How is it not massively, massively hypocritical

[geek tragedy]

to complain that closed primaries disenfranchise independents who refuse to register as Democrats, but then turn around and ask superdelegates to actively disenfranchise 13 million and counting voters who gave Clinton her majority?

Who's willing to defend Sanders on their charge of being a cynical, self-serving hypocritical politician by making such obviously morally inconsistent arguments?

[NanceGreggs]

1. It IS ...

... "massively, massively hypocritical".

There's no getting around that.

But some people are desperately trying to get around it anyway.

[Cha]

30. That's been BS' MO this whole campaign.

[MFM008]

2. Thats like saying my vote should count

even if I don't vote ( Like in Nevada).

There are rules and regulations, you get in the race fully aware of them.
If you chose to make up your own rules
you may not find drawing a line to a name a simple enough task to attempt.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. So I guess you would agree to just eliminate superdelegates then

oh wait probably not.

[SFnomad]

7. It really doesn't matter if you eliminate them or not ...

Secretary Clinton will still be the Democratic Nominee. Or are you going to try to steal Pledged Delegates now?

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. eliminate them for the next cycle. Reform the system to eliminate superdelegates.

The people who support the existence of superdelegates in the first place are hypocrites when they complain about people trying to "steal" their superdelegates.

[SFnomad]

15. You realize the hypocrites are the BS cheerleaders

If you go back a few months, to the first primaries ... it was the BS cheerleaders that thought BS might win the majority of Pledged Delegates and lose because of the Superdelegates ... they were the ones that were calling that "stealing" the election. And now, they've pinned their hopes of winning by doing just that ... stealing the election via Superdelegates.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Hillary cheerleader are the hypocrites. They love that there are super delegates but then act like

but then act like it's somehow inappropriate for superdelegates to follow the rules.

[SFnomad]

19. They are following the rules ... and if you think they're going to abandon the Pledged Delegate

leader and rush towards the second place finisher, you're very naïve.

Oh and to your comment about what to do about those Superdelegates, I think the 2016 election is going to end up having the two parties cross paths. The Democrats are going to neuter them, maybe make them vote in proportion with their state or even winner take all, but only on the first ballot, after that, follow their conscience. But the Republicans, I see going the other way and creating some form of Superdelegate to help them stop another Donald Trump from winning the nomination.

[Lord Magus]

17. Do you also agree to other essential reforms to the nominating process?

For example, caucuses need to be eliminated. In this day and age there is no reason that every state should not be holding a primary.

[Cheese Sandwich]

20. I'm not comfortable trying to boss around people in other states for how they choose delegates.

My state has a primary and I don't trust it at all. I have no confidence in the votes being tabulated correctly.

I don't know maybe there could be some hybrid system.

[Lord Magus]

24. As I understand it Minnesota had something of a hybrid system.

You could just drop a ballot and leave or you could stick around to caucus for who the delegates would be (which since they're pledged is only important if a convention goes to multiple ballots). But it still had the normal caucus shortcoming of having much more limited voting hours than a primary. The long lines this created resulted in them abolishing the caucus beginning 2020 in favor of a primary.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/05/22/dayton-bill-presidential-primary/

I personally would prefer every state hold a primary because the time-specific and in most cases time-consuming caucus process is a significant obstacle to voting. If you can't get off from work that evening, have small children to take care of or are too ill to stay out for hours, you can't vote. And other people simply aren't willing to devote that amount of time to voting...which is unfortunate but they should still get to have a say. Oregon's vote-by-mail system seems ideal to me (Washington & Colorado have the same thing for general elections but currently use a caucus to decide their delegates) since it eliminates all physical obstacles to voting.

[pokerfan]

29. Every delegate is free to make up his or her mind

"Or are you going to try to steal Pledged Delegates now?"

Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose.

We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.

Also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged.

There is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates.

[rjsquirrel]

25. Sure

Do that and Hillary still wins easily.

[Scootaloo]

4. Because voters who align with us are more valued than corporate lobbyists our party wants money from

[geek tragedy]

5. That doesn't address the hypocrisy of Sanders actively seeking

to disenfranchise millions of working and middle class voters who voted for Clinton.

He is pro-disenfranchisement when it helps him.

[Scootaloo]

28. Well, to quote Hilalry supporters around here...

"Did you get to vote? Then you're not being disenfranchised."

Remember that? It is seen a lot when you guys rally in defense of superdelegates.

Maybe if you want to call someone else a hypocrite, first make sure you're not doing the exact same thing.

Also, maybe you'll want to explain why it's cool for super delegates to nullify the pledged delegates from their state? That's the case in Oregon. Thanks to the superdelegates all backing Clinton, she is going to "win" a state she lost by 12%

But you're fine with that. Haven't met a Clinton supporter yet who has any issue with that.

[BreakfastClub]

11. So those 13 million more votes Hillary got were from corporate lobbyists? uh, no. nt

[Scootaloo]

27. I misread what Geek was asking.

it happens. For instance, you clearly misread something to come up with the idea that Clinton has thirteen million more votes than Sanders.

[Jack Bone]

6. Oh....so you're from that wing of the party

that doesn't want people to vote?

[AgingAmerican]

8. If you don't like the rules then change them

Bet that would go over like a lead balloon.

[BreakfastClub]

9. It's extremely hypocritical. There's no explanation other than that. Bernie

got a taste of power and people adoring him, and he is having trouble letting it go, but he must for the sake of the party and the country. He will no doubt be advised by those who have been there before and hopefully made to understand that this is about America, not Bernie Sanders.

Howard Dean told an interesting story about how, when he was running for president, Al Gore called him. Dean ranted and raved about how the media had treated him unfairly (which they had). Gore patiently listened. When Dean was done venting, Gore told him, "Howard this is not about you. It's about the country." The next day, Howard Dean conceded the primary. Sometimes a candidate needs a wake-up call, and Sanders certainly does now.

[geek tragedy]

12. Howard Dean will listen to people.

Bernie Sanders doesn't listen to anyone other than Bernie Sanders.

[BreakfastClub]

13. Let's just hope someone can talk some sense into the man before the convention. nt

[geek tragedy]

14. Eh, he'll become an irrelevant joke, the name

"Bernie Sanders" will become shorthand for sore losers who refuse to admit they lost.

Media will humiliate him.

[rjsquirrel]

26. Exactly

I went from supporting Sanders to admiring him despite supporting HRC to despising him (and the misogyny of his supporters) in under 6 months.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. That has been the trajectory of many, I suspect.

I was truly neutral and open to being convinced at the start. But then, the BSers behavior turned me off, and now BS's full-throttle campaign AGAINST the Dem Party has led me to despise him as well.

[Aerows]

18. GT, I'm just not a Hillary Clinton fan.

I know there are plenty of people here on DU that really like her, but I really do not.

There is a reason I voted for President Obama.

[nilram]

21. That's like saying superdelegates don't get to choose independently.

There's really no correlation between the "13 million and counting voters" and HRC's majority in superdelegates. She had that majority before ANY of the "13 million and counting voters" ever voted.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders

[geek tragedy]

22. I agree with Elizabeth Warren--they should not sway the election.

Bernie disagrees because he is a desperate, self-serving politician.

I respect Warren and do not respect Sanders.

[nilram]

23. I would support any movement to abolish them.

In the meantime, we have them and they get to vote independently. Before any voting happened, more than 350 of them were effectively swaying the election.

[Scootaloo]

31. Not sure where you get the self-serving part from.

Do you not believe that Sanders wants to do what he can to help Americans out, Geek?

[Surya Gayatri]

34. Ditto! "I respect Warren and do not respect Sanders."

[BzaDem]

32. There is a huge difference.

"Disenfranchising independents" hurts Bernie Sanders and helps Hillary Clinton. That is totally different than disenfranchising the 13 million Clinton voters, because those voters are Clinton voters. So disenfranchising them HELPS Bernie (and hurts Hillary).

Not sure what is so hypocritical about that. Apples and oranges.

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. Sanders has 46% of the pledged delegates

from the states that have already had their primaries and caucases. I think he would be quite happy with 46% of the superdelegates instead of the 7% he has now (of superdelegates who have already expressed their preference).

If that was the case, he would have 1748 total to Clinton's 2090.

[geek tragedy]

36. How does that preclude him from admitting he lost? nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

37. If he had 46% of the total delegate count

He would need 71% of the remaining 895 delegates (pledged and super). That would be difficult but not impossible.

Fair or unfair, Clinton still has the FBI investigation hanging over her head. The fact that a witness is pleading the 5th dies not reflect well on her.

There's also the tell all book written by one of the Clinton's Secret Service agents coming out at the end of the month. Personally, I think it's beyond unprofessional for this agent to write such a book, but I can't deny that it's coming out and that right now it's Amazon's best seller.

I am not a Bernie or Buster, but I am profoundly worried that Hillary's negatives will outweigh her positives in the GE. The fact that Trump is the GOP nominee is a blessing. He's just SO AWFUL. I would be more worried if it was Cruz or Kasich.

I live in a solid red state, so my only vote that mattered was cast during the primary. Ultimately I think most of Bernie's supporters would vote for Hillary. Ultimately I think most of Clinton's supporters would vote for Bernie. The question is, who will the undecided voters vote for. In 2012 it was pretty much 50/50. Will it be this time and will it be enough? I don't know and neither does anyone else.

With the pledged delegates as close as they are, Bernie has every right to state his case to the superdelegates who overwhelmingly lined up with Clinton before he declared he was running. I hope he stays in the race.