Poll about super delegates

[BainsBane]

The current status of the race for the Democratic nomination is that Bernie trails by 212-219 earned delegates and 2.4 million votes.

(sources: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

David Wasserman of 538 observes that while Sanders has won 46% percent of earned delegates, he has done so with only 42% of the popular vote. The difference is largely due to the fact that voter participation rates are so much lower in caucus states (3.7 of the voter eligible population this year).

Wassmerman goes on to show that if Bernie hits the targets he needs to surpass Clinton in earned delegates, he would still trail in the popular vote by approximately 671,000 votes. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/ Of course it's possible that he could outperform those targets and win the popular vote as well.

As is well know, Sanders supporters are undertaking a coordinated campaign to urge super delegates to change their votes from Clinton to Bernie in accordance with what they insist is the "will of the people." The question arises as to what constitutes the will of the people.

The poll below asks you to select what you think super delegates should do.

This is not about whether you think the party should have superdelegates. The fact is they are currently part of the process, whether or not we like them. The question then turns to how you think they should cast their votes.

8 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Super delegates should support whomever wins the popular vote nationally
	0 (0%)
	Superdelegates should support whomever wins the popular vote in their states
	0 (0%)
	Super delegates should support whoever earns the most delegates nationally
	5 (63%)
	Super delegates should support whomever earns the most delegates in their state
	1 (13%)
	Super delegates should support Bernie even if he fails to win the majority of earned delegates/pop voters
	1 (13%)
	Super delegates should support Hillary even if she fails to win the majority of earned delegates/pop votes
	0 (0%)
	Super delegates should cast their votes according to what they see as the best interests of the party
	1 (13%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Superdelegates should support Bernie.

He has the best chance of winning in November and of having coattails to ride.


Hillary has the best chance of being indicted or imploding on the campaign trail.


The choice is obvious.

[BainsBane]

7. So you are comfortable with superdelegates

subverting the results of primaries? Does that apply to every nomination contest or just Bernie?

[Motown_Johnny]

8. The question was about this contest, so I answered that way.

I could have answered that they should do what they feel is right for the party, but in this case it is the same thing.

[Scuba]

2. Forgot one: Superdelegates should not exist.

[BainsBane]

4. No, I didn't forget it

That is a separate issue. They currently do exist, and they have become central to Bernie's attempt to win the nomination. That is why the campaign is encouraging supporters to contact super delegates. The question is that given that super delegates are part of the nominating process, what do you think they should do?

[MineralMan]

3. I think they'll ratify the nomination of the candidate

with the most pledged delegates. That will almost certainly be Hillary Clinton.

That's what I think.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Superdelegates make "Democratic" Party false advertising.

[BainsBane]

6. The question wasn't about advertising

It was about what you think they should do given the current rules of the Democratic Party.

[Lucinda]

9. The whole point of the Supers is to vote their opinion of what is best for the party

If they didn't use the vote for that purpose, we would have no need for them, and could simply do away with them and lower the required number of delegates to win.

[BainsBane]

10. I agree to a certain extent

but I think if they supported someone who was rejected by the majority, that would be a problem.

[LiberalFighter]

15. It depends on the definition of majority.

Majority of voters based on results of all of the primaries and caucuses?

or

Majority based after a John Edwards or Gary Hart incident popping up?

[Lucinda]

17. I suspect that both campaigns will abide by the 2,383 number

since it absolutely, mathematically eliminates one candidate. And since both are actively pursuing supers, neither can really disavow their inclusion in that 2,383 number.

If Bernie were to suddenly get all the supers on board, and win just enough delegates to go with what he currently has, and reached 2,383, there just wouldnt be enough delegates left for Clinton to claim a win. Even if the voters weren't happy, the agreed upon process would still stand. That is what they agreed to, running as Dems.

[BainsBane]

18. Precisely. He agreed to the rules

and decided to run for the nomination in order to reap the advantages that come with running under a major party ticket.

[Turin_C3PO]

12. You're correct in theory.

However if an event happened where the will of the majority was overturned by superdelegates, I think it would cause us to lose badly in the GE, maybe even tear the party apart.

[Turin_C3PO]

11. They

should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Any other action would tear apart our Party, I believe. I'm a Sanders supporter but I certainly would be against him trying to overturn the will of the majority with super delegates.

[Onlooker]

13. The popular vote isn't meaningful

I have a lot of issues with caucuses, but just because Bernie won 10,000 votes in a caucus state while Hillary won 1,000,000 votes in a primary state doesn't mean that Hillary won 990,000 votes more than him. It's two fundamentally different systems. One can presume in theory that if caucus states held primary elections, Bernie would have won vastly more votes.

Superdelegates should support whoever wins the most pledged delegates. In that way, they will help prevent chaos at the convention. That can be the only value of superdelegates. If Bernie wins, he'll more than likely eke out a very small victory. In that case, the superdelegates should rally behind him to prevent the Hillary team from any shenanigans, and the same is true if Hillary gets more pledged delegates.

[BainsBane]

14. If those states had primaries rather than caucuses

Bernie certainly would have won more votes, but so would Hillary. His campaign disclosed last January that its strategy would focus on low-turn out, less diverse, caucus states. They accurately predicted that system would favor them.
I think it reasonable to conclude that Bernie's margins of victories in those states in a primary system (IF the primaries were open) might look more like Wisconsin than the margins in Idaho or Washington.

[LiberalFighter]

16. I think Wisconsin's system is unique also

because candidates from both parties are all on the ballot and the voter can change their mind when they enter the voting booth. I would not be a fan of that. I'm not a fan of the way Indiana does it either where you tell which ballot you want when signing in. IMO it is suppose to be Democrats deciding who their nominee will be and the same for the Republicans.

For some state-wide positions in Indiana the nominee for the party is decided at a state convention by delegates elected in the primary.

[reformist2]

19. Superdelegates should not vote. Period. In fact, they SHOULD NOT EXIST AT ALL.