Utah superdelegates split 2-2 for Bernie Sanders despite big win among caucus voters

[RATM435]

Utah's last undecided Democratic superdelegate threw his support behind Bernie Sanders on Wednesday, and the state party finalized its tally from last week's presidential caucuses, in which a high turnout led to a lengthy vote-counting process.

That result remains largely unchanged: a massive victory by Sanders, the Vermont senator, who claimed 77 percent of the vote, over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, who received 20 percent. As early voting predicted, Sanders won 27 delegates while Clinton earned 6.

On top of those pledged delegates tied to the caucus votes of 81,600 Utahns, four party officials hold the special designation of superdelegate, allowing them to support either candidate as they see fit. They split between the candidates.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3722153-155/official-caucus-tally-gives-bernie-sanders

[cosmicone]

1. Superdelegates can decide on their own

and being politicians, they have a better handle on who is a better candidate.

[morningfog]

2. Why do we even hold primaries then?

They know better, shouldn't we just let them choose?

[cosmicone]

4. Superdelegates were created by Tad Devine -- blame him instead of Hillary n/t

[Kentonio]

5. You're the one who jumped in to say that politicians know best

So how about you stand up for your own claim? Unless of course this was nothing but another one of your endless little digs at the other half of the party.

[morningfog]

6. When did I blame Hillary? I responded to your post

suggesting the supers know better. My question was, if that is the case, why get voters involved at all?

[cosmicone]

7. Superdelegates are there to protect the interests of the democratic party

and to prevent some Unicorn J. Sparklepony creating a revolution out of independents in open primaries which would elect someone like George McGovern or Michael Dukakis.

The superdelegates have skin in the game because coattails affect their election in November. They should have a hand in choosing the nominee to a tiny extent which is about 20% at the moment.

[morningfog]

8. In other words, they are there to usurp the voter's choice

if they feel the need. Why not just let them do it from the start of they know better?

[cosmicone]

9. No ... that is the way the game is played. Sanders knew it going in.

One cannot start playing the game and complain in the 8th inning that the bases are too far apart.

[morningfog]

10. I've been complaining about supers since their inception.

They should be done away with.

Let the voters decide. The party should move to meet the voters.

[cosmicone]

11. Well, Sanders accepted the rules and ran. Stop complaining about the rules now. n/t

[morningfog]

12. I don't need your permission to call out undemocratic

nominating processes.

[cosmicone]

18. There is nothing undemocratic about it

Sanders had the exact SAME opportunity to win over the superdelegates as Clinton. He failed.

Them's the breaks.

[morningfog]

20. My complaint has nothing to do with Sanders or Clinton. Superdelegates are, by their nature,

undemocratic. You cannot deny that.

However, they usually are just irrelevant. They follow the pledged delegate winner and will in this case too. They should be cast to the waste bin by the next nomination contest.

[revbones]

27. Exactly.

As DWS said, they protect incumbants from the grassroots.

[cosmicone]

37. If Sanders didn't like the rules

he should have run in the socialist primary but he wanted the money and publicity provided by the democratic party. He chose to run with those rules and has no leg to stand on to complain.

If one is 2' tall, one shouldn't be playing in the NBA and complain the baskets are too high.

[revbones]

39. Oh good one.

Don't use the only apparatus available to try to fix things. Just build your own tools from scratch.

Excellent advice.

[cosmicone]

41. If you choose to use the apparatus

make sure you read the user's manual and follow the instructions.

[revbones]

44. Yeah, and don't ever try to mod it right? Sheesh.

[NWCorona]

31. This!

[Uponthegears]

34. "Tiny extent?"

Twenty percent . . . tiny extent?

Hypothetical:

Candidate A: 59% of pledged delegates
Candidate B: 41% of pledged delegates

But Candidate B still wins?

That must be one heck of a "Sparklepony" they are worried about.

OR

Is it possible that "super-delegates" are there so the big money donors that middle-right Third-Wayers think should be running the country will keep those big checks rolling in knowing, as they do, that it would be almost as easy to amend the Constitution as it would to wrest power from the Democratic Establishment and return it to the Democratic People?

[cosmicone]

38. Yep. Tad Devine created those rules

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Uponthegears]

40. Did Tad Devine say

20% was a "tiny extent" or did YOU?

Oh, as for the diversion, Devine's current EMPLOYER, is about as relevant as his former ESTABLISHMENT Democrat employers . . . well "about as relevant" except for the fact that he was working for Establishment Democrats when he came up with the super-delegate rules.

Now . . . getting back to that "tiny extent" . . .

Whaaaaaat? You don't want to go back there?

Look at what?

Look at the squirrel?

Nope, don't think so.

[Dragonfli]

13. A better handle on where the bribes are is more likely, we do not need a purchased set of delegates

in a supposedly fair primary process, the ability to buy or threaten delegates is some third world country bullshit I think we should disavow.

Even if the moneyed interests doing the buying have all the power and our protestations mean nothing to their true power in this Oligarchy, not democracy, run by corruption born of wealth.

[cosmicone]

14. And you have evidence of those "bribes" correct?

Amirite?

Or is it just another smear at DEMOCRATS who are supporting Hillary? Are you absolutely positive you're on a DEMOCRATIC board?

[Dragonfli]

15. Quite frankly, asking for such when corruption has reached this extreme is like asking for evidence

That North Korea is a Dictatorship. When the levels reach a certain tipping point of absurdity the truth becomes axiomatic.

[cosmicone]

19. So .. please post a link where a superdelegate received a bribe from Clinton

just one link to a reputable source shall suffice.

[Dragonfli]

21. They don't do it publicly, I did not say they are morons. /nt

[cosmicone]

22. Oh .. so it is just a fantasy in your head ....

just as I thought

[Dragonfli]

24. No, it is a self evident truth, follow the corporate money

Or occam's razor.

[cosmicone]

25. Again, show me PROOF or go away. n/t

[Dragonfli]

26. It is apparent to anyone not wearing blinders, perhaps you will get the proof

If the fortunes of said Supers are followed after the primary as suggested below so you will then have the proof you will no doubt ignore.

[revbones]

29. Anyone getting money from the Hillary Victory Fund

If any has actually been disbursed yet.

[revbones]

42. Well I suppose the evidence is in which Democrats actually receive money from that victory fund

I'm sure you have the disbursement list up to date right?

That would be one way to see. There is also the fact that Hillary's campaign is allowed unlimited withdrawals from it as well - so taht can be seen as just another way to funnel money to her campaign...

[Jokerman]

16. So you admit that the playing field isn't level...

but as long as your candidate is the one running down hill you're OK with it?

What was the name of this party again? It seems to be escaping me at the moment.

If you think that the title "politician" automatically connotes some sort of superior knowledge then you must be quite naive.

[cosmicone]

17. It IS even and any insinuation to the contrary is a dirty smear

Sanders and Clinton BOTH had the SAME opportunity to win over the superdelegates.

Just because Sanders couldn't persuade them is HIS problem. Not of the rules, of the party, Hillary or the superdelegates themselves.

[Jokerman]

32. It IS the rules of the party that MAKES it uneven.

The current candidates are not the issue.

The issue is whether or not the "democratic" party exists to support the people or if it exists to merely to sustain itself and its leaders. Superdelegates are just one part of the system of caucuses, closed primaries, conventions and payoffs that discourage people from participating.

People don't vote because they have the perception that their vote doesn't count and this type of system confirms that perception. This is an issue that should be important to anyone who supports participatory democracy.

I would support the elimination of superdelegates even if they were voting 100% Sanders in this cycle.

The fact that you characterize a different opinion as a "dirty smear" speaks volumes about you and your candidate.

[cosmicone]

33. No. Sanders KNEW the rules going in

and he had 27+ years to cultivate superdelegates in congress. The fat that almost none of his colleagues in congress support him speaks volumes.

[revbones]

43. Yes it does.

Since he's an honest man and doesn't keep lists like the Clintons do... they know they'll be punished for going against her, but not for going against Bernie...

[Jokerman]

45. It's not about Sanders or Clinton, it's about the system.

My point has been clear but you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit into your talking points.

I freely acknowledge that Clinton is better at gaming a rigged system than Sanders but that doesn't change the fact that the system IS rigged.

Many of us in the democratic party are tired of candidates who profit too much from a corrupt system to ever consider trying to change it.


How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates

http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. That's actually good in a way. We only need half the superdelegates.

If the superdelegates split half for Clinton half for Sanders then they would just cancel each other out and have no effect.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. The financial windfalls of superdelegates should be followed.

I'm just saying, that I have yet to see these things work out just for the sake of high principles. Rewards just always follow "good actions."

[Nyan]

30. ...or, the notion of super delegate itself is unfair and there's no excuse for it.

Welcome to DU!

[Marr]

35. If superdelegates really are interested in 'protecting the interests of the party'

they'll realize that handing Hillary the nomination if she hasn't earned a majority of the overall delegates will be party suicide. Not just suicide in this election, though Hillary would be absolutely trounced in such a situation, but party suicide. It would ruin the Democratic Party's name and forever brand it as another club for the elite.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Some delegates are more equal than others. Especially, if they aren't voted for but selected.