Should the superdeligates go for Sanders?

[hal2kilo]

So you have no way to enable others to submit to your personal vision of what is legitimate so you offer the further unsubstantiated claim that they thus deserve to be treated like children. Did you know that such thinking is more typical of conservatives meaning that it is also present in liberals.

Butt hurt is butt hurt. That's what you sound like now.

 

[theeedude]

She got more votes because the DNC conspired to keep him from getting more votes via denial that his are the issues that are central and could deliver a majority of the American people. The party elites pushed their idea of the right candidate regardless of reality. They worked to disadvantagentage the promulgation of his message. This is what progressives are feeling, cheated by the establishment elites, I think.

What are you talking about? Hillary won the most votes. Sanders were not denied ability to make case that "his are the issues that are central and could deliver a majority of the American people." He was everywhere promulgating his message. It just wasn't selling well enough to win.
Ultimately it's not the party leaders but the voters who picked Hillary. Party leaders who are superdelegates should not disrespect that by voting for the guy who lost with the voters.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam old buddy, you can't claim a prediction of the future is a fact.

The blogger takes it as a fact. I asked, if we take it as a fact, and I claimed I found the reasoning to do so compelling, I asked you to put yourself in that reality and say what the delegates should do, not what they should do according to your view of reality, not what they will likely do, but what would be best for the nation if the opinion of the blogger is correct. I am asking you to expand your view of the consequences at stake in this election.

Republicans smashed their party elites. Why didn't Democrats do the same and what will it cost us. Will there be enough rage pent up to put Trump in office? Will the folk partisan to Clinton take any responsibility if the Democrats lose? You probably know the answer to that last question.

 

[Moonbeam]

What are you talking about? Hillary won the most votes. Sanders were not denied ability to make case that "his are the issues that are central and could deliver a majority of the American people." He was everywhere promulgating his message. It just wasn't selling well enough to win.
Ultimately it's not the party leaders but the voters who picked Hillary. Party leaders who are superdelegates should not disrespect that by voting for the guy who lost with the voters.

I didn't say he was denied the opportunity to present his case. I'm saying the claim and the feeling among progressives is that his ability to make it fairly was hampered by favoritism among the party elites, the ones most in the pockets of the wealthy, including Clinton herself. My assumption is that the super delegates are there to prevent the nomination of one candidate that will lose over one that will win. I believe the case is very convincing that the opposite may turn out to be what happened. We will never know for sure, if Clinton loses that Sanders might have won, naturally. My opinion is that that may be quite likely.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I didn't say he was denied the opportunity to present his case. I'm saying the claim and the feeling among progressives is that his ability to make it fairly was hampered by favoritism among the party elites, the ones most in the pockets of the wealthy, including Clinton herself. My assumption is that the super delegates are there to prevent the nomination of one candidate that will lose over one that will win. I believe the case is very convincing that the opposite may turn out to be what happened. We will never know for sure, if Clinton loses that Sanders might have won, naturally. My opinion is that that may be quite likely.

Then how do you explain to the millions of people that voted Hillary that the system is rigged so we're going to select the guy who had fewer votes and delegates?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Then how do you explain to the millions of people that voted Hillary that the system is rigged so we're going to select the guy who had fewer votes and delegates?

Do the superdelegates exist to rubber stamp the will of the electorate or do they exist to act in what they believe is the best interests of the party? Sometimes those two things align. Arguably in this case they do not.

Clinton won more pledged delegates but not enough to claim the nomination. She requires the supers to push her over. She's created political liability via an email scandal of her own making, with new revelations that only further the narrative of her as a political insider whose surrogates torpedoed Sanders progressive movement. You have agitated Sanders supporters and a news cycle fixated on the next Wikileaks release and Russian hackers.

There is plenty of rationale for the superdelegates to overturn the primary results. They won't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then how do you explain to the millions of people that voted Hillary that the system is rigged so we're going to select the guy who had fewer votes and delegates?

I think the appropriate way to explain it would be to sat that truth rigged the suitability rigged the party elites to vote Sanders and you will just have to grow up and live with it. Right?

 

[SSSnail]

Something something vocal minority, loud, obnoxious, etc...

 

[werepossum]

They shouldn't.

But their influence on the election in the beginning by being for a certain candidate at the start before the primaries have barely begun should be lessened.

Good news everyone. about two-thirds of the superdelegates will have to be apportioned according to primary and caucus results in the future. It's a start at least.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...emocrats-vote-to-reform-super-delegate-system


__________________

Just means the DNC will have to work twice as hard to make sure the "correct" person wins.

Morally, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because Hillary won the majority of the vote. True, she had an unfair advantage in that the party apparatchiks were totally in her camp, but there's no way to quantify that. If they wished to go for Sanders - and are willing to pay the price Hillary et all will require - they could do so. But superdelegates are the political insiders who were largely colluding against Sanders, so . . .

Practically, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because the entire point of the Democrat Party is that ordinary people are far too stupid to live their lives without smarter, better people telling them what they can and cannot do. This is just an extension of that.

 

[werepossum]

Do the superdelegates exist to rubber stamp the will of the electorate or do they exist to act in what they believe is the best interests of the party? Sometimes those two things align. Arguably in this case they do not.

Clinton won more pledged delegates but not enough to claim the nomination. She requires the supers to push her over. She's created political liability via an email scandal of her own making, with new revelations that only further the narrative of her as a political insider whose surrogates torpedoed Sanders progressive movement. You have agitated Sanders supporters and a news cycle fixated on the next Wikileaks release and Russian hackers.

There is plenty of rationale for the superdelegates to overturn the primary results. They won't.

That's not quite fair to the Hildabeast. By making so many delegates superdelegates, the DNC made it artificially harder to win enough actual electorally awarded delegates to cinch the nomination. For that to be a fair point, you'd have to do a strict percentage of the electorally awarded delegates only, not use the total required number including the superdelegates.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just means the DNC will have to work twice as hard to make sure the "correct" person wins.

Morally, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because Hillary won the majority of the vote. True, she had an unfair advantage in that the party apparatchiks were totally in her camp, but there's no way to quantify that. If they wished to go for Sanders - and are willing to pay the price Hillary et all will require - they could do so. But superdelegates are the political insiders who were largely colluding against Sanders, so . . .

Practically, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because the entire point of the Democrat Party is that ordinary people are far too stupid to live their lives without smarter, better people telling them what they can and cannot do. This is just an extension of that.

or maybe just more obstacles money will find a way around.

 

[werepossum]

or maybe just more obstacles money will find a way around.

Big money just sail over the obstacles they drop for the little people.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just means the DNC will have to work twice as hard to make sure the "correct" person wins.

Morally, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because Hillary won the majority of the vote. True, she had an unfair advantage in that the party apparatchiks were totally in her camp, but there's no way to quantify that. If they wished to go for Sanders - and are willing to pay the price Hillary et all will require - they could do so. But superdelegates are the political insiders who were largely colluding against Sanders, so . . .

Practically, the superdelegates should not automatically go for Sanders because the entire point of the Democrat Party is that ordinary people are far too stupid to live their lives without smarter, better people telling them what they can and cannot do. This is just an extension of that.

Which explains why the candidate having the most pledged delegates has won every time since 1984 when the current superdelegate system was put in place. You know, the candidate who received the largest number of votes from ordinary people.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think the appropriate way to explain it would be to sat that truth rigged the suitability rigged the party elites to vote Sanders and you will just have to grow up and live with it. Right?

Good luck selling that on voters and not causing them to be more pissed off, good much getting the Hillary voters to go out & vote.

 

[dank69]

The blogger takes it as a fact. I asked, if we take it as a fact, and I claimed I found the reasoning to do so compelling, I asked you to put yourself in that reality and say what the delegates should do, not what they should do according to your view of reality, not what they will likely do, but what would be best for the nation if the opinion of the blogger is correct. I am asking you to expand your view of the consequences at stake in this election.

Republicans smashed their party elites. Why didn't Democrats do the same and what will it cost us. Will there be enough rage pent up to put Trump in office? Will the folk partisan to Clinton take any responsibility if the Democrats lose? You probably know the answer to that last question.

Okay, I understand what you are asking now. If we assume the blogger is correct and that Hillary will lose if she is the candidate for the Democrats and she knows she will lose and she knows Sanders would win, then she should step down. However, that would be her choice alone. We would all be well within our rights to try to convince her to do the right thing, but it would be immoral for anyone to interfere or block her rightful nomination.

To extend this into complete absurdity to drive my point home, imagine there was a candidate whose only platform policy was that when elected he would have the military exterminate all US citizens and imagine that this candidate was actually getting enough support that it was likely that he was going to win. It would be immoral for us to try to change/game the system in any way to stop this from happening. It is every person's right to vote for whatever they think is in their best interests, even if they think extermination of the human race including themselves is in their best interests.

Getting back to reality, Republicans smashed their party elites because they deserved to be smashed. They have deserved that fate for a long time. Democrat elites are nowhere near the level of corruption that the whole party needs to be smashed. It's not even close.

 

[dullard]

I only heard snippets of the DNC on the news. Did the superdelegates vote at all? Or was there a state-by-state roll call vote and then they suspended the rules to just nominate Clinton?

 

[WackyDan]

Act like a child, get spoken to like a child.

Edit: Learning to accept legitimate defeat is what grown-ups do.

What defeat? I'm not a Sanders supporter, nor a Hillary, nor am I a Trump supporter.

Who exactly is the child or fool here?

 

[WackyDan]

What are you talking about? Hillary won the most votes. Sanders were not denied ability to make case that "his are the issues that are central and could deliver a majority of the American people." He was everywhere promulgating his message. It just wasn't selling well enough to win.
Ultimately it's not the party leaders but the voters who picked Hillary. Party leaders who are superdelegates should not disrespect that by voting for the guy who lost with the voters.

The core issue here is that the super delegates votes are not singular correct? They are are counted as a multiple and therefore did skew the delegate count heavily towards Hillary. I believe the race is won based on delegate count in the bag for either candidate no?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The core issue here is that the super delegates votes are not singular correct? They are are counted as a multiple and therefore did skew the delegate count heavily towards Hillary. I believe the race is won based on delegate count in the bag for either candidate no?

No to my understanding they are singular. The Super Delegates do have a hand in setting the convention rules but face reality Clinton got most of the super delegates because if she was charged for the email server stuff they'd need to have a group who could change their votes to support someone else. Hillary received enough votes to become the nominee period even if her super delegates were bound delegates.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Democrat elites are nowhere near the level of corruption that the whole party needs to be smashed. It's not even close.

Eh, I think the email leaks show that the Democratic elites have their share of problems.

It isn't about what "should" happen. It is about the natural flow of things.

If anything Trump is what made the Democratic elites safe, and the threat of his presidency is scaring a lot of people back in line.

 

[dank69]

Eh, I think the email leaks show that the Democratic elites have their share of problems.

It isn't about what "should" happen. It is about the natural flow of things.

If anything Trump is what made the Democratic elites safe, and the threat of his presidency is scaring a lot of people back in line.

Yeah, those deceitful bastards discussed using Bernie's religion against him during the primaries. The horror! We need to distract from this enormous scandal. I don't understand why there isn't a formal Congressional investigation yet.

 

[SP33Demon]

Let me clarify:

The theme of the OP link was that Hillary will lose to Trump if she is the nominee. The question as to whether the delegates should switch was in the blog title. I am not asking whether they will switch but if the reasons they should switch, that she will lose to Trump, as explained by the article is true or not. "They will not switch and that will mean Trump wins." I am asking if that is what is going to happen. Are Democrats committing suicide? Haven't they already? Did they f themselves by voting Clinton. Didn't they pick the greater of two evils? I think they did. I think big money wanted Clinton and got their way as they always will. I think democracy is dead and I think Democrats more than anybody else killed it by taking money from the rich. And I want them to pay for it. Sorry. The need for change has outstripped the ability of people to consciously evolve to meet it. That spells disaster in my opinion. We are the disaster. We made our bed and now its time to lie in it.

Solid post, Moonie. Like I said months ago, Bernie scared me a lot more than hillary. Now the Dems will have to live the repercussions and always being bought out. Luckily Trump doesn't have that problem.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yeah, those deceitful bastards discussed using Bernie's religion against him during the primaries. The horror! We need to distract from this enormous scandal. I don't understand why there isn't a formal Congressional investigation yet.

The fact that you can 'splain away something as egregious as the DNC sabotaging Bernie shows that you don't give a dam about our country. It was a shame what happened to bernie and sad you think it's funny the democratic primary was rigged. How does it feel to be a lemming?

 

[dank69]

The fact that you can 'splain away something as egregious as the DNC sabotaging Bernie shows that you don't give a dam about our country. It was a shame what happened to bernie and sad you think it's funny the democratic primary was rigged. How does it feel to be a lemming?

As I understand it, they didn't sabotage anything. Someone asked if they should "sabotage" it and someone else told them no they should not.

 

[SP33Demon]

As I understand it, they didn't sabotage anything. Someone asked if they should "sabotage" it and someone else told them no they should not.

What about the DNC deciding it only needed 6 debates, held on weekends when nobody would be watching? When hillary and obama had 28 in 2008 during prime time? That's just one example how they silenced Bernie.