2016 Postmortem

hack89

(39,171 posts)

1. Ignoring its voters is a very dangerous thing for a political party to do.

Wed May 11, 2016, 01:32 PM

May 2016

that is why we all expect, just like in 2008, that the SDs will switch as required to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They will reaffirm the voter's choice, not overturn it.

Why don't you trust the voters?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The concept of "flipping" Supers [View all] SheenaR May 2016 OP

Ignoring its voters is a very dangerous thing for a political party to do. hack89 May 2016 #1

See Bernie's comments on the subject: lagomorph777 May 2016 #24

That doesn't change things - Hillary will still win. hack89 May 2016 #31

Fine, so relax. Don't worry about OR, NJ, CA, etc... lagomorph777 May 2016 #36

Where does this notion that particpating in a discussion = "worrying" come from? hack89 May 2016 #38

There seems to be a lot of worry about supers being "flipped" and then you turn the discussion to lagomorph777 May 2016 #39

The only way Bernie can win is to flip all of Hillary's SDs hack89 May 2016 #41

The thought of flipping Supers is not on the table for both camps. LonePirate May 2016 #2

Oops - Bernie has been extremely consistent despite the recurring meme lagomorph777 May 2016 #25

Go back a couple of months here on DU and read all of the undemocratic posts about SDs. LonePirate May 2016 #26

I'm talking about Bernie, not his followers lagomorph777 May 2016 #34

So talking to the SDs about changing their minds due to the jwirr May 2016 #33

There are no different circumstances today. LonePirate May 2016 #44

Nobody on the Clinton side is complaining that the SDs shouldn't be able to vote for their choice.. brooklynite May 2016 #3

They are not changing a choice. No choice has been made. Which is my point SheenaR May 2016 #8

Wrong...a choice HAS been made brooklynite May 2016 #12

I told my fiance I was going to have fish last night SheenaR May 2016 #14

Supers should be flipped.. panader0 May 2016 #4

Can't disagree with this SheenaR May 2016 #11

My understanding has been that the role of the supers was to prevent the nomination going to the Arkansas Granny May 2016 #30

Unfortunately, most of the supers are already doing that. panader0 May 2016 #32

Totally agree. jwirr May 2016 #35

I am not sure about the wisdom of voting against the majority of primary voters etherealtruth May 2016 #5

They are not voting based on anything but their own preference SheenaR May 2016 #13

I know, that's why I am not fond of them .... etherealtruth May 2016 #19

Agreed SheenaR May 2016 #21

The superdelegates traditionally vote for the person who wins the most pledged delegates Tarc May 2016 #6

The explanation I and others were given SheenaR May 2016 #10

Then you were misinformed or misunderstood Tarc May 2016 #16

I was informed by Clinton supporters here at DU. Duly noted. SheenaR May 2016 #17

They can certianly go against the PD winner firebrand80 May 2016 #7

They aren't going against anything. They are independent of all SheenaR May 2016 #9

Yes, those are the rules firebrand80 May 2016 #15

Nothing you say I disagree with SheenaR May 2016 #18

It doesn't matter, they aren't going to subvert the democratic vote. Hillary is going to win. YouDig May 2016 #20

Thanks for stopping by SheenaR May 2016 #22

"I am aware Supers vote with their state, not at a different time." Are you sure? Attorney in Texas May 2016 #23

How I read it is that they are included in the roll call for each state n/t SheenaR May 2016 #37

No. They vote at the convention and may change their minds (or may not) between now and then. Attorney in Texas May 2016 #43

Run on..Speak on..Preach on....In it to Win It laserhaas May 2016 #27

The Supers Flipping ... LenaBaby61 May 2016 #28

Bernie's argument... CrowCityDem May 2016 #29

Supers exist specifically to NOT agree with the vote (if necessary). Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #40

You are completely wrong Demsrule86 May 2016 #42