If Hillary leads the pledged delegates by one, should the superdelegates vote for her or Bernie?

[hill2016]

What do people think?

I think they should vote for Hillary.

[JonLeibowitz]

1. Have you asked any of the other megadonors on the mailing list? They may have additional thoughts

You don't want to just hear from the proles.

As for me, I would prefer they back Bernie, because Hillary is not a strong and consistent representative of Democratic values.

[hill2016]

2. all of them

want the super delegates to vote for Hillary

[ibegurpard]

3. Then they should each vote how they choose

[morningfog]

4. Whoever wins the pledged delegate race should be the nominee.

And will be the nominee.

[delrem]

5. If Bernie leads the pledged delegates by one, should the superdelegates vote for him or Hillary?

What do people think?

I think they should consider their constituency and vote their conscience.

And I think this kind of question is ridiculous.

[Major Hogwash]

6. Hillary is being investigated by the FBI.

This is the first time in the history of our great country that a candidate is running to be the President of the United States, while being investigated by the FBI.

Not to worry, cooler heads will prevail, Bernie will be the nominee.

[Hoyt]

7. Leader in pledged delegates should determine. If it's very close and there were some changes in

situation -- Clinton indicted or Sanders white middle class supporters who never gave a damn about other poor people until they didn't get a raise or lost their jobs start sounding like Trump supporters and/or rabid Nationalists, or something worse -- I would hope the party leadership steps in.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's bullshit to say Sanders supporters didn't care about other people having hard times.

We were always in solidarity with everybody.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Of course it is. Typical Hillary camp sleaze.

Win-at-all-costs (including to one's own self-esteem) ratfuckery is beginning to make me lose my patience.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. What a venomous and disingenuous thing to say. Welcome to ignore, Hoyt.

[Ken Burch]

8. It depends on how each of them is doing in the polls vs Cruz or Trump.

If HRC is doing significantly worse in those polls going into Philly than Bernie is, then no. Not worth the risk in that situation.

[hill2016]

13. oh

so you think it's okay for the party leaders to steal the nomination from Clinton to give it to Sanders?

[Agschmid]

27. This was alerted on.

[Ken Burch]

35. Not by me, for the record. I don't alert on posts like that. n/t.

[Ken Burch]

34. If it's a one-vote margin, it isn't necessarily even stealing.

1) That margin would include Iowa, the most questionable HRC "victory" of all.

2) It's likely that, if the margin were that close, Bernie would be solidly ahead in the popular vote-not on the false popular vote HRC had in '08 by competing in states all Democratic candidates were supposed to stay out of, but by a solid margin of several hundred thousands votes(not even counting the caucus raw vote totals we weren't allowed to learn).

So it's not as simple as "a one-vote margin entitles someone to the nomination".

And your campaign's smugness is once again unjustified.

[DCBob]

10. Most have already confirmed they support Hillary.

If she has the plurality going into the convention, then yes she is our nominee.

If Bernie leads then that's a different matter.

[Chan790]

11. I think they should vote for the most-electable candidate that will have the longest coattails.

I suspect you think that will be Hillary.

Unsurprisingly, I think it will be Bernie.

I stand by what I said yesterday...if Hillary can't lock up the nomination in advance of the convention, she has an obligation to withdraw because more of Sanders support will refuse to support her as the nominee of a brokered convention than vice-versa.

[hill2016]

14. you think

it's okay for them to steal the nomination from Clinton to give it to Sanders?

[Chan790]

36. I think...

that after 20 years of telling the Democratic left "choosing the electable candidate must take priority over anybody's idea of the ideal candidate" that "pragmatic moderates", DLCers, and Clintonites have a lot of nerve to try to now argue that their ideal candidate Hillary should be selected in a brokered convention over the more electable Sanders, if that does indeed end up being the scenario. Damned right Hillary should lose the nomination if she can't even beat a cranky old man that yells about economic equality a lot and doesn't comb his hair. Elect-ability matters...and if Hillary can't even lock down the nomination cleanly when she had every advantage, her chances of general-election victory are poor. We need to go with the electable candidate.

As my grandmother once told me after playing with matches and igniting my comforter which had to be thrown away..."you lit the bed on fire, now you have to sleep in it." Mind you, this is rural CT, the heat is wood-stove (which fucking sucks if you're not aware) and it's about 40°F out. Sleeping in the bed you burned is not pleasant...just like seeing the candidate you support stepped-over in accordance with the conditions you set.

[Sky Masterson]

12. They should not vote at all and let the winner stand as winning by 1 vote

I say this as someone who hopes she doesn't win the Nomination.
If it were reversed I would hope you feel the same way about Bernie.

[Ferd Berfel]

15. Hillary can't win the GE - Bernie Will

it's that simple

[hill2016]

17. so you think

it's okay for the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Clinton and hand it to Sanders?

[Agschmid]

28. And this...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Mar 12, 2016, 09:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

so you think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1475380

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If it were just this one post, this would absolutely be appropriate for DU and it wouldn't even occur to me to alert on it. However, when it's copied and pasted multiple times verbatim in the same thread, it rises to a level of spamming - it's no longer constructive conversation; it's trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 12, 2016, 09:58 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No TOS/CS violation, and my job as a juror is to judge just one post. This is a frivilous alert, if you think someone is a troll alert admin don't use the jury system as a tool to silence other voices. -Agschmid
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop alerting on posts that offend you

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rock]

32. I believe your comment clarifies the issue

Shouldn't the answer to OP's question be: the decision should be symmetrical?

[MineralMan]

16. Each of the unpledged delegates will vote as he or she

thinks best, I'm sure. They each get to decide. That's why they're unpledged.

However, by the convention, the race will not be that close, really. That's statistically extremely unlikely.

One or the other candidate will have more votes than the other by a larger margin than one vote. No question about it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. The tradition, apparently, is that they vote for the popular vote leader.

If so, then Hillary gets them. That would be too bad (especially in November), but I don't like the idea of changing the rules as you go.

What I really think should happen is that the anti-democratic superdelegate system be scrapped, all primaries held (by election, not the silly, corrupt caucus system) on the same day, and the anachronistic Electoral College abolished. Because democracy.

But I'm not that much of a dreamer any more...I'll settle for a progressive President.

[hill2016]

21. sure if you hold all the primaries on the same day

the person with the most name recognition in a crowded field will win.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. That's a fair point. I wonder if the long campaign run up to a national July primary...

...would address that issue adequately?

[hill2016]

25. you would split the media

attention and fund raising which I'm guessing would disproportionately go to the people with the most name recognition. Would absolutely kill the chance of anyone gaining momentum (by actually winning states) and catching up with the front-runners.

running a national primary is incredibly expensive for candidates.

[Chan790]

37. This is why I've always been a fan of the "bloc primary model" argument.

Quite simply, you group states into logical contiguous bloc-regions of similar demographics and values...no more than seven (ideally six, but every way I've ever seen to propose six ends up creating odd regions, such as grouping ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, NV, NM, CO, UT, AZ together, then shunting IA, NE, KS and MO into the rust-belt states of the Midwest and TX and OK into the South) and have the primaries in every state of the bloc on the same day on six/seven consecutive Sundays (or Tuesdays, but we're Democrats and we should choose the day of the week when the least people work...and that's Sunday) with the two most populous blocs (usually something like Pacific Coast and Northeast, sometimes Midwest and Northeast depending how you've divided the map), with the most delegates at-stake, pinned to the last two weeks and the other four/five rotating who goes first.

It not only shortens primary season, it moderates between the issues of both extremes between the current model and a single-day primary season model. It also eases the travel for candidates, insures that a viable candidate must be strong in all regions of the country, moderates between dominance of early states and dominance of the largest states, makes the last two weeks fairly decisive of close races, and it moderates between the importance of name-recognition and importance of momentum.

The only issues I see are I expect NH and IA to have conniption fits over losing "first in the nation" status and the TV media will hate it because the long primary season is a ratings monster for them.

[Recursion]

20. If we think their votes should be determined by the pledged delegates, we should abolish them

Their purpose at least in theory is the protect the interests of the party, so I think they should vote for whomever they think would best do that.

[libtodeath]

23. Ok,fair enough and if the situation was reversed then what would you say they should do?

[Kentonio]

24. Highest number of pledged should win

If that's Hillary, then so be it, much as I hope that isn't the case. If you believe in democracy then you can't just override it when it suits, no matter how unbalanced the media have been.

[monicaangela]

26. I think the time for superdelegates is over

and that they should vote their conscience and not their purse.

[artyteacher]

29. they sgould vote for hillary in any case...

Since she's the only life long Democrat in the contest, but don't worry, she's ahead in delegates and wi'll that way anyway.

[Gothmog]

30. The super delegates will vote for Hillary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. I think we, the people, should elect our delegates..not the party bosses.

[CajunBlazer]

40. Bernie agreed to play the game with the existing rules....

....not the ones that you would invent at your convenience. He is fortunate there isn't a rule that one has to be a real member of the Democratic party in order to gain its nomination. (That is certainly a rule to consider adopting in the future in my opinion.)

This is the Democratic party nomination process, not a Presidential election. The party, meaning the sum total of it members, makes the rules, you can play by our rules are take your ball and go home. In addition, since you have told us repeatedly that you are definitely not a Democrat, you have no say in the matter, so what you think is immaterial.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. In my state I'm a Democrat if I say so.

I registered as a Democrat in 1966 and have never changed that registration.

How about you?

[CajunBlazer]

42. Evidently you can't registoer a member fo the Green Party in your state

[CajunBlazer]

43. It must be difficult to register as a member of the Green Party in you state

I think you said you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and surely you didn't vote for Bill Clinton in two previous election cycles. Did you vote for Obama the last two times around?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. See below.

I registered as a Democrat in 1966 in California

I registered as a Democrat in 1981 in Oregon

We don't register by party in my state of Washington

I have never registered as a Green

1992 and -96 I held my nose firmly and voted for ClintonIn 2000

In 2000 I voted for Al Gore

In 2004 I voted for John Kerry

In 2005 I decided to no longer hold my nose or waste my votes on candidates that I substantially disagreed with.

In 2008 I vote for Ralph Nader

In 2012 I voted for Jill Stein

[NCjack]

33. Winner of the pledged delegates should be winner. Super delegates are anti-democratic. /nt

[Motown_Johnny]

38. What if Bernie leads by one?

Your question would have more credibility if you left the names out of it and just asked if the candidate with more pledged delegates should be the nominee.

[CajunBlazer]

39. Yep

[musicblind]

44. For her, but if Bernie leads by even one...

they should vote for Bernie.

I say that as a person who likes Hillary a lot. But the superdelegates should vote with the person who has the popular vote. Since many states do not release vote totals... the delegates are the measuring stick.

I think if superdelegates ever subvert that measuring stick it will be bad for America.

I believe, outside of the DU bubble, that is what most people would say. Whoever has that one delegate advantage should get the superdelegates.

[Cheese Sandwich]

46. What should the people do if the superdelegates reverse the election result?

People aren't going to respect the result of the nominating process. It could be the end of the Democratic Party. You're willing to risk that.

[hill2016]

47. I agree

if Clinton leads by one delegate, the superdelegates should give her the nomination.

And vice versa.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. In that case we defer to Nancy Reagan's astrologist who decides on the basis of the stars.....

nt

[reformist2]

49. They shouldn't vote at all. In fact, there shouldn't even be "superdelegates."

[John Poet]

50. They should vote for Bernie, because Hillary

will probably have an FBI recommendation for indictment against her by then.

In fact, this is EXACTLY the type of situation, or one of them, for which the "need" to have super-delegates was dreamed up.

[revbones]

51. I would think that the super-delegates shouldn't vote at all.

In that case she won. Leave it.

If Bernie is ahead by one, then leave it.

The problem is that many of the super-delegates are lobbyists. It's a corrupt practice that should be abolished.

[MariaThinks]

53. as a passionate hillary supporter - i'm still angry at her comments about nancy reagan

being a champion against aides.

How stupid was that? And completely self done. Why is she so disappointing in areas that anyone with decent sense would be smarter.

It's becoming difficult to continue supporting her.

[democrattotheend]

54. I think generally, the superdelegates should support the winner of the pledged delegates

Barring some huge change in circumstances between June and August, such as if John Edwards had won the most pledged delegates in 2008 and then the scandal broke. I would say that if Hillary is indicted, which I think is unlikely, that probably qualifies as another such circumstance. Barring something like that, I don't think the superdelegates should override the will of the primary voters.

[randome]

55. Eh. They're not robots so they should all vote for whomever they want.

They should be guided by the delegate totals and most likely the vast majority of them will use that to determine their votes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]