HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Why do Sanders supporters...

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:13 PM

Why do Sanders supporters seem to want it both ways, regarding superdelegates?

The hue and cry for awhile now has been that superdelegates are an elitist group that can thwart the will of the voters, especially if they pledge to one candidate even though their state's primary or caucus is won by the other candidate. But, as Sanders is so far behind in the pledged delegate count and is almost certainly unlikely to catch Clinton in that area, his hope rests on wooing the superdelegates to his side despite that.

But this seems to raise a bit of a conundrum; is Bernie committing a bit of a moral faux pas if he solicits superdelegates from states that Hillary won? Should he feel obligated, on moral/ethical grounds, to refrain from contacting superdelegates in;

Alabama
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New York
North Carolina
Northern Marianas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

?

By my rough/quick count of the superdelegate list, there's 198 superdelegates in states that Bernie has won, of which he already has 27...but if we're to be fair he'll have to renounce the 13 that are from Hillary-won states. These calculations go by winner-take-all-the-supers btw; figuring out a proportional allocation would be a bit time-consuming atm.

So if Bernie plays by the right way to do things, can he get enough supers?

17 replies, 2892 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:14 PM

1. They don't know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:23 PM

2. Because it's politically expedient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:25 PM

3. We're just cute that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:13 PM

6. I guess that's one word for it. :)

Every Sanders supporters argument about the superdelegates exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are, what the system is for, and what the implications of every weirdo scenario ("supers must vote with their state!", "supers must be proportionally allocated just like pledged ones are!", and so on are.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:03 PM

4. because EVERY time bernie loses its because of fraud, cheating, rigging etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:13 PM

5. There is no super delegate count yet.

That happens at the convention, so Bernie still has a chance to save the Dems from themselves. Hillary will be a disaster for liberalism in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to U4ikLefty (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:19 PM

7. That didn't even remotely address the point, would you care to try again?

We've held Democratic primary elections where ~25,000,000 so far have weighed in.

Premise: the superdelegate system is undemocratic at the state level, e.g. one common DU argument is that Minnesota's superdelegates should either all be compelled to endorse Sanders or that he should get 61.6% (his voter %) of them.

If that were to be the new standard, then does Sanders have the right to ask superdelegates from states that Hillary won to endorse him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:34 AM

14. I was not trying to address your point, but the super delegate system is undemocratic IMO.

I was addressing the situation that now exists. Since they exist and cannot vote until the convention, they (being the SDs) should at least not influence the primary by declaring early. This looks bad to the independent Bernie voter, and in the general Hillary is (possibly) going to need all the help she can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:24 PM

8. Super delegates are undemocratic and should be nixed. AND

 

they are there today to usurp the will of the voter, in case of emergency as deemed by the party insiders.

We could be in an emergent situation this year. It's still unknown. Bernie's only chance at the nomination is to be theonky one standing in case of an emergency prior to the convention.

Does that mean I am hoping for an emergency or that Sanders is? Of course not. It's a safety measure for him to stay in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:42 PM

9. Now that's actually a semblance of a point

Which is more than most have managed today, though I still disagree with it. The voters have chosen...or to be perfectly pedantic and precise, cause some around here like that, are about to choose...Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

Hell or high water, you dance with the one you brung. There would have to be absolutely, 100% crystal-clear dire doom afoot if we were to ever let a small group of people override the will of the primary voter, and I'm sorry but "I think my guy can beat the GOP" is not it. "She might be indicted" isn't it. Hell, let's pretend that Hillary literally was indicted, I'd STILL see it through, because the goddamn voters have picked it. We get who we deserve in a democracy, to paraphrase someone I don't care enough to google atm.

The only...literally the O-N-L-Y...scenario in the 40 years of the superdelegate existence I'd support the supers overthrowing the people would be if Lyndon motherfucking Larouche somehow wound up with the pledged delegate lead in one of his perennial campaigns. And that is only because I support any and all forms of disobedience, civil and otherwise, to disrupt racists. That's why I freely call for people to disrupt Trump's so-called "free speech" rights at his rallies.

If you're going to usurp a democratic process, you best be damn sure that bar is high. "Hillary might lose" is just a form of ends-justify-the-means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:45 PM

11. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:43 PM

10. Because they are human?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:47 PM

12. Why make an OP that only further confuses and misrepresents the issue? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:49 PM

17. I'm really not seeing how the OP confuses or misreprsents the issue at all. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:49 PM

13. Honestly I'm ok with superdelegates. Yes it's undemocratic and maybe rules should be

 

put in place for when they can push the red button... buy I'm ok with a red button being there for emergencies.

I'm just not ok with counting superdelegates in the media as already won, since they can change their vote. And yeah it's not good for superdelegates to be there for just "who is more electable" or "who does the establishment like more" but it is good for last minute scandals, criminal charges, injury or incapacity, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:35 AM

15. We don't want it both ways....

 

we think it is a stupid system but within this election there is nothing we can do about it. So all Bernie is going to do is play by the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:08 AM

16. Why does Clinton want to have it both ways regarding Citizens United?

And which "we don't like it, but as long as it's there we're going to use it" do you think is worse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread