Why hasn't Sanders been objecting when the media announced his super delegate endorsements?

[onenote]

Oh wait, i just figured it out-- it's because those media announcements were triggered by press releases from the Sanders campaign.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-pledged-delegate-total-now-1088/

I mean c'mon, those super delegates could change their minds so they shouldn't be reported, right?

[MariaThinks]

1. because he's a hypcrite

[imagine2015]

2. He has frequently objected to the media using superdelegates in their tabulatons for nomination.

For him or Hillary because yes, any superdelegates who may have indicated a preference for Sanders are free to change their mind anytime before the convention and could vote for Hillary.

[onenote]

4. If he didn't want them included, why report them at all?

When you put out a press release saying you have 1088 pledged delegates and a list of 38 (number in press release) super delegates you can''t, with a straight face, say "But don't add those numbers together okay?"

Why report the super d's at all? He could've just reported the names of people endorsing him without mentioning that they're supers, but that's not what he did.

[passiveporcupine]

3. He's not counting them in the race...just pointing out he has support at the convention.

But you knew that.

[onenote]

5. that's beyond disingenuos

I thought you couldn't count on the support of supers before the convention. Isn't that the claim?

[passiveporcupine]

9. He is not counting on support of the supers before the race

he's hoping for their support at the convention and trying to give us hope because some of them are supporting him. The more support he gets the stronger his position is at the convention. That is not a crime, unless you want to stifle enthusiasm for his supporters. I sure don't see you stifling enthusiasm for Hillary supporters. Hell, the networks are already calling her the winner and we haven't even got the larges state in the US to vote yet. How warped and undemocratic is that?.

[onenote]

10. How did you foresee the largest state in the Union impacting the outcome?

Are you on board with the Italian/Indian kid who has determined that Sanders was going to win California by a 2 to 1 margin? Y'know, the kid who also said Sanders was going to win PR by 20 points.

[anigbrowl]

7. But pointing out the same thing about Hillary's superdelegate support is somehow bad...

Explain to me what the difference is, please.

[passiveporcupine]

8. The members of Hill camp here are not saying she will presumptime nominee

based on pledged delegates alone, but instead are calling her the nominee before the race is even over, based on supers...and everyone knows that presumptive nominee does not necessarily mean nominee. Bernie is not doing this.

but again...you all know this. I think most of you are just trolling us now for a reaction.

[anigbrowl]

11. Oh please

This is a forum, not a political science paper or a court of law. People in casual conversation are going to use casual shorthand, rather than typing out 'presumptive nominee*' every time and including a paragraph of disclaimers, legal definitions and so on. As you say, we know all this, and so do you, so why do you want that people should ignore the practical realities in favor of the future formalities? Are we supposed to pretend uncertainty about future events that we don't actually feel, in order to assuage your feelings of disappointment? That's not realistic.

[passiveporcupine]

12. NO my feelings are not important

As is made obvious by many smug posts here daily. What is important is that you stop insisting Hillary has won when Bernie has said he is not conceding, but instead contesting the convention.

In spite of this, Hill camp is calling the race over (not just saying 'presumptive' nominee) before the primaries are even over.

I get that you don't want to acknowledge that. I get why. But you are wrong.

[anigbrowl]

13. I am not wrong, and we are not required to participate in theatrics

Bernie's 'contesting' the convention is meaningless. Come the convention there will be a tally of pledged delegates and superdelegates, and since there are only two contestants, whoever has the larger total will of necessity have a majority. That vote would have to take place anyway, regardless of whether Bernie were to concede or not, and with only two contestants no ambiguity about the result is possible.

I've been asking for over a month now how Sanders is supposed to contest anything without a majority on the ballot, and nobody has answered me. You can't force additional rounds of voting when the outcome is clear on the first ballot.

[passiveporcupine]

14. Hillary needs 2383 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination.

She has 1812 now. There are 126 up for grabs in NJ tomorrow.

Even if she took them all, it would only give her 1938.

That is 445 short of what she needs to "clinch" the nomination.

Sorry, but numbers do count if you don't try to rig the system.

[anigbrowl]

15. Oh for heaven's sake

We all know the rules, and you know just as well as I do that superdelegates have a choice about whether to express their preference, knowing that it will be counted toward the total in news reports despite the non-official nature of the numbers until the day of the balloting at the convention. Enough superdelegates have gone public with their endorsement (and such endorsements have been sufficiently reliable in historical terms) that the outcome is now predictable.

It's not an attempt to 'rig the system' to observe this fact. If I tell you it's raining outside it doesn't mean that I am trying to ensure you get wet.

[passiveporcupine]

16. Disagree heartily

"Clinching" before the race is even over (before the damn primaries are even over) is presumptuous. And it's totally based on SD's which could change if Bernie pulls off a big win in
cali. So nope...not buying it. You are not going to take our hope away.

[DawgHouse]

6. Well, that's different!