General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What exactly was the point of the DNC rule change for superdelegates? [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)whether or not they have actually directly flipped an election by voting against the will of the democratic voters. It may in fact represent how we see the votes fall.
Who is saying she only got the nomination because of superdelegates? That's not what's being said by Sanders, or me here. You can go ahead and resent it when its said, but its a strawman to say that this is the typical position that is held.
And your last characterization is also just not true. Sanders did accept that he lost. Sanders never did blame superdelegates for the loss. Sanders moved to have all of his delegates added to Clinton and endorsed her. You can say what you want, you just don't have the evidence to back up that claim.
Nor does our short superdelegate history have anything at all to do with what COULD be done. Nor does it address the fact that by conversations I've had here with a superdelegate, (I'll take his word that he is in-fact one), he would in-fact have been amenable to the idea of flipping the election for Clinton for the good of the party. All of the bullshit about what would never be done can't be proven by saying it has never be done, because there's been no real test case. The Obama Clinton race was NOT a test-case. They were similar candidates when it comes to their platform.