Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 'I don't believe in super-delegates'

[Henhouse]

So much for Bernie's plan to flip the SDs

[scscholar]

1. Why did she decide to wait until now to say this?

We need this a year ago!

[Barack_America]

10. To discourage calls of the race being "over" before the primaries finish...

...and possibly until after the convention.

She's pouring cold water on Clinton's self-proclaimed "presumptive nominee" status.

[lunamagica]

31. I think it's the opposite. SDs "should not sway the election" -her words

[grasswire]

38. yes nt

[MoonRiver]

2. And???

[bkkyosemite]

3. I find her comment very interesting.

[Trust Buster]

4. If Super delegates were eliminated tomorrow, Hillary still leads and still wins. It's such a

phony argument.

[Henhouse]

5. I agree....as does Warren....nt

[Peachhead22]

6. Yeah, but if super-delegates hadn't have existed from the get-go...

...would the race today look the same? There's no way for any of us to know. But no-one should assume the media's constant touting of Hillary's lead in super-delegates, even before the first popular vote was cast, had no bandwagon effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

[Henhouse]

7. They existed in 2008 and they started out with Hillary and flipped...

So yes....there is a way to know...

The SDs initial support of HRC had no effect. Obama won the most pledged delegates in spite of HRC super delegate lead....

[Peachhead22]

11. How big was Hillary's SD lead in 2008?

Was it several hundred SDs before any primaries? And in 2008 I'm pretty sure SDs weren't automatically added in with popular vote delegates in almost every newscast, like what has happened this year.

So the SD's psychological effect in 2008 vs their effect this year is probably kind of apples-to-oranges.

[Henhouse]

21. Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50

Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008.

?quality=90&strip=all&w=1150&ssl=1

[Orsino]

40. Exactly.

Some would love to read this as a rebuke of Sanders, or of Clinton, but it's a call for candidates to be able to start a race on more even footing. Small-d democratic.

[imagine2015]

17. Wrong. She may lead but won't reach the 2,383 delegates necessary to win the nomination.

That's the real math and wishful thinking by Hillary supporters won't change that.

[merrily]

32. This is not only a Hillary-Bernie issue or only a 2016 issue.

[Barack_America]

8. So much for Clinton claiming victory after Puerto Rico...

...and before the convention for that matter.

No superdelegates + candidate without required majority of pledged delegates = contested convention!

Hillary will need Bernie's pledged delegates to go over the top!

[2banon]

28. But what will this actually change in this contest, I don't think it's gonna matter much..

I love that she's taking a principled position but is it going to change anything?

[CrowCityDem]

29. You realize without SDs, the # needed goes down, right? Hillary will have the majority of pledged.

[TwilightZone]

39. You should probably find out what a contested convention is.

It's quite clearly not what you think it is.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. "I don't believe Super Delegate should sway an election." Warren

There is no way she will support a candidate that did not win the primary process.

[sufrommich]

12. Yes,that comment was aimed at Bernie. nt

[Henhouse]

14. Absolutely...and she's an SD so, her support for the pledged delegate winner means even more..

She is definitely shooting down Bernie's plan to flip the SDs.

[imagine2015]

22. Hillary will not win the 2,383 delegates necessary to win the primary nomination process.

Period.

Like it or not, and they don't, Warren and Sanders have to live with the Democratic Party superdelegates and hopefully they will support the strongest candidate against Trump and one that isn't representing the corporate tycoons and Wall Street banksters.

That would be Bernie Sanders of course.

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. She will win a simple majority of pledged delegates, a majority of votes, and a majority of states.

Superdelegates are not going to coronate a person who did not win the votes of the Democratic party, a majority of the pledged delegates, or a majority of states.

They will support the strongest candidate. Clinton comes out on top in all three.

[lunamagica]

33. Exactly. It is obvious she will not go against the results to hand the nomination to the guy

in second place.

[geek tragedy]

13. "I don't think super delegates ought to sway the election."

She won't be feeling the Bern at the convention.

[TDale313]

15. Yeah, and???

I agree with her. Bernie agrees with her. But here we are- it's too late this cycle. We're stuck with them. And their purpose *is* to sway elections. If they just reinforce the pledged there's no point in them.

And let's be honest- and I say this as a strong Sanders supporter- unless something dramatic happens that makes Hillary totally unelectable between now and the election, Superdelegates who have announced support for her will have little incentive to switch and a lot of downside. They might have gone against the pledged to throw things to Hillary if Sanders had gotten more pledged just cause conventional wisdom has been she'd be stronger in the General (I disagree, but there ya have it) and she's the establishment candidate and the supers are the establishment. The reverse? Very unlikely barring major unforeseen circumstances.

[geek tragedy]

16. If super delegates vote in line with the pledged delegates, they're not swaying the election. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. And Sanders would still loose.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. In accordance with the DNC, the Super delegates are not supposed to sway the election.

"The superdelegates have never actually determined who the nominee is."

[TDale313]

25. They have not yet, it's true.

But they have no purpose if all they do is reinforce the pledged. They were put in place precisely to give the establishment a thumb on the scale in case the grass roots did something nuts- ya know, like nominating a 74 yr old democratic socialist. 😉 Preventing an (in their minds) unelectable insurgent candidate from becoming the nominee even if the voters chose them is the supers #1 reason for existing.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. And they will not do it for Sanders, because he did not win the support of the Democratic Party.

[TDale313]

30. Oh, if you read my posts you'd know I agree

That they wouldn't switch to support Bernie if doesn't have the pledged (and it may be unlikely even then)

[libdem4life]

18. My understanding of this is that Bernie wants the SDs to vote

similar to the voting pattern, not to declare right at the gate way back when and entrench within that scenario. I don't thing there should be Superdelegates, because their stated cause is to keep the Party within the Establishment and unavailable to the common people.

But since we have them, they should vote as the people of their state divide up.

But then I think the Electoral College is easily as non-democratic.

So, back to our "democracy". Carry on.

[Henhouse]

23. Any way you slice it...Hillary wins

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. Well I guess Warren has more experience with how Republicans

Do it.

[2banon]

34. I'm reading Hillary supporters assuming this aimed squarley on Bernie, I think that's a silly read

I see this statement as completely neutral.

It's weird for both my peeps and those in the other camp to read it in favor of one side or the other.

Unless, there's more not captured in this vid, both camps are making this into something that isn't there, imo.

Bernie fans I love you lots, you KNOW I do, but she's not "going there" in this particular statement.

Quite neutral and principled, imo.

[bigwillq]

35. I don't believe in them either. POP VOTE

should determine the nominee.

I'm also for open primaries and the elimination of caucuses.

Popular vote, imo, is the only thing that should determine a nominee or election, even if this means the people I support never win an election ever again.

[Agschmid]

36. I don't either.

[AtomicKitten]

37. Not sure why Clinton fans are high-fiving each other.

Elizabeth is saying she doesn't believe in the concept of superdelegates and infers calling the contest over by virtue of some 547 superdelegates is bullshit.

I agree with her.

[pnwmom]

41. Bernie's saying that he will attempt to flip the super delegates

after the primaries are over -- even though Hillary will have the majority of pledged delegates by then. She only needs to win 33% of remaining pledge delegates to do that -- so that's not in doubt.

But Bernie wants to try and get the supers to turn their backs on the millions of diverse voters across the country who preferred Hillary over Bernie.

The super delegates won't go against the expressed will of the voters, and it makes no sense that he's going to try -- on top of being supremely hypocritical.