An update on Bernie's superdelegate campaign.

[kstewart33]

It appears to be backfiring on Bernie. From Reuters:

...But some emails, phone messages, and petitions sent by the Sanders boosters have backfired, upsetting superdelegates with their aggressive tone and leading many to dig in their heels for Clinton, according to interviews conducted by Reuters.

The effort has at times taken an angry tone, some of the messages reviewed by Reuters showed, reflecting the anti-establishment tinge of the 2016 presidential race where many voters are unhappy with Washington insiders.

Isabel Framer of Ohio, a superdelegate for Clinton, for example, got a voice mail last week urging her to vote for Sanders “in accordance with the will of the people.”

On the voice mail, heard by Reuters, the anonymous male caller says: “I think it’s crap that you get to vote whichever way you want... I’ll be watching your vote.”

“I’m not easily frightened,” Framer told Reuters. “I’m not going to change a vote over threats.”

Lacy Johnson, an Indiana superdelegate backing Clinton, meanwhile, said he had received a mix of messages, including one that he said threatened: “we will make you pay.”

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-superdelegates-idUSMTZSAPEC2TAP0RGD

If I didn't know better, I'd swear these guys are Trump supporters. Bernie needs to act on this, or his switch campaign may net even more Hillary supers among undecided supers.

[KingFlorez]

1. Over the top supporters are detrimental

[HumanityExperiment]

14. fixed...

"engaged and motivated supporters change politics"

[onehandle]

2. 'aggressive tone' amongst his supporters?

Unpossible!

[DemocracyDirect]

3. Makes you wonder why we have a primary at all...

... if the superdelegates will give one candidate a 450 (almost 20%) lead before they've even heard from all the primary candidates.

[BainsBane]

6. Who do you think they haven't heard?

Certainly not Sanders.

[DemocracyDirect]

8. Many of them declared before Bernie Sanders even announced. nt

I believe in following the rules.

But why have a primary at all if these delegates will give one candidate an almost 20% advantage from the very beginning?

[Sheepshank]

9. you need to educate yourself over the role, method and practices of Primaries

There has been a whole slew of posts of the weekend. Maybe even a little light reading of those posts will give you a good foundation

[DemocracyDirect]

10. I think I've read all the posts.

Is there anything in particular you are speaking of?

Otherwise your message reads as a generic put-down.

Do you think it's really fair to start a competition where one candidate has a 20% lead?

Would you like to participate in any contest where your opponents have a 20% lead even before you started?

Not everyone is as reasonable as I am. Some will see this as unfair and may be present in Philadelphia to express their views.

[BainsBane]

4. 2.6 million more votes for Clinton

That is the will of the people.

[DemocracyDirect]

7. Does that include caucus votes? nt

[BainsBane]

15. Yes

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The thing about caucuses is that participation is much lower than in primaries. A 10% registered voter participation rate in a caucus is high.

[DemocracyDirect]

17. REALLY?

The link you sent shows that 400 people voted in Alaska and that 26,000 people voted in Washington state.

NO IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CAUCUSES

It's okay though because Hillary Clinton keeps saying the same thing when she quotes her popular vote advantage.

She is lying too!

Maybe she just doesn't know she is lying? Whatever.

[BainsBane]

22. It's possible the data isn't completely current on recent caucuses

I suggest you take it up with Real Clear Politics or the state of Alaska rather than accusing a candidate of lying because she doesn't feed into your assertions that the votes of those who affirm your own views are more important than the votes of the majority. The totals are not even close. Clinton's statements corresponds with EVERY official source on vote numbers. Not one shows Sanders with a higher aggregate vote count. She isn't lying.

If the totals didn't include caucuses, those states wouldn't even be listed.

As I said, and what is clear in any impartial analysis, is that caucuses attract far fewer participants than primaries. Any middle schooler knows that. Tad Devine himself identified that as a specific point why they were central to Sanders campaign strategy, as this quote here makes clear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1570279

You launch into accusations of lying without even making an effort to find evidence to back up your claims. You show a willful contempt for the truth and determination to vilify anyone who doesn't feed into your conviction that truth is reflected not through evidence but your own ego. Believing yourself more important does not erase the existence of millions of voters.

You can pound your fists and hurl insults from now until the convention and it won't change the vote count. Emotion does not substitute for evidence.

[DemocracyDirect]

32. Open Your Eyes

The link you provided doesn't even include results for various Caucus States.

Notice several blank lines in the results for already completed Caucuses.

You are willfully blind.

Thanks for your disinformation campaign.

[floppyboo]

5. What would be the politic way to express the question:

My voting for your re-election will reflect your willingness to reflect the will of your state?

That's just a real outcome. Perhaps it doesn't need to be said? Should they not contact them at all?

[kstewart33]

16. But reflecting the will of the state is not their responsibility.

That has nothing to do with their stated responsibility: to protect the long term interests of the Democratic party. That's why there are super delegates.

[Gwhittey]

18. Well considering a bunch of them

are lobbyist I don't think Dem party is exactly what they want best for.

[jwirr]

27. We did perfectly well for many years without SDs.

[BainsBane]

23. They all aren't elected officials

And Sanders supporters are also trying to flip super delegates for states that Clinton won. The numbers from states Sanders won doesnt approximate what he would need.

[Kittycat]

33. No, districts Sanders won.

IL was a near tie. If, for example my district supported sanders, I expect that my distinct SD vote for him. If not, we may need to take a good look at their history and if they are a true representative of the people. Or, if we need to go ahead and find our own challenger that does, and make the message very clear. See - that's representative democracy.

[cosmicone]

11. Swarming facebook pages is the worst strategy

in the art of persuasion.

[Capt. Obvious]

12. Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:46am EST

[BainsBane]

24. Not 2008?

What is the OP thinking by posting information on the current election?

[Gothmog]

13. Super delegates will vote in the best interest of the party including down ballot races

Bernie bros will have little success in trying to convert or flip these party elders

[Gwhittey]

19. If Sanders get the pledeged delegate count over clinton

And they give it to Clinton, then I pretty sure Trump(or GOP nom) Will be next POTUS.

[stevenleser]

20. This was predictable. nt

[bravenak]

31. Very.nt

[magical thyme]

21. your title refers to Bernie's superdelegate campaign. The article you link to isn't about

Bernie's campaign. It's about some supporters calling or writing their Superdelegates and being stupid about it.

[NWCorona]

25. The distinction is obviously lost on some

But you would think that the second word in the linked headline would give some clarification.

Good post!

[jwirr]

26. Wake up. Most of those SDs are elected officials. The so called

threats are political - we will not be voting for them if they overturn our state votes.

This sounds like another meme to make the Sanders quest for SDs into some kind of bulling. President Obama approached the SDs who had endorsed Hillary in 2008 and won that way.

IMO we should not have SDs at all. How do we consider this a democratic vote when after the vote is counted these guys and gals can come in and just wipe our votes out? I guess that we the voters are just to damned stupid to select our candidates.

[dchill]

28. It's a new disorder - SSS.

Supersensitive Superdelegate Syndrome.

That is all.

[bravenak]

29. Aggressive? Color me shocked.

[ecstatic]

30. Wow. SMH. nt

[FreedomRain]

34. no doubt some are agents provacateur

and the actual supporters that do more than register their hope or even expectation that they reflect the will of the people are a detriment to the cause.

I don't say they don't have the right; just that it is not helping.

[CoffeeCat]

35. Sounds like more bullshit fake calls/posts from the opposition

I never believed that the "Bernie Bros" bothering Elizabeth Warren on her Facebook page were actual Bernie supporters.

Not even for a second.

This sounds like more bullshit-dirty tricks from the same peanut gallery who posted the fake "Bernie Bro" messages.

[R B Garr]

36. Sending snotty emails and threatening people

doesn't sound like much of a revolution.