Superdelegates and the notion that Sanders contradicts himself.
Some here invoke the following statement (or other similar statements) to accuse Sanders of contradicting himself on the role of superdelegates;
Interview with Rachel Maddow at the end of March (Source)
The above expresses the view that voters in the states he won overwhelmingly are going to question the superdelegate's who ignore their clear choice. That's not many states. It follows that the voters in states that Clinton won overwhelmingly are going to question any superdelegates who endorse him.
It also follows that voters in states in which the race was close don't have much cause to question the choices of the superdelegates based on the results in their state. That could be a factor, but other factors may be given more weight.
This statement is not, as some have claimed, a call for superdelegates to go with the one who has the most pledged delegates on June 15..
In the same interview, he goes on to say:
It's perfectly reasonable for superdelegates in states in which a win is not decisive to make their choice based on their judgment of which candidate will be stronger against Trump. It's also reasonable for them to go with the one who wins the most pledged delegates overall. He notes that the latter is most likely.
His point has always been simple: "Wait until voters in every state have their say, and then give the superdelegates a chance to consider, perhaps change their minds, and vote accordingly at the convention.
No one can possibly argue that the race did not change substantially after most of the superdelegates came out and endorsed Clinton. He is right. He needs to stay in until the convention to give those superdelegates a chance to take subsequent developments into account.
If he loses the remaining states by large margins, he'll simply be calling on the delegates he won to go to the convention and make their voices known; to make it clear that there are substantial numbers who believe this nation desperately needs a New, New Deal. (A position that many Hillary delegates are likely to join in, particularly given that exit polling shows that many made their choice, not on positions, but rather on their belief about "electability."
In other words, however it goes between now and June 14, he should not "drop out" or "fall in line." In the former case, he would deny the superdelegates the chance to reconsider; in the latter case, he would deny his delegates the opportunity to advocate the Sanders agenda on his behalf.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I would be completely shocked if Clinton were indicted. It was absolutely NOT what I had in mind.
Legal experts point to the absence of intent -- and therefore absence of grounds.
The only analysis I've heard that would make it even a remote possibility is one in the recent Rolling Stone piece on the subject. An associate law professor interviewed noted that Clinton's case could possibly be viewed as analogous to the Petraeus case. Patraeus "did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home... keeping the documents on an unclassified server — that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer." (The professor also notes that he's "kind of in the minority on this..."
