW and NO superdelegates who get bought off by a candidate before even the first vote is cast. How do you know that when Warren said that she didn't think superdelegates ought to sway the election - that this is not what she was talking about?

You don't.

IOW - there's that YUUUGE HRC supporter blind spot again. All is fine & dandy when it's HER innit?

[BlueStateLib]

5. Howard Dean is a superdelegate because he was dnc chair

[Ferd Berfel]

10. There are wall street lobbyists that are SD

WTF is that!?

Corporate whores have more of a vote than any of us.

[WhiteTara]

14. So you want Raul Grijvala to flip his vote?

[AtomicKitten]

4. Elizabeth is pouring cold water on the concept of superdelegates.

As I've posted elsewhere, I'm not sure why Clinton fans are high-fiving each other. Elizabeth is saying she doesn't believe in the concept of superdelegates and infers calling the contest over by virtue of some 547 superdelegates is bullshit. I agree with her.

[Zynx]

8. If we reduce it to just pledged delegates it will be over at 11PM instead of 8PM.

Whatever.

[eastwestdem]

13. Good point. No matter how you count it...Hillary wins. nt

[Hortensis]

23. Yes. AND she said she does not believe

they should sway elections -- and that is exactly what Sanders had said a number of times that he would try to do at the convention. Use the superdelegates to overset the popular vote.

The down side of someone on a crusade...

[Demsrule86]

27. Clinton lost by less than 100 delegates in 08

It is over. Bernie will get out I think in the end.

[laserhaas]

30. And I concur AtomocKitten...this "tilt" take of the remark

Is gross oerversion

By tools praying for the rest to bow

When Hillary loses Califirornia

[Orsino]

6. Well, she's wrong.

In the sense that swaying elections is the job description of a superdelegate.

She probably just means that this time around and as of now she sees no reason--that she will admit to--for supers to flip to Sanders. That is a very defensible, but Establishment, position.

[joeybee12]

20. And yet superdelegates have never overturned popular vote

But now Bernie wants them to...his hypocrisy is limitless

[Orsino]

21. Just as Clinton did eight years ago.

We're not in uncharted territory here. A candidate who isn't asking for the support of delegates is no longer campaigning, and Sanders is pledged to campaign all the way to the convention.

[Hortensis]

24. NO, it is not the same. You have to have ignored

at least a dozen clear explanations to believe that. Or maybe you don't and are just saying it?

One result of that difference is that Obama asked Hillary to be his SecState. Hillary won't be offering Sanders except a hand to shake and a political valedictory speech as he heads back to the Senate.

[Orsino]

25. Why indulge revenge fantasies now?

I think that, as you acknowledge, Clinton cashed in her delegates before the convention. Delegates were the main currency used. Why should it bother anyone that some analogous deal is cut at the convention or after? Would we even know if an agreement were already in the works?

Sanders has already stacked a few of the cards on the platform committee. It's not accurate--and it seems petty--to claim that a contested convention must result in erasure of a candidate and his/her support.

[trudyco]

7. I thought the point of superdelegates was to make sure a viable

nominee gets chosen. If they vote the same as the pledged delegates they become superfluous.

The problem has been that they were declaring their intentions before the primaries had even started. This was not their purpose and totally unprofessional in my opinion.

It is hypocritical of Bernie to think they shouldn't be there and now wants to use them, but then they were being used against him before the primaries even started, so anybody with half a brain can see where he was coming from. And now it's coming out that Hillary is not a saint. Not trustworthy. Not honest. She makes up things as she goes along. She's tainted.

If Hillary is under threat of indictment then her viability could be reasonably questioned. Right?

So we are where we are: Superdelegates could actually vote the way they were intended. At least how it was described how they were intended. Maybe Debbie WS was telling more the truth - they are really there to make sure the establishment wins and the grassroots lose. Very unDemocrat in my opinion. That's what it looks like they are being used for right now.

[NorthCarolina]

17. So basically, if Bernie shows up to the convention even 1 pledged delegate ahead of Cinton

then Warren, as a Super Delegate, would not sway those results by voting for the candidate that has fewer pledged delegates, even if it's by just 1. In other words, a win is a win.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Correct.....the problem for Bernie is that he needs to win the remaining contests by huge margins

in order to take the lead in pledged delegates.

Can Bernie pull off a 70% to 30% win in California?

Good luck!

[lunamagica]

19. If EW wont sway the election towards Sanders, who will?

[Mike Nelson]

26. Warren is correct...

...she will vote for Hillary. Bernie does not have a popular vote argument, as Hillary did in 2008. He has the email "crime" but leaves Susan Sarandon to go out before a camera and say Hillary is going to be indicted. If Bernie believes that, he needs to get before a camera immediately and outline Hillary's crimes for the remaining voters. Include the ways she's "rigged" the election. Outline the crimes in this area, also. Artful smears and innuendoes are not facts.

[Thinkingabout]

28. We do not have to look any further than the RNC primaries to see a need

For a need for the Super Delegates. They would probably prevent a hostile takeover by another party, we do not want this. If you give the SD's to the will of the people then it will be all voting for Hillary. What is the problem? I work lf bet if Sanders had been endorsed by the SD's this would not be a problem especially with Sanders thinking the SD's would flip to him, one rule for however he can be the nominee and another rule for if he isn't.

[laserhaas]

29. Ha Ha...what a corrupt interpretation of a clear remark

You cads