Give this some thought if you're concerned about Trump vs Clinton.

[floriduck]

Most of the super-delegates committed to Hillary before either candidate announced their intentions. It's all documented in the Clinton Victory Fund story so I won't go into the details. As of today, we know Trump is the presumptive nominee, Hillary is leading in pledged delegates. And I will take a leap here and assume that one of the super-Ds goals is to do whatever is necessary to get their nominee to win the general election.

If Bernie was leading in pledged delegates today, we could expect Hillary supporters to use a whole litany of reasons why the super-Ds should back her. i.e. She's the real or only Democrat, she has more experience, and so on.

In the status quo, and with winning being the most important goal, where should the super-Ds throw their support?! If they back Hillary, with such high negatives, and she loses, how foolish will the super-Ds look? Hillary cannot pull independents and millenials to her side. With all the problems of Trump, it will not be enough to get Repubs to support her. They will more likely stay home or hold their noses and vote Trump.

Bernie's support from younger voters and Independents, especially those who were blocked from voting in primaries, is strong and growing. No other candidate on either side has attracted larger average crowds to their rally's than Bernie.

Therefore, it will be on the shoulders of the Super-Delegates to take their responsibilities seriously and decide where they need to throw their support. And it is very obvious that they need to strongly consider Bernie Sanders.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511899971

[YouDig]

1. So you are in favor of superdelegates subverting democracy.

Sorry, that's not going to happen.

[morningfog]

2. That is their role, isn't it? WHy have them if not for their intended use?

[floriduck]

4. They did that a long time ago, when they committed to Hillary before Bernie announced.

But put yourself in their shoes. Do you want to risk losing?

[vintx]

15. They do seem to want to risk losing.

Pride goeth before a fall.

[JaneyVee]

3. Hillary will easily pull indies and millennials to her side.

I'd be more concerned in the GE with a candidate who cant pull women and minorities.

[floriduck]

5. She hasn't done it yet. Indies don't want her. nm

[JaneyVee]

6. Obama won without independents or white males as a voting bloc.

[floriduck]

7. Take your chances. I'm just raising the question. nm

[JaneyVee]

9. I'll take my chances with Hillary's broad, diverse coalition.

[apnu]

13. Exactly.

Bernie people keep forgetting that Hillary has strong numbers with women, African Americans, Latinos and others. The Bernie people seem to ignore those groups when trying to convince everybody that Bernie has momentum. Doing so is a disservice to Bernie and what he's stood for all these years.

Bernie supporters also forget that this is the primary and, yes Bernie has a lot of support, which is great, but come the GE, everybody who votes will have to make new choices depending on who's on the ballot. They keep talking about subverting democracy and so on, which is hogwash. This is party politics, nobody's actually cast an official ballot, the democratic process in the United States of America hasn't happened yet. They put the cart before the horse.

I'm tired of Bernie supporters absolutism, this notion that all independents and millennials support Bernie now and will only support Bernie in the GE. That is a childish projection on reasonable adults which says more about the poster than it does about reality.

Come voting day every liberal and progressive in the booth is going to look at their choices on the ballot and make a decision. They will have to live with whatever that decision is. If they choose to sit out, vote 3rd party, write in, or flip to Trump just to spite Hillary, then everything that happens in a Trump Presidency is on their heads.

I like to think that die-hard Bernie supporters are smarter than that. We'll find out on November 8th.

[floriduck]

18. You are assuming everyone will vote. Bad assumption. And concerning "smart",

how smart will the establishment be if they back the weaker candidate. Stop and consider how many voters were denied an opportunity to vote in the primaries. Some may have been Clinton supporters but most were Sanders voters. And if you think an Independent would choose Hillary over Bernie, my guess I'd you'd be wrong far more than right.

Don't use the popular vote numbers since they exclude way too many people. That's my opinion.

[apnu]

24. I am not assuming everybody will vote, never said that.

America has a terrible track record getting eligible citizens to the voting booth.

In 2008, there were something like 225.5 million people eligible to vote, 131.3 million of them actually showed up. Only 58% of eligible Americans went to the polls in that historic election. And that election is considered a large turn out, with large numbers of youth being involved. 42% of Americans stayed home that year. 2012 was worse, 55% showed up at the polls.

You're putting a lot of words and presumptions in my mouth that I never said. Straw-man arguments will not win you the day.

You've made a lot of assumptions with no data to back up. Most of my friends are independent and progressive. Half are for Bernie and half are for Hillary. You've got no data to say what the independent group as a whole supports.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Don't let the facts get in the way of a false narrative

[LexVegas]

8. Don't lose mad...just lose. nt

[floriduck]

12. I'm not mad. I'm just posing a question. Don't be upset if Hillary loses either.

[Hiraeth]

29. you promise?

[WhiteTara]

10. Actually it is Bernie's responsibility to bring his

voters along. That's what a real leader does when they lose the primary. If he doesn't it will speak volumes as to his integrity and commitment to the country. If he pulls a Nadir, I will lose all respect for him.

[vintx]

16. His supporters aren't obligated to play follow the leader

Watch while they don't.

You can blame Bernie all you like, but the reality is that it is her record which causes people not to support her, not Bernie's failure as a cheerleader

[WhiteTara]

27. they may not be obligated, but he is.

It is his duty to help unite the party. He did join, after all. He could have tried to run as an independent which would have been more honest of him, but he chose this path.

[pampango]

11. "If Bernie was leading in pledged delegates today, we could expect Hillary supporters to use a

litany of reasons why the super-Ds should back her."

Is it not equally true that if Hillary was leading in pledged delegates today, we could expect Bernie supporters to use a whole litany of reasons why the super-Ds should back him?

I support Bernie but I do not support super-delegates, particularly if they are going to overrule the 6-month long primary process and substitute 'establishment wisdom' in its place.

[floriduck]

14. You're already hearing the litany from Bernie supporters. What goes around comes around.

I have been against super delegates since day one. But they exist and they have a responsibility. They can support the candidate who is more divisive and won't at attract Independent voters and possibly lose. Or they can support Bernie Sanders if they think they have a better chance of winning.

This isn't about Bernie, it's about the Super-Ds and their decision on who's more likely to win with such a large number of pre-emptied voters from the primaries.

[pampango]

17. What do we tell the people who voted in the primaries? That the super-delegates looked at the polls

and made their own decision on which candidate has the best chance of winning. Oh, and thank all you voters for participating over the past 6 months. See you again in 4 years. Hope you are fired up and ready to go in 2020. We really care what you think.

I want Bernie to be nominated. But not by the establishment telling our primary voters what idiots they are.

[floriduck]

19. Sorry but that was a major reason for creating super delegates. They weren't my doing.

I don't like having them but they exist. So how do they use their power to win? Not by selecting the weaker candidate against the Donald.

[pampango]

22. So you don't like super-delegates but they serve a useful purpose. OK.

If Bernie were leading in pledged delegates but Hillary was polling better in the GE against, let's say because moderate independents and crossover republicans were attracted to her more than to super-liberal Bernie, should we support the super-delegates switching to Hillary?

I would say No. I would stick with Bernie's genuine liberalism and take my chances, particularly if Bernie led Trump in the polls too, just by less than Hillary.

[floriduck]

32. Responding to your first paragraph, I'd say the win outweighs everything else.

It's the Clinton supporters that have been telling Sanders people to vote for her if we want to win. Many say it will be Bernie supporters to blame if she loses. I completely disagree. If you want to beat Trump, you go with Bernie. If not, you're looking at a crap shoot at best.

[pampango]

36. Fair enough though I disagree with your priorities. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

20. Democrats should not become complacent - GOP has a way of coalescing before the General Election!

[Hiraeth]

31. GOP has a way of coalescing before the General Election!

yeah boy.
fucking scary how lockstep they get in line come GE time

[TheBlackAdder]

37. That's why these early Trump V. XXXX comparisons are worrisome, Trumps later numbers will be higher!

.


While people are saying how effed up he is, and favor Dems or not voting, after he gets the nomination this will change.


He will be embraced by the very people rejecting him now.


.

[Hiraeth]

38. in my area, I will not be surprised at all. Clinton hatred here is PALPABLE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Hillary Clinton's 3,000, 0000 popular vote leads comes from people of color and women.

To even entertain the notion the Super Delegates would overrule their votes , consequently spitting in their eyes, is fantastical.

[floriduck]

28. I completely agree, especially from states that historically vote Republican.

But think of the women under the age of 35 or so. Hillary has already chased most of them away. How much good will the POC votes help her when the southern states go to Trump? They aren't all from that region but I'd say the majority are. Again, just my opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Last I checked she won VA, FL, NC, OH, and NV...

Last I checked she won VA, FL, NC, OH, and NV and they are critical swing states and she obliterated Sanders in all of them, save Nv which was a small win. And all those states have substantial non white populations,

[floriduck]

34. Be more specific. How many of the 3000000 votes were from POC?

Otherwise, your opinion is worth no more than mine. Cite your source too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Sure

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls

[floriduck]

39. Based on your exit poll data from CNN,

VA had nonwhites 76% Clinton, 24% Sanders. POC was 26% out of 1413 polled.

FL had nonwhites 74% Clinton, 25% Sanders. POC was 49% out of 1659 polled.

NC had nonwhites 74% Clinton, 25% Sanders. POC was 36% out of 1867 polled.

OH had nonwhites 67% Clinton, 32% Sanders. POC was 25% out of 1764 polled.

NV had nonwhites 56% Clinton, 42% Sanders, POC was 49% out of 1024 polled.

These were the state's you selected. Admittedly, this is an extremely small sample and its of exit polls, not votes. All but NC went Dem for Obama. But his popularity is considerably higher than Hillary's is today. But look at the attached 2012 map and tell me how many Southern states will support Hillary over Trump.

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VyuR_9RHarU

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Thank you for proving my point

VA had nonwhites 76% Clinton, 24% Sanders. POC was 26% out of 1413 polled.

FL had nonwhites 74% Clinton, 25% Sanders. POC was 49% out of 1659 polled.

NC had nonwhites 74% Clinton, 25% Sanders. POC was 36% out of 1867 polled.

OH had nonwhites 67% Clinton, 32% Sanders. POC was 25% out of 1764 polled.

NV had nonwhites 56% Clinton, 42% Sanders, POC was 49% out of 1024 polled.


Those are the most critical swing states:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/hillary-clinton-begins-general-election-leading-trump-swing-state.html

[floriduck]

41. Whatever I can do to make you happy. Just stay like that after the general.

[Skink]

25. What if it was practically a 3 way tie at this point?

What would they do then? If they hadn't already been bought.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. They would have a dilemma.

But as it is she leads by nearly 3,000,000 votes and 300 delegates. This isn't an instance Of King Solomon having to split the baby.

[Hiraeth]

30. good question.

[asuhornets]

42. .....

[floriduck]

43. Thank you for keeping your input short. Much appreciated.

[asuhornets]

44. Some Bernie supporters say the same things over and over again

Sanders is honest give him the super delegates.

Clinton is dishonest even though she is winning

Sanders has big rallies so give him the super delegates---even though the rallies did not result in more votes

Clinton is for war even though she can not declare war--its still her fault

Sanders beat Trump in national polls--even though polls do not mean a win---votes do.