HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them.

[Gothmog]

194. Your lack of understanding of the real world is sad but amusing

Ken, your claims about real world experience are not relevant to this thread. I am discussing your silly proposals which will not work in the real world for the reasons I keep pointing out and which you keep ignoring. I actually do work in the real world and I understand how the real world works which why I disagree with your proposals.

Ken, I keep pointing out that under DNC rules all delegates (both super and pledged) are not bound to vote for anyone. A super delegate can say that they will vote for a candidate one day and then vote for a different candidate the next day. There are some cases that hold that Presidential electors are not legally bound to vote for their party's candidate. The DNC lawyers determined that this case law means that the party cannot legally bind pledged delegates. The DNC rules do not purport to bind super delegates or pledged delegates. Again, I live in the real world and I worked long and hard in the real world to be elected as a delegate to Philadelphia. As a pledged delegate I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to vote for and that is why the Sanders people targeted my daughter and called her the C-word when she refused to try to convince me to change my vote.

In the real world, the lack of the ability to legally bind a pledged delegate is handled by careful vetting of pledged delegates. Again, I was on the committee who vetted delegates for the Clinton campaign. The people who pass this vetting are people who actually work for and care about the party. A campaign will only approve people who the campaign can trust to vote for their candidate. Understanding how the real world works is important.

No delegate to the DNC is legally obligated to vote anyone and unless the DNC ignore the case law cited above, there is no legal way for the DNC to attempt to legally bind delegates. Super delegates and regular delegates are free to vote for any candidate they want to at the convention. Your silly proposal ignores this fact. The premise of your amusing proposal does not make sense in the real world.

Again in the real world, a super delegate can pledge to vote for one candidate on Monday and change their mind on Tuesday. There is no way for a super delegate to leverage this in the real world. As for pledged delegates, the campaign has approval rights on pledged delegates and there are mechanisms where a pledged delegate can be replaced. However, on Tuesday of the Convention in Philadelphia I could have voted for Sanders if I wanted to. There would have been consequences if I was stupid enough to violate my pledge but my vote would still have counted at the convention. I was approved by the vetting process because the Clinton campaign trusted my word.

Finally, what would it mean if a super delegate such as a member of the CBC endorsed and campaigned for a candidate but did not formally pledge to vote for such candidate? Would anyone in the real world assume that such super delegate is not planning on voting for their preferred candidate at the convention? If a super delegate is campaigning for and has endorsed a candidate, no one in the real world is going to buy the silly concept that such super delegate is not going to vote for such candidate. No super delegate would care about or comply with your rather silly proposal in the real world. Again, I like working in the real world and I care about how things work in the real world.

BTW the concept of open primaries is also stupid but this concept does not really apply in Texas. I would love to figure a way to totally close the Texas primary system and keep non-Democrats from voting. Only Democrats should be selecting the nominee of the Democratic party in the real world.