Bernie Could Still Win the Nomination — No, Seriously

[pmorlan1]

Last night on CNN, while discussing Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in West Virginia — which followed a 5-point Sanders win in Indiana last week — Michael Smerconish said that “Democratic super-delegates might have to rethink” their support of Hillary Clinton given how dramatically better Sanders fares in head-to-head match-ups against Donald Trump.

After Clinton’s Indiana loss, John King had told CNN viewers that “if Sanders were to win nine out of ten of the remaining contests, there’s no doubt that some of the super-delegates would panic. There’s no doubt some of them would switch to Sanders. What he has to do is win the bulk of the remaining contests. Would that send jitters, if not panic, through the Democratic Party? Yes. Yes it would.”

So what gives? Isn’t this thing over?

Almost, but not quite.

What Smerconish (and Wolf Blitzer) were discussing last night, and John King was discussing last week, is a very simple theory — call it “run-the-table” — which is easy enough to understand if you simply know the history of Democratic super-delegates and what’s happened in the 2016 Democratic primary since Super Tuesday.

https://www.laprogressive.com/bernie-could-still-win/?utm_source=LA+Progressive+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f7f53723fd-LAP_News_17April12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f184a8aad-f7f53723fd-270039233
Interesting read for Bernie supporters. My apologies in advance to some Hillary supporters because you probably will not like this piece.

[hrmjustin]

1. Nominating the second place finisher would be a disaster.

[lunamagica]

3. Right. Spitting on the Democratic base of women and PoC, who have overwhelmingly

voted for Hillary would be the end of the Democratic Party. I mean, if the "establishment" overrules the will of the people, why even bother to vote? Let's just have a convention where the SDs pick the nominee....forget the people!

[jzodda]

2. The only way for Bernie to win is to thwart the voters will

Since she is ahead in pledged delegates, super delegates and most importantly TOTAL VOTES and I don't mean republicans voting in an open Democratic primary like West Virginia.

She's ahead by MILLIONS of votes cast.

So how can Bernie make the argument that he deserves to win?

The entire premise from the article?

"Super-delegates exist for only one purpose: to overturn, if necessary, the popular-vote and delegate-count results"

So the only way to get the nomination is to steal it. Following that you can say hello Mr. Trump as president.

Keep in mind that by the time this ends in June she will need less and less unbound delegates as her pledged delegate total grows. Bernie would need to convince most of them to switch to him based on some early polling that shows he beats Trump by more? Its a total fantasy.

[Octafish]

4. ''Super-delegates exist for only one purpose''

"to overturn, if necessary, the popular-vote and delegate-count results."

Odd, that something so undemocratic would be decisive in determining the Democratic candidate.

[NCTraveler]

5. Nominating the loser would kill the party.

I'm beginning to wonder if that is Weavers goal and Sanders is just a useful tool. Either way it will fail.

[k8conant]

14. Nominating the "losing" candidate would make him the winner!

[sadoldgirl]

6. It would be really weird if Bernie

gets just 2 or 4 pledged delegates more. What then?

Mind you, I don't see that coming.

[pmorlan1]

7. Not a Fan of Super Delegates

If neither candidate has the required number of pledged delegates to get the nomination the super delegates will come into play voting one way or the other. At that point each candidate will lay out their case for why the super delegates should support them over their competitor. I'm sure a lot of factors will be considered when they make those votes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It would effectively be telling POC and women their votes don't count. It's an antebellum strategy.

[pmorlan1]

9. I'm sure that would be pointed out

as would the fact that Sanders won voters under 45 and wins Independents. Like I said I'm sure there would be a lot of factors that would have to be weighed by each super delegate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. How about the fact he will go into the Convention down by approximately 3,000,000 voters and ...

How about the fact he will go into the Convention down by approximately 3,000,000 popular votes and nearly 300 pledged delegates?

Better yet, why even vote ? We can install Senator Sanders as Dear Leader and his heirs can be his successors based on primogeniture. Those don't get with the program can be removed from their communities and sent to re-education camps.

Nah, I think we should just stick to voting.


I said moths ago the candidate with the most votes/pledged delegates should be our nominee, regardless of who he or she is. There is nothing more sacred in a nation that prides itself on self-rule than the sanctity of the vote. Abrogating the vote is the first step on the road to the Apocalypse.

[pmorlan1]

11. I was discussing

the article. I already said I don't like super delegates so your argument is not with me. If the super delegates have to weigh in to get a nominee then they will weigh all kinds of things in determining how they will vote. I already agreed with you that your initial argument would be brought up to support a vote for Hillary but pointed out that it won't only be Hillary supporters putting forth arguments. I'm sure each side will have a list of arguments in support of their candidate. At this point none of us really know what will happen. We can guess, but we really don't KNOW.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. We know that the sine qua non of a democracy is a healthy respect for the popular will

We know that the sine qua non of a democracy is a respect for the popular will and the sine qua non of an autocracy is the contempt for it. The professor seems to favor the latter arrangement. It is alternately shocking and profoundly sad.

[pmorlan1]

13. Super Delegates

will decide this nomination either way because neither candidate will get the required number of pledged delegates. They will have to have super delegates to put them over.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. In one scenario the Supers would be ratifying the popular will.

In Professor Abramson's scenario they would be usurping it. No person in good conscience can countenance the latter.

[k8conant]

16. He won't be down by nearly 300 pledged delegates after June 7th.

[onenote]

22. care to predict how far he will be down?

[k8conant]

23. He'll be up by 7

[k8conant]

15. This woman's vote went to Sanders yesterday.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I didn't say he got every woman's vote.

You know who who gets everybody's vote? Kim Jong-un

[KingFlorez]

19. The superdelegates are not going to hand the nomination the loser

And if they did, Sanders would be headed for hefty loss in the general. Millions of voters would refuse to vote for him and rightfully so.

[Ferd Berfel]

20. IF CLinton and her BFF DWS think the SD's will turn

they will 'vote' to end the hallowed tradition before the convention

[onenote]

21. I don't think you really want to talk about what's happened since Super Tuesday

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

First, since Super Tuesday, Sanders and Clinton have split the contests: 15 wins for Sanders and 15 wins for Clinton. Not exactly support for a run-the-table prediction.

Second, and more importantly, of the states that the two candidates have won, Clinton has won 9 states that are blue or swing states, representing 151 electoral votes. Sanders has won only 6 blue or swing states representing only 50 electoral votes.

Those numbers will have a great deal of influence on how super D's view the race as the final dozen contests unfold.

I should add that in addition to using Super Tuesday as a starting point, the author whose article is linked in the OP also looks back a shorter time to the contests since May 3 -- Indiana, Guam and West VA and sees two victories for Sanders to one for Clinton. But there is no particular reason to stop at May 3. If you go back just one more week, to April 26, you have Clinton winning five of the last eight, with wins in four blue states representing 40 electoral votes to one win in a blue state for Sanders during that period, representing only 4 electoral votes. And it doesn't really get much better if you go back to the last nine contests since that just adds one more blue state (NY) representing 29 more EVs to Clinton's column. Finally, if you go back far enough to pick up Sanders winning streak in late March and early April, you get to a point where Sanders has won more contest than Clinton (10 of the last 17), but even then he's only got wins in four blue states representing 30 electoral votes compared to Clinton's five blue state wins representing 69 electoral votes.