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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ashtonelijah

(340 posts)
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:29 PM Jun 2016

Elizabeth Warren: "I don't think that superdelegates ought to sway the election"

For months, Sanders and his campaign have railed against how the Democratic National Committee and Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz have handled the primary process, claiming it has helped Clinton with debates held on Saturday nights, closed primaries in major states such as New York, and the use of super delegates.

"That is called an anointment process, not a democratic process with a small or large d," Sanders said on Saturday.

He was joined in his criticism of the superdelegate process on Saturday by fellow progressive stalwart Elizabeth Warren, who said at the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention that she "doesn't believe in superdelegates" -- even though as a senator, she is one.

"I don't think that superdelegates ought to sway the election," the Massachusetts senator said, MassLive.com reported, an apparent reference to Warren's desire for superdelegates to not give the nomination to Sanders.

Warren has not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary fight. But behind the scenes, discussions between the Warren and Clinton camps have been markedly increasing, especially as the freshman senator has begun to a play a more prominent role attacking Donald Trump, a source close to Warren has told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/04/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-convention/index.html?utm_content=buffer36b6a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren: "I don't think that superdelegates ought to sway the election" (Original Post) ashtonelijah Jun 2016 OP
Powerful statement from one of the party's bigger members. If Warren doesn't sway the election lunamagica Jun 2016 #1
CNN Putting Words In Warren's Mouth pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #2
The 'election' count will be very close RobertEarl Jun 2016 #3
3 million votes is not close. 275+ pledged delegates is not close. She's far closer than Obama 08 ashtonelijah Jun 2016 #4
No, it will not be too close to call. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #13
"I don't think that superdelegates ought to sway the election" is a nice, diplomatic way Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #5
Sounds like an implicit endorsement of Clinton, the winner of the majority of pledged delegates. eom tarheelsunc Jun 2016 #6
She opposes disenfranchisement. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #7
I know that's her point... tarheelsunc Jun 2016 #8
Yes, we agree. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #9
I agree. bigwillq Jun 2016 #10
That would've given Hillary the nomination not only in 2016, but likely in 2008 as wel ashtonelijah Jun 2016 #16
oh ..oh ... did Warren just pick up an under the bus pass? JoePhilly Jun 2016 #11
unfortunately jonmac511 Jun 2016 #12
How many people saying that have we heard? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #14
we? jonmac511 Jun 2016 #17
B.S. argument. Hillary also had a huge lead among SDs early in 2008. Obama convinced them to switch ashtonelijah Jun 2016 #18
maybe jonmac511 Jun 2016 #19
I don't know much madokie Jun 2016 #15
A bitter man unwilling to lose to the first woman president. He is demanding anointment. seabeyond Jun 2016 #20
I think superdelegates are on the way out. hollowdweller Jun 2016 #21

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
1. Powerful statement from one of the party's bigger members. If Warren doesn't sway the election
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:39 PM
Jun 2016

results to favor Sanders, who will?

I think this was a message to Sanders. He now knows what to expect.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
2. CNN Putting Words In Warren's Mouth
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:53 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

an apparent reference to Warren's desire for superdelegates to not give the nomination to Sanders.



She didn't say that and until she does I will ignore this inaccurate statement from whomever wrote this piece at CNN.

I did enjoy seeing the video at the link and the John King video following the first video.

EDIT: The Guardian wrote about Warren's comment too minus the Anti-Bernie spin that CNN added at the end.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/04/elizabeth-warren-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
3. The 'election' count will be very close
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:54 PM
Jun 2016

Too close to call. Neither candidate will have enough to win without supers, so the supers will make the call.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
13. No, it will not be too close to call.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:50 AM
Jun 2016

Hillary has a huge lead in both popular vote and pledged delegates. Both of those are likely to expand in the next week. When the superdelegates do vote on July 27 (assuming Bernie really does insist on a roll call vote) she will likely end up with over 2800 delegates.

The fact that Bernie has outperformed what everyone expected of him when he first announced is very different from him actually being close.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
5. "I don't think that superdelegates ought to sway the election" is a nice, diplomatic way
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:01 AM
Jun 2016

of saying "please Bernie, stop with this nonsense".

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
7. She opposes disenfranchisement.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:13 AM
Jun 2016

It's not an endorsement of either candidate's merits, she's saying the wish of the voters must be respected.

tarheelsunc

(2,117 posts)
8. I know that's her point...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:16 AM
Jun 2016

but the underlying subtext is that the people have chosen Hillary, and Hillary should be our nominee. This is in stark contrast to the belief of Sanders and his supporters that superdelegates should subvert the will of the people by stealing the nomination from Hillary and gifting it to Bernie.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. Yes, we agree.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jun 2016

Bernie's window of having even a possible legitimate claim to the nomination closes Tuesday.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
10. I agree.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:19 AM
Jun 2016

I am for eliminating the SDs and have pledged delegates and, more importantly, pop vote count to decide the nominee.

ashtonelijah

(340 posts)
16. That would've given Hillary the nomination not only in 2016, but likely in 2008 as wel
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:20 AM
Jun 2016

Since, by most counts, she actually won the popular vote that year (but I'm glad Barack Obama got the nomination; he was the right man for 2008, and she's the right woman for 2016).

jonmac511

(46 posts)
12. unfortunately
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:20 AM
Jun 2016

The media, DWS and the Clinton campaign have used super delegates to sway the election long before a single vote was cast. By portraying Bernie in a huge hole before Iowa even caucused, the damage was already done. How many "I like Bernie but he just can't win, so I won't vote for him" have we heard? People like to be on the winning side and the media went out of their way to promote Hillary as the winning side even ignoring dnc leaders telling them SD should not be reported in the delegate counts.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
14. How many people saying that have we heard?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:51 AM
Jun 2016

I've never heard anyone say that. Ever.

It also didn't seem to make Hillary unbeatable in 2008 when she had a similar huge superdelegate lead before Iowa.

jonmac511

(46 posts)
17. we?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:21 AM
Jun 2016

I'm not willing to do the research on why you, personally, haven't heard it but judging by your lack of surprise that the statement exists I'd say, while you may have not heard it directly, you've certainly heard discussion of it. Have you phonebanked for Bernie? I can't tell you how many times I've heard it while phone banking. The media didn't report her huge lead in SDs nearly as much, in 08, as they have this year. Lesson learned, I guess. They actually played it down as the coverage of BO was much more fair.

ashtonelijah

(340 posts)
18. B.S. argument. Hillary also had a huge lead among SDs early in 2008. Obama convinced them to switch
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:22 AM
Jun 2016

During the campaign and because of his electoral wins. Bernie Sanders, far from convincing them to switch, has lost the popular vote considerably and spent his campaign attacking the very people he now wants to subvert the will of the voters to sway the nomination in his favor.

jonmac511

(46 posts)
19. maybe
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:27 AM
Jun 2016

Instead of taking the time to tell someone their argument is BS, you should not dismiss any argument while trying to convince someone they're wrong. If you're telling me the media's use of SD have not swayed anyone, I'm gonna have to disagree.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
15. I don't know much
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:59 AM
Jun 2016

but being a born and raised okie, same as Sen. Warren, BTW, I see Elizabeth and Hillary as miles apart more so than close in any of their ideology. I read Senator Warren and Senator Sanders closer than her and Hillary. My read on thing that is.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
20. A bitter man unwilling to lose to the first woman president. He is demanding anointment.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:33 AM
Jun 2016

Clinton won with the votes of the people.

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
21. I think superdelegates are on the way out.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:35 AM
Jun 2016

This will be the last year we argue about them on DU during the primary
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Elizabeth Warren: "I don'...