How fucked up is this?

Sanders is contesting. Corrupt as hell.

But Grayson is going to vote for Sanders at the convention.

Alan is one person. The entire WA super delegation is voting against Sanders. And they weren't part of the Clinton Victory Fund scheme. They're just asshole establishment.

It was not a protest.

So call it what you like but he's not well liked by the establishment because he tells it like he sees it.

Voting against the winner of the state.

Things that are ok for them are not ok for Hillary supporters.

for his business dealings. He's a multi millionaire and has a hedge fund based off shore.

...to not vote the way their state voted?

Grayson is a fool, and so are all the SDs who vote against the voice of the citizens, whether it's against Bernie or against Hillary.

Wrong is wrong!!! Vote for your choice and super delegates should vote the will of the people of their state district or county...I love Bernie by the way!

i went to wa state caucuses, and one of them was organized so poorly, if there had actually been an organized conspiracy to thwart it, there would have been no way to tell

I agree that those elected people who vote to overturn the will of the people of Washington state will face backlash.

The don't care about the lobbyists on this point.

Fuck you, I'm winning

Bernie isn't a bully. If he got elected, he'd continue to do what he has always done, which is make decisions based on what's right, and just, and good for the people that he represents.

If the party leaders in a particular state don't support him, he's not going to keep a little list for the sake of future revenge.

And so is the healthcare lobby. they are the worst.

They aren't leaving anything up to the voters this time.

...superdelegates were put into place to work against grassroots campaigns. But I think they were actually put into place as a safety measure, to ensure we don't put forward an unelectable candidate. So if we have them, they should do their job and support Sanders.

if a tie needed to be broken.

DWS attempts to change the intent because the fear that prompted the change at the time was after a popular grass roots candidate that everyone knew was unelectable was nominated and there was no way to "step in" and support the more electable candidate. She uses the word "grass roots" to conflate the intention of the rule change which was to win General Elections rather than lose them, and not to deny a much more electable candidate.

Be they grass roots, or ones the General Electorate people simply find too untrustworthy, unfavorable, or corrupted to wish to vote for (sound like anyone we know?). They consider by design with this rule the entire electorate (which includes all voters rather than just the party faithful)

I was politically aware at the time and remember it's actual intent, the intent was to to quote one of the members on the committee, "We're about the business of winning again".

I know too many were not aware at the time, and so, do not, or to not wish to, see this newly tried corruption of the rule by using the party delegates by means of purchase or threat to steal ones way into an unfair advantage even if that one is far less electable (turning the rule change on it's head and reversing it's purpose), so I spent a day in the library looking up old newspaper articles to prove what those of us that were around when the rule change was adopted was meant to be used for. I also happened later to stumble upon an Amy Goodman interview/discussion on the matter and so will add both relevant bits of information below.

All Bernie needs to do is close the gap considerably to prove they are close and he is more electable (and she may well lose in a GE) for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories are designed, like them or not!



Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for their existence via reporting at the time:

Thanks for all of that.

The intended purpose of such "superdelegates" and them doing their intended job are two very different things.

As most that have not recently fallen off a turnip tuck already know, the Clintons have been keeping a very detailed and long list of people on an "enemies list" of sorts, but it is more than that, unlike Nixon, the list is used for both carrot and stick. They rate those on the list from 1 to 7. Those that make seven can expect to be destroyed politically, no matter how long it takes, or by whatever means it takes.

However, if one rates a 1, one can expect political favors, ranging from support on an issue or campaign during a critical time or, how can I put this without using words that bring bribery to mind? Financial support!

My certainty is that both the carrot and the stick are being used to turn the purpose of the superdelegates away from their intended reason for existence and using them instead to do the opposite and ensure the victory of the one carrying both the the largest carrots and sticks while disregarding entirely whomever might be electable or unelectable.

These thoughts depress me, as do thoughts of Plutocracy, Oligarchy, corruption, Neo-Nazism on the furthest right fringes and election fraud, all of which are known to exist in the modern United States.

At first I thought it was a mere reversion to the Tammany Hall days of political corruption for personal gain, but I am beginning to see a threat to the entire concept of Democracy itself these days, these ruminations are not meant to single out any particular politicians known or unknown to me, but something worse, a cancerous growth that has metasticised to the point where one may see the "mets" (as doctors call the varying branches of the spreading cancer) in many places one looks. Even in our Presidential politics of this cycle, sigh...

it is. Prepaid delegates, many who have been identified as corporate lobbyists marked them all as corrupt.

vn.us/.../watch-do-lobbyist-superdelegates-have-a-bigger-vote-than-you-do/

So again, there are 717 superdelegates in total. Like democratic governors, members of Congress, and well-connected democratic state legislators, 463 of those superdelegates are not former or current elected officials. Many of them are party insiders who have spent years working for the party and making large donations.

But it turns out that an analysis by ABC News has found that 67 of those superdelegates—nearly 10 percent—are actually former or current lobbyists.

Hillary has the majority of PDs locked up.

Bernie needs the SDs to flip to him to have any chance.

I find this line of argument from the Bernie folks to be rather hilarious.

She leads in PDs, but there's still many to elect...475 in Cali alone.

Pledged delegates are awarded proportionately, according to vote percentaqe -- so even if Sanders ekes out a win in CA, he won't get all those 475 delegates. In order to get the majority of pledged delegates, he would need to win by large margins, not by mere 2 to 7 points, 'cause then they more or less just split the delegates. So if he barely wins CA, it's a wash for him. Now, if he won CA by 45 points (as he did WA) then that would be a great coup for him. Probably not enough to overtake Hillary's pledged delegate count at this point, or even come close to it, but it would be a significant victory, something he's been lacking despite winning 19 contests.

That's a tall order, but by no means does Clinton have it 'locked up'. Sanders will do very well in most of the remaining states. California is semi-open, registration deadline isn't for 2 more weeks...Sanders can pick up 50-100 delegates that state alone. He already just netted an additional 49 delegates in Washington. Oregon likely a blowout, will Clinton even be viable?

and also continues to add to her count/lead, which is why many people (experts included) are saying that it's impossible for Sanders to catch up to her at this point. For every gain he makes, she makes up ground, too. Look at his 45-point win in delegate-rich Washington. It netted him 74 delegates, but she still got 27. Also, that 7-state winning streak he had in late March/early April (ID, UT, AK, HI, WA, WI, WY) got him 204 pledged delegates in total. That allowed him to close the 300+ pledge deficit by 100 (down to 200+), but then she came back with a vengeance when she won delegate rich NY, PA, and MD, as well as CT and DE and garnered 346 delegates, totally erasing the gains he had made during his winning streak.

The upcoming big prizes are NJ and CA, with 126 and 475 delegates, respectively. Hillary is polling far ahead in MD; the fight is closer in CA, but she's still ahead. My prediction is that CA will be a close call and they'll just split the delegates, whoever wins, which would be good for Hillary (she'll maintain her comfy lead) but terrible for Sanders, because it would be his last-ditch effort to make his case. Hillary also looks to come away with more pledged delegates on June 7, so she could once again erase any small gains Sanders makes between now and then when he's expected to win a string of upcoming (albeit smaller) contests.

If they had to vote a certain way ... you'd just use a calculator to determine their votes. Which is kid of silly.

btw ... if the SDs did not exist ... Hillary would still have the majority of the PDs, and that alone would ensure she would win the nomination.

Ironic that Sanders' only chance is to flip a group of people who he (and his supporters) think should not exist!

I didn't think that pothole in the road today should have existed, either. That didn't stop me from seeing it and dealing with it appropriately.

If you're going to throw around words, at least use them correctly.

The pothole did not just appear as if by magic recently.

Early on, the Berners were angry claiming that Hillary would use that "pothole" to overturn the will of the voters.

Now that they are losing, the same folks DEMAND that "pothole" overturn the will of the voters.

In any case, the SDs aren't going to flip to Bernie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/12/what-would-happen-if-superdelegates-had-to-vote-for-the-candidate-who-won-their-state/

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Basically Sanders is still behind with the supers voting with their states.

It's possible that Sanders could beat Clinton by 0.01 percentage points in every remaining state and then have more delegates in a superdelegates-all-go-to-the-winner-of-the-state scenario -- but it would still be close. If, however, Sanders were to somehow win the remaining states on the calendar by a wide margins, he would overtake Clinton's superdelegate lead under a proportional system.

... I expect to see the same vehement folks that have been targeting superdelegates in states that Bernie won to now target all 50 with the same wrath, threatening to vote them out and cut out their tongues, all in hopes of snagging those proportional delegates.

I mean ... all you are doing is setting up a weighting formula.

Win by "this much" and we'll give you "extra delegates".

btw ... if we removed the SDs, Hillary still wins the majority of PDs, and wins the nomination.

i na discussion about Maine and their superdelegates

No one is gaining or losing anything under this equation. Also, not all superdelegates are elected state officials, many are DNC members, former chairs, and so on. Should Walter Mondale's superdelegate vote be forced to be committed to Sanders just because Mondale still resides in Minnesota?

Larry Cohen is an adviser to Sanders, the former Communication Workers of America union head, and a superdelegate, but tied to Washington DC for his "home". If Clinton wins DC as expected, might Cohen be compelled to vote for her?

It's a shame that folks don't understand how the superdelegates work. I think we should get rid of them, but so long as they're there, I can't see why they shouldn't do their jobs, which is the good of the party. And by party, I don't mean third party.

They by definition has complete autonomy to decide what that means.

If we don't like that expressly defined job, then we as a party should get rid of them. I personally don't like the idea of superdelegates but if they're going to be there, let them do what they're supposed to do. If they decide to swing for Bernie, fine. I just know that they won't, not even with the 10,000 Bernie fans ranting outside the convention that someone here threatened. The supers will just see them as more of the same ...

WA is every fucking SD in a state where Bernie won every county and won with 75% or so in those caucuses.

to not switch his support from Bernie to Hillary because she won Arizona. How unfair is that?

Use your head for once!

as driven snow and whatever anyone else does positions them for a place under the bus.

Use your manners for once.

Did every single county in AZ go to Clinton? Coconino county did not. So you have no good response.

but all the superdelegates except for Keith Ellison and Colin Peterson (normally a conservative Blue Dog but he is actually going along with the voters in his district!) are voting for Hillary - even Al Franken, who I always thought was a real progressive (but apparently not). Minnesota was one of the states that got money from the Hillary PAC but then funneled it right back to the DNC in that dodgy deal that smells a whole lot like money laundering to avoid campaign finance limits. It all kind of stinks.

Thanks for the thread, floriduck.

Even if its only by 1, Bernie has to be the nominee. These are not normal times and we are gonna get it done.

He would have to win 67% of the remaining vote. He won't.

Oh wait, you were serious.

If the supers in states that Sanders won supported him, he would have 104 more super delegates and HRC would have 104 less.

1) the turnout was abysmal. 4%.

2) it was on Easter weekend - anyone with family plans was pretty much SOL.

3) almost every Hillary supporter I know wanted to stay home because we didn't want to face the kind of bullying that has subsequently occurred at the next level of conventions, like the one in Snohomish County. I had friends calling lists of Hillary supporters who said one after another that they just did not want to go and deal with it. I think that's intimidation and I don't think it's alright.

4) Hillary has been out to Washington many, many times to raise money for almost all of these candidates. I've never seen Bernie out here once except for his own rallies.


My main point is that caucuses are exclusionary and unfair, but in this case, you can't really make a case that the large percentages that Bernie came away with represent the actual percentage of people supporting him. I do think Bernie would have won Washington state, overwhelmingly white, lots of young tech workers, and a rural population in the east side of the state among other things. But given that someone recently tracked down Congressman McDermott (my congressman) in his office threatening to cut out his tongue for not switching his super delegate vote (McDermott brought a shovel to work and hid it behind some flags in case he had to protect himself), when it's not even legal to campaign in that office, is going to give the rest of the elected officials in Washington pause.

It was Easter weekend. But the date was chosen by the WA State Democratic Party. So it affected both candidates. I was a precinct captain in Clark County. We had no problem with intimidation issues and Clark County would be considered a rural are. We are heavily Republican here. Most of the urban areas are in Seattle.

Jim McDermott of today is not the same man my sister worked for in the late 70s. He and people like Patty Murray have gone corporate. In exchange for her yes on TPP, she got a $56000 donation from one of the supporters of the agreement. Cantwell has always been more of a hawk so her support of Hillary is understandable.

Lastly, it is unfair to hint or suggest that any lunatic threatening violence against any super delegate is somehow supported by Bernie Sanders or even the vast majority of his supporters. I know they exist but they don't belong in Bernie's camp if they are a threat to anyone. I do think the Clinton camp has done a good job of creating an overblown situation. I refuse to accept that all Clinton supporters are angels. Hell, some on this site might be off center too.

Lastly, had it been a primary, I agree that Bernie's margin might be the same or higher. Oregon will likely be the same.

He would have won but the percentage would have been lower. Also, the Saturday morning time frame and commitment highly favor younger voters with more flexible schedules. Lots of demographics are locked out of caucuses.

the same percentage wise. Look at history; Washington is not simply a blue state. It also voted against Hillary in 2008. The Seattle area populous is more progressive than most other areas in the U.S. Hillary is old news here. Bernie would have still beaten her by similar margins in a primary. That is my opinion. You can have yours and we can agree to disagree.

I voted for HRC she lost the 28th by 2 votes. 5 of my family members didn't show up . That's more votes she lost. A ballot vote will be different.
This state hasn't had a gop governer since the 70s.
It's not going to happen despite disgruntled BS voters.
No one is going to bully and threaten for the old man yelling at clouds.

I'm also reevaluating my votes.

going against the votes of their constituency.

In fact, I will actively work against them.

You should expect the rest to follow when it becomes apparent he can't win the most delegate by any means..he would have to win 2/3 unlikely but they are giving him a shot ...probably right after California at the latest ; the supers will act.

Not just votes but GOTV efforts and $$$$ although the $$$$ I have been told can be gotten from former Bush donors so ours are meaningless.

I have heard many people talking about a third party since they feel the current two have kicked THE PEOPLE to the curb. I don't know what to think

Bullshit, it seems, walks.

and that they will continue to rig this any way they can.

Down Ballot?

I will not support any DLC, Blue Dog, Third Way Corporate whores going forward, regardless of how insane the opponent bogeyman.
Doing otherwise means that I would be supporting this continued race to the Reich.

and BTW, I sent Bernie another $25 last week. I will do it again before this is over.

My freshman congressman is now very likely facing a primary challenge, as is Patty Murray.

I've definitely reevaluated my down ticket ballot!

They have only created a larger problem for the party




?w=468