I believe Clinton has a better argument for Superdelegates.

[NCTraveler]

You can bet that Clinton is lobbying SD's who have pledged support for Sanders and those who have not pledged support. At the same time you know she is staying connected to those who have pledged for her.

I believe that from now until the convention Clinton will secure almost one hundred percent of those who have not pledged and well over fifty percent of those currently pledged for Sanders. I think it's going to be that lopsided and it will be extremely clear the day after California. Sanders will not be receiving the replies he wants as he tries to lobby them.

Clintons argument.

1) A solid majority of those showing up to the polls are supporting her.

2) Minority and oppressed groups overwhelmingly voted for her.

3) She has the most formidable coalition of any candidate this cycle.

3) She is already in position to move into the GE.

4) She supports a more progressive tax system, the expansion of social benefits, more regulation on wall street, the end of private prisons, increased minimum wage, maternity leave, etc....

5) With her coalition, she is the best prospect for down ticket Democrats.

6) You just might find your way into her cabinet.

7) She is going to win anyway so why take a chance of having your name added to the list.

Sanders isn't the only one who will be lobbying SD's. I believe Clinton is more organized, has more to offer, and is the best choice for the Democratic Party. Her argument is on more solid ground.

[geek tragedy]

1. 8) she's the only candidate with a morally legitimate claim on the nomination;

9) if you pick the other candidate and overrule the voters, you'd tear the party apart, perhaps fatally

[Reiyuki]

10. I thought that's why there were superdelegates?

..to override the voters if they ended up choosing wrong.


Could we at least agree that the whole superdelegate thing needs to go away for future primaries? It really does a disservice to individual voters when some people get 1 vote and others get 20,000.

[geek tragedy]

11. "if they ended up choosing wrong."

That's a concept that's outdated.

They should be drastically scaled back, if not completely rejected.

[onenote]

30. No. That's not why there are super delegates

The reason that there are super delegates is to give a modicum of control over the nomination process back to the party's establishment. Not taking it all the way back to smoke filled rooms, but ensuring that the party establishment has a significant say in the outcome.

As for 'choosing wrong' -- that is an individual decision. Did the 13 million who voted for Clinton choose wrong or did the 10 million that voted for Sanders choose wrong? It's a subjective matter for individuals at this point in the process.

[Reiyuki]

33. Supers could technically select Bernie and override millions of Clinton voters. You OK with that?

* If they vote for the winning candidate, there is no point in having them.
* If they vote for the losing candidate, it overrides a helluva lot of actual votes.


A 'modicum of control' is one thing, but as it stands, superdelegates have more voting power than any state in the union.

There's likely to be 25-30 million votes in the Democratic primary this year, to be represented by about 4000 delegates. This averages out to about one delegate per 7,000 voters.

Which means, the 715 superdelegates have the power to override more than 5 million democratic voters, if they chose to.

There's plenty of ways for the establishment to influence the political process to help certain candidates win, without having to threaten to override legitimate Democratic votes.

If they absolutely have to have it? 100-200 supers, MAX. They should not have more influence than every other state, it destroys the credibility of the process.

[onenote]

34. My post wasn't a defense of supers, it was an explanation

[Reiyuki]

35. sorry then, not meant as personal attack

I'm well aware why they have superdelegates, I just really dislike the concept.

Similar to the Electoral College, where the only time it becomes meaningful is when it overrides the votes of a lot of other people.

[brooklynite]

2. I don't think she's making the argument for new Superdelegates at all...

...she's certainly in touch with existing supporters, but she doesn't need MORE (after Tuesday), and it's time for her to move on the General Election.

[NCTraveler]

6. I think it would be irresponsible if she weren't.

I'm not talking about harassing them. I'm not even necessarily talking directly from the campaign itself in every instance. It one of the most impressive parts of her network. They know who respects who and work for each other. A phone call here and a phone call there can make a difference. No politician likes to think they are forgotten.

I say that knowing you understand this aspect much better than I do.

[geek tragedy]

12. at this point, she's telling them to keep their endorsement under wraps

they're coming to her, not vice versa.

the bandwagon doesn't knock on people's doors

[NCTraveler]

15. Interesting. Thanks.

It's still communication and coordination.

[Trenzalore]

38. According to the news outlets

She has 40 more super delegates that are ready to endorse but is holding back on releasing them to do so till after California.

[Silver_Witch]

3. #6 this one is the kicker ain't it?

As for social programs we shall see my friend we shall see. I am not hopeful.

[Peacetrain]

4. The super D's are party people

And that is just a fact..they are 15% of the delegate vote.. and a candidate has to court not only the individual voter but the party.. because after all this is a selection for the person who will head up the party..

[underthematrix]

5. Thank you.

[NCTraveler]

7. Very well said.

It's a part of the campaign.

[HooptieWagon]

8. It depends on the purpose of the superdelegates.

If their purpose is to be a firewall to protect the elites from a popular uprising...then yes, Clinton has the stronger case.
If their purpose is to prevent the party from making a grave mistake, nominating a candidate about to be indicted as example, then Sanders has the stronger case.

[Lord Magus]

13. The indictment fairy is going to come, no matter how hard you clap your hands. -nt-

[YouDig]

14. Superdelegates are sane, and no sane person thinks she will be indicted.

[sufrommich]

9. Of course she does. Sanders will not flip one superdelegate

at the convention and he knows it. He's just going for maximum damage now,like a child who doesn't get his way.

[Gothmog]

16. The super delegates will vote for the strongest general election candidate-Hillary Clinton

[RoccoR5955]

17. And I have a better argument for Super Delegates to vote for Bernie

If we are to win the election, we must rely on independent voters. These folks are clearly 40% of the electorate. Without them, we shall lose. The fact of the matter is that most of these independents do not like Clinton, and would vote against her. Therefore, Bernie is the better candidate in the general election.

[NCTraveler]

18. I think that is about all they have to go with.

It's not a winning argument in my opinion. It's not an argument that would get them to go against the will of the voters.

[RoccoR5955]

20. So the "will of the voters" is to lose the election to Drumpf?

And not consider the independents? Interesting!

[NCTraveler]

25. When was that voted on? Nt

[RoccoR5955]

29. Not voted, but reality.

Learn to live with it.

[onenote]

31. Wait. An election not being held for five months is so certain it should decide the nominee

But the votes of supers who have been publicly committed to Clinton for months is too uncertain to rely on as an indication of who will get the nomination.

okee-dokee

[NCTraveler]

36. I hope you really can see the glaring error in your response.

Have a great start to your week.

[lunamagica]

19. Even if you lose the women and PoC who will see their votes being dismissed to give it to

the guy in second place? Do you think they will just roll over, accept that slap in the face and support Sanders?

I know this has no chance of happening, but if it did, the Democratic party will lose it's backbone of minority voters for decades to come. The damage would be irreparable.

[aikoaiko]

21. I think HRC will vote for any Democratic in the the GE.

[lunamagica]

24. She will, but don't count on the people who have fought so hard to vote, just to have their votes

tossed away and dismissed this way to just roll over and take it. To take them for granted in such an extreme way would be a big, big mistake.

[imagine2015]

22. Correction. None of the super delegates are pledged. They are all free agents until they vote.

Pre-conventions promises or preferences are meaningless. They are free to change their minds up to the time they actually vote.

Those are the rules.

And that is a fact.

[onenote]

32. You know what's meaningless? GE polls five months before the election

History suggests that a commitment by a super d to the candidate with the majority of the pledged delegates is a much more reliable commitment than a voter's statement to a pollster in June.


That's a fact too.

[NCTraveler]

37. Sounds good. I hold that same position for Sanders rallies.

When I look at them I see nothing but great opportunities for Clinton. They have yet to vote or pledge and I believe a majority of them will vote Clinton in the Cali primary.

[aikoaiko]

23. I think #6 and #7 have been the primary motivators fo SDs -esp the 400 who declared before any votes

Let's face the Clintons know how to reward loyalty and punish perceived traitors.

[basselope]

26. Or the real reason.

You don't want to be on my bad side.

[NCTraveler]

27. #7 Nt

[beachbumbob]

28. Top argument...sanders be destroyed by media and gop

We see most sander supporters know little about sanders...His past and his record..All huge vulnerabilities

[Trenzalore]

39. We had a primary process

It is far from perfect. Frankly there should be universal rules on who votes in each state and caucuses should be banned in favor of primaries. The Washington primary/caucus is a perfect example. I don't want to get into an argument over whether Bernie would have won there if the primary meant something. That large of a disparity of a result is enough to ban caucuses in favor of primaries where more people can participate.

I also think it is foolish to have one state including only democrats one state democrats and independents and one state including fully open primaries. There should be one standard and it should be universal. I'm sure some people will have a problem with whatever the standard is but it will be clear rules for each state.

That being said we had a process with established rules before the process started and one candidate will have the majority of the pledged delegates that were awarded in that process. That candidate should be the nominee.

[Orsino]

40. That's what a candidate should do.

Winning delegates is an important way to win superdelegates.

Sanders is obviously leveraging his own delegates to flip supers, too. Or simply to hold on to the supers he has.