Why do Sanders supporters seem to want it both ways, regarding superdelegates? [View all]
The hue and cry for awhile now has been that superdelegates are an elitist group that can thwart the will of the voters, especially if they pledge to one candidate even though their state's primary or caucus is won by the other candidate. But, as Sanders is so far behind in the pledged delegate count and is almost certainly unlikely to catch Clinton in that area, his hope rests on wooing the superdelegates to his side despite that.
But this seems to raise a bit of a conundrum; is Bernie committing a bit of a moral faux pas if he solicits superdelegates from states that Hillary won? Should he feel obligated, on moral/ethical grounds, to refrain from contacting superdelegates in;
Alabama
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New York
North Carolina
Northern Marianas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
?
By my rough/quick count of the superdelegate list, there's 198 superdelegates in states that Bernie has won, of which he already has 27...but if we're to be fair he'll have to renounce the 13 that are from Hillary-won states. These calculations go by winner-take-all-the-supers btw; figuring out a proportional allocation would be a bit time-consuming atm.
So if Bernie plays by the right way to do things, can he get enough supers?
= new reply since forum marked as read
