Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
2. That's not what he was saying.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 06:45 PM
Mar 2016

He was responding specifically to how to make up the deficit that included Clinton's claimed early possession of large numbers of supers saying those supers would switch given a reason. He was not outlining some plan to how to win the overall primary by relying on supers.

He needs to win the pledged total for the same reason we've been lecturing Clinton supporters on why they can't just rely on Supers to give her the nomination.

There are only two options here.

1. Whoever wins the pledged delegares gets the nod, and everyone unifies behind them.

2. Whoever wins pledged delegates loses because the supers all go to the other person and overturn the result of a year long primary and the votes of millions of people. And those people go ballistic and hordes of them walk out on the General Election resulting in freaking disaster.


It MUST be option 1 or we're all fucked.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Bernie revealed how he go...»Reply #2