Hillary Supporters, surely you agree that...

[masmdu]

It ends after everyone’s had a chance to vote. It’s going to be up to the Democratic party, all of the delegates, most particularly those who are still uncommitted, to make their determination as to who they think would be the best president and the better candidate.

Super-delegates are there for a purpose to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President.

Super-delegates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds. They can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no guarantee— and in fact, it’s equally true for pledged delegates for most states.

[CentralCoaster]

1. I think, too, that Hillary supporters agree that we need the candidate who will beat the GOP.

The one who has been shown by surveys to consistently beat the opposition.

The one most regarded as honest.

The one who supports the 99%.

These, I'm sure, are what supporters agree are important matters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I think the party should nominate the candidate with the most votes and pledged delegates.

Or else we can have a monarchy based on primogeniture.

[djean111]

2. Well, did you take into consideration that many super-delegates are LOBBYISTS,

who stand to curry many favors from Hillary? Who may represent firms who have donated heavily to Hillary?

I doubt the superdelegates who are lobbyists are going to be fair or logical - if they were going to be fair and logical, they would not have pledged to Hillary before a single fucking vote was cast.

[Buzz cook]

31. Do you have a citation for that claim?nt

Which ones are paid lobbyists? What do they lobby for. The Sierra club has lobbyists as do labor unions and a host of groups.

Here is a list of 2016 superdelegates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Point out which ones are the bad guys.

[silvershadow]

37. It is fact, and has been discussed elsewhere on this board. I'm not sure a citation is

necessary. The Google site search bar at the top of this page is your friend.

[Buzz cook]

38. It is not a fact it is an allegation.

Along with a slew of other allegations that keep popping up with no proof.

What someone writes on a message board may be good enough evidence for you, it isn't for me.

[silvershadow]

39. No it is a fact. nt

[Dragonfli]

48. The poster knows that, just spreading misinformation for those that don't, see my post below /nt

[Dragonfli]

47. According to ABC news 67 lobbyists will attend the convention as superdelegates

In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records.

That’s at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

And 41 lobbyist superdelegates, almost six in 10 of all lobbyist superdelegates, have already committed to supporting Clinton. A third haven’t yet revealed a preference

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reason-dozens-lobbyists-democratic-presidential-delegates/story?id=37289507

[Buzz cook]

49. And the article doesn't say who those

lobbyist are or what they lobbied for. It also doesn't say anything about why they were selected to be superdelegates. Your infrence that they were selected because they are lobbyists is disingenuous at best, an insult at worst.

Again, here are the list of superdelegates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Which ones are the bad guys.

[Dragonfli]

51. You're funny, I'm sorry, It is rude to laugh but you are just so adorably transparent re your work

[Buzz cook]

52. Since posting my last

I went through that list. Every entry is followed by Gov, Sen, Rep, DNC, or DPL.

Looks to me like you fell for a media troll. Didn't your mama tell you to never trust the media?

[Dragonfli]

54. ABC news is now a "media troll". I don't think you are as clueless as you claim, but a "misspeaker"

There is another word for speaking something that lacks truth, but that is the less rude now common term for when Hillary or Trump do the same.

I really don;'t have time to spend with misinformation specialists, so I will simply put you on ignore saing you from the trouble of using untrue statements on one that will no longer see them.

[Buzz cook]

56. And I think you are a naif looking for

bias confirmation. Are we even now or should I call you more names?

The ABC article is a troll. It highlights lobbyist but doesn't mention every super delegate was chosen for other reasons. It also doesn't say what those people lobby for.

Are we republicans to demonize people just because of the label given them by the media?

You also are a poor writer.

[Buzz cook]

55. Found some.

After a bit I found a partial list. Here's one

Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.

Is this one of the lobbyists you don't like? I gotta say the editorializing by the reporter is standard fare.

[griffi94]

3. The super delegates

will vote for who has the most pledged delegates.

That will be Hillary since she has a
300 delegate lead and 3 million more votes.

Bernis can't make up the delegate gap.

The unpledged delegates aren't going to give it to Bernie
when he trails badly in pledged delegates and votes.

They won't buy into the argument that the person who didn't win is the most electable.

[pandr32]

25. Quite right

Unfortunately for Bernie, the rules haven't changed, nor will he be able to change them, since before he signed on to run as a member of the Democratic Party. If he didn't agree with the rules than he shouldn't have signed on.

[stone space]

4. The supers will go with the pledged delegates.

[NCTraveler]

5. That is the reason why almost every single SD will back Clinton.

I'm feeling better about that than at any time of this process.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. We are a democratic republic and not a junta.

The candidate with the most pledged delegates and popular votes should be the winner, whomever he or she might be.
I dare the Democratic party to steal the election from women and people of color. Those are the people that have given Hillary Clinton her 3,000,000 vote margin of victory.

[seabeyond]

7. It has already ended per the votes counted.

[NurseJackie]

9. Bargaining. This is bargaining, right?

"Dorothy! Help me out here! Is this bargaining?"

Is it "spamming" a forum for the same person to post the exact same thing more than once? (Just asking.)

[masmdu]

17. You do realize this is a direct Hillary quote, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511881546

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. She was 100 pledged delegate behind and actually winning the popular vote

The Vermont independent is 3,000,000 votes and 300 pledged delegates behind. That is a huge difference.

[masmdu]

22. So you agree?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I agree in a close race where each side can make a compelling argument why they were the winner.

I agree that in a close race where each candidate can make a compelling argument why they were the winner the Super Delegates should have a role. However when one candidate is getting trounced by 3,000, 000 popular votes it is only in a parallel universe can someone say the race is close.

[floriduck]

28. That would make sense if every state held primaries. Washington, as an example,

went about 76% for Sanders. If the entire state had voted similarly, the vote count for Sanders would have been considerably higher. If you figured in all caucus states, Clinton's lead might have been marginal at best.

Now I too want to eliminate caucuses. But they exist and that decreases the votes in caucus states. So please drop the total votes from your argument. I agree that Clinton has a big delegate lead. But there are mathematically enough delegates in the remaining states to allow Sanders an opportunity. So let's see how the remaining primaries go.

Peace.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. The 3,000,000 popular vote lead includes caucus votes

The 3,000,000 popular vote lead includes caucus votes. Her primary popular vote lead is near 3,200,000. Statisticians have went back and apportioned the popular votes from caucuses. It only decreases Clinton's popular vote margin by less than 200,000 votes.

That makes sense because outside of Washington caucus states are freaking tiny, i.e. sparsely populated- Utah, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Hawaii, Idaho , Alaska, et cetera.

If you want I will find the citation.


Citation found-

Despite the suspicions of the Sanders supporter, the fact that caucus results are not included in the popular vote tally does not appear to make much of a difference in the final result. Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes. Given rounding — and the fact that caucus numbers are only estimates — the difference is slight enough that Clinton’s claim, made before the Wisconsin vote, earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

And that was published before the Vermont independent was walloped in larger states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
This is just common sense. Sanders has got walloped in densely populated states like FL, TX, NY, NC, PA, GA, OH, and VA. Sanders has walloped Clinton in sparsely populated caucus states like UT, KS, NE, and AL.

[floriduck]

46. So the Citation just reduced your claim by half a million votes.

I can live with that. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. No it doesn't.

So the Citation just reduced your claim by half a million votes.
I can live with that. Thanks.

At the time of the article Sanders was approximately 2,400,000 votes behind.Since the cited article was published there were primaries in populous states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York where the Vermont independent was obliterated.

In fact, beside Washington and the miracle in Michigan where the Vermont independent eked out a win he wins states where hardly anybody lives.

[masmdu]

19. Was it bargaining when Hillary said it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511881546

from an interview from, as best I can tell, around May 7, 2008. I did the transcription and added emphasis.


BRIAN WILLIAMS: How does this end, and when?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think, Brian, it ends after everyone’s had a chance to vote,
after we have decided how we’re going to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, which
I hope happens on May 31st. We have less than three weeks to go until everyone’s had
a chance to be heard. And then it’s going to be up to the Democratic party, all of the
delegates, ah, most particularly those who are still uncommitted, ah, to make their
determination as to who they think would be the best president and the better candidate.
But at some point, we’ll know who has 2,210 delegates. I think we’ll have a nominee, um,
I really believe that, but, again, we’ll know a lot more on June 4th and, uh, maybe I just have,
ah, more patience than, ah, the average person these days but, ah, for me it’s ah, a privilege
and a joy to travel around our country to make my case to, ah, people from one coast to the
other and, ah, to ah, continue to ah , you know, work as hard as I can to win this nomination
and that’s what I intend to do and, you know, we’ll get to, ah, June the 4th, ah, after the last
votes are cast on June the 3rd and I think we’ll have a better idea about where we stand.

BW: For you to be the nominee it would take a wholesale shift of ah, super-delegates,
in effect, overturning, um, the pledged delegates and those individual state elections.
Would you be comfortable with that?

HC: Well, I think that, ah, the super-delegates are there for a purpose, that is to, ah,
determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President. Ah,
super-delegates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, ah, they
can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no , ah, guarantee— and in fact,
it’s equally true for pledged delegates for most states. Ah, obviously people are going to
look at the results, but I think that it’s also important to look at where the delegates came
from, ah, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of, ah, ah,
outcomes were, who has a, a bigger base to build an electoral majority on. But at the end
of the day, Brian, you know, maybe it’s because we live in such a, a media bubble and it’s
24-7 and there’s such an intense interest in this campaign—Everybody should just take a
deep breath. We’re gonna know a lot more in about three weeks than we do right now and
and that is More than enough time for us to unify our party for us to be, you know, absolutely
committed to ah, ah winning in November and I, I believe that’s what’s going to happen.

[NurseJackie]

45. Yes.

[JoePhilly]

10. Yes, and as a result, Hillary will win easily.

[rhett o rick]

12. If you aren't concerned with her winning why all the pleading for Sander to submit?

I suspect that you really don't like the democratic process. Don't think Sanders should have challenged "the chosen one." Just let Goldman-Sachs pick the winner right? And I get why people side with the Goldman-Sachs, Wall Street and Koch Bros side. Just want to be on the winning side. Maybe the Rich Fat Cats will like you.

[JoePhilly]

16. When did I plead for sanders to "submit", sparky??

Bernie should stay till the last vote is counted.

So that folks like you know he lost.

[bvar22]

11. Not just who would be the better president and candidate,

but who has the best chance of beating REPUBLICANS in November.

[rhett o rick]

29. Her fans care more about denying a progressive to win the nomination

than about who wins in Nov. They think that because they fall in line the Left will also. They think the Left will sell their souls but hate to break it to them, Homey don't play that game." l

[NanceGreggs]

33. Super-delegates are politically savvy enough to know ...

... that polls pitting Dems v Repubs at this point are meaningless.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. And

and in fact, it’s equally true for pledged delegates for most states.

Ted Kennedy tried to flip pledged delegates at the 1980 Democratic Convention and failed miserably. And there was infinitely more love for the brother of the martyred Democratic president and senator among Democrats than there ever was for the Vermont independent.

[Maven]

14. Sure, let everyone vote, but the result will be the same

Hillary is going to be the nominee. Superdelegates are not going to switch their votes to the candidate with lower popular vote and pledged delegate totals. Not going to happen.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. yes, i do agree. nt

[Arkansas Granny]

18. Sanders supporters, surely you agree

that if the candidate's positions were reversed and Bernie had more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Hillary and she tried to bargain with super delegates to flip their votes you would be having a hemmorage of green paint right about now.

By all means, let the vote continue, but there is no longer a path to victory for Bernie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Just for you.

Evelyn Calgary 20 minutes ago
Whenever I am looking for faulty arguments on either side of an issue I try doing a role-reversal. I tried to imagine Sec. Clinton making the same argument after losing that Sen. Sanders is now putting forward. Paragraph 3 would read like this:

Hilary Clinton dismissed Saunders victories driven by black voters as products of the conservative Deep South; she suggested that her defeat in New York was unfair because it was a closed primary; then, with the big loss in the mid-Atlantic primaries, she has said superdelegates should choose her despite a 3 million vote deficit.

I wonder how that would have gone over?


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/bernies-bad-end/

[kstewart33]

35. Touche, DSB!

[sufrommich]

20. Have primary elections ever been stopped before

the last state votes?

[pampango]

26. I agree unless Bernie catches up in pledged delegates the last 10 states. Then I think superdelegate

should go with the pledged delegate leader and not exercise their own judgement "to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President."

[rhett o rick]

30. In the State of Washington Sen Sanders won with 75% of the votes. I assume you would

agree that the Super Delegates from the State of Washington should support Sanders.

[kstewart33]

36. Was that a caucus state?

Jeff Weaver said that caucuses are not democratic per an earlier interview with Maddow.

[DLCWIdem]

43. not undemocratic just less democratic

Yes WA was a caucaus state there was only 26,300 raw votes and Bernie won by 12,019 votes for a 72% win. However, to put that in perspective she won Illinois by less than 1% which was 35,000 raw votes. (Estimated) Caucauses are less democratic because it makes it harder for people to vote. For example, the WA caucaus took about 5 hours long, this kind of disporportionately effects certain people like maybe finding someone for childcare.

[kstewart33]

60. Well, if it's "less democratic"....

How can we factor in that unfortunate truth into the delegate allocation?

Geez, this is getting ridiculous.

Supers can vote how they want, not according to Bernie's "entitlement."

They'll vote on the first ballot for the candidate with the most popular votes and the most pledged delegates. And that's Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

58. That has nothing to do with what I said. 75% of Washington the State Democrats support Sen

Sanders and all of the Washington super-duper-delegates support Clinton. They were bought with campaign cash.

[pampango]

42. Of course although applying that rule in every state may well not get Bernie the nomination. n/t

[rhett o rick]

59. So you agree that the Super Delegates from Washington should support Sanders. Thanks. nm

[msongs]

27. sure, dems in dems primaries and everyone in the general nt

[metroins]

34. I disagree

It was over in early March and Hillary should've already shifted to the GE.

[Meldread]

40. I'm a Clinton supporter, and I do agree.

Bernie has every right to stay in until the convention. The Super Delegates have every right to support him if they decide that he would be a better nominee. Sanders has every right to use the rules of the party to try and win, and the same is true for Clinton.

The problem with Sanders winning with Super Delegates, though, is twofold.

First, it undermines his claim of revolution. If the party insiders are placing the crown on your head, then it isn't a coupe, it means you've joined forces. This would come at a cost, and I am interested in wondering how Sanders supporters would feel about what Sanders has to compromise away in order to get the nomination. After all, they simply aren't going to give it to him for nothing.

Second, the chances of him being successful through these means is close to zero. Unless Hillary has some crazy sex scandal or something that would kill her chances in the General Election, she has the loyalty of the insiders already. That is why they all flocked to her early on. Some may remain undeclared until the voting is done out of respect for the voters. However, there is zero reason not to believe that she will not capture the vast and overwhelming majority of Super Delegates. There is no clear plan from the Sanders camp on how they intend to persuade them, which goes back to the end of my first point.

So, Sanders is free to do whatever he wants, just as Clinton is free to do whatever she wants. However, I would argue that Sanders is actively pissing away whatever leverage he could have over Clinton and the convention. There are things he could have done, and may still be able to do, that will further the liberal agenda and place him in a greater position of power in the Senate. If I were advising Sanders, my advice to him would be to use whatever power he has to gain as much leverage and power that he can, in order to push the party further to the left.

[hrmjustin]

41. If Hillary has more votes and pledge delegates than she should be the nominee.

Anything else is theft and I would not vote for the one who steals it from her.

I hope this makes my position clear.

[Zynx]

44. I don't see how agreeing to these points helps Bernie.

[jamese777]

53. New CNN/ORC poll

CNN poll: Americans agree Clinton and Trump headed for a faceoff

(CNN)Americans don't agree on much in politics these days, but a new poll finds broad majorities in agreement that the front-runners for the Republican and Democratic nominations for president will wind up the winners in the end.

According to a new CNN/ORC poll out Monday, 84% of voters nationwide think Donald Trump will lead the Republican ticket in November, while 85% say the same about Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

But the sense of inevitability hasn't boosted their support among their own parties. Each has the backing of about half of voters: Clinton is the choice of 51% of Democratic voters, while 49% of Republican voters say they would prefer Trump to be their nominee. ...

On the Democratic side, 51% say Clinton is their top choice for the nomination, 43% Sanders, that's about the same as in March. And enthusiasm for a Clinton candidacy has grown as her chances of winning enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee have increased. In the new poll, 41% say they would be enthusiastic about her candidacy, up from 34% in March.

But more see the Democratic Party as divided now than said so in March. Overall, 69% say the party is split, up from 59% in March. Nearly a quarter now say the Democratic Party is likely to remain divided through November, up 8 points from 15% in March. Sanders' backers are more likely to say the Party will remain divided, 31% say so vs. 15% among Clinton supporters.

[N.Y. to Paris]

57. Fear....

quite honestly, that's what I see on Democratic "Battleground" these days....
Call me crazy, but for people that are so sure SHE has already won... they sure
do spend a lot of time and ink, on how Bernie and his supporters should; and how
he can never win, and why doesn't he just go away? he has no chance...and what's
up with his wife???
sorry, but it's politics and anything can happen...anything....
and I guess, the thing that really amazes me about her the most,
is that even though she KNOWS she's a scandal magnet....(I'm so relieved he isn't) is
if she gets in, they'll be doing everything they can, to get her out....and yet, she wants
it so badly,......"isn't it time we had a woman president!!" (no, don't bother going there,
I would've voted for Liz in a New York Second)
that she's willing to drag the entire country through a living, breathing...inescapable
hell....for 4 to 8 years....so much for moving the country forward....oh, that's right..
we must fear our overlords.....

Thank you masmdu, this place has been insufferable lately.....be well!

[bettyellen]

61. You'll be pissed at SBS if he doesn't go tot convention to beg the delegates? The ones he has

accused of basically being bribed by Hillary already? Why do you want him to humiliate himself like that?