Why Superdelegates Who Will Choose the Democratic Nominee Should Vote For Bernie Sanders

[imagine2015]

Why Superdelegates Who Will Choose the Nominee Should Vote Bernie
By Veena Trehan -
May 1, 2016
| Op-Ed



The fate of our country lies with those who have not yet voted, with those who remain politically active, and with the superdelegates.

Just like in 2008, it’s all coming down to the super delegates. Obama’s win was secured when 2/3 of the superdelegates decided that he would be the better Democratic candidate for president. In order to restore democracy and prevent the Democratic Party from committing hari kiri, the super delegates should vote to give Bernie Sanders the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

If Obama represented “hope and change” on immigration, climate change, and health care; Sanders represents the future of the party through bold foreign and domestic policy positions that have brought him ahead or close in national polls. His hark back to FDR-style politics — including investment in infrastructure, schools, and people — and his flat rejection of the neoliberal and neocon politics practiced by Hillary Clinton and her family has led to a new electoral energy. Bernie’s politics and his candidacy must represent our future.

So say Democrats, with whom he polls a majority after almost an unbelievable rise. So say the young generation who have often voted for him in 7:1, who represent the future of our country. So say independents, a category that describes more citizens than either major political party, who seek a candidate opposing rampant militarism and unfair trade policies.

.... it’s important to note that, as has been broadly said, they [super delegates] can change their mind at any time. And, at their best, they are protection against the voters choosing someone profoundly flawed. Today we have such a candidate: one out of touch with the populus and her party; who has plummeted in trustworthiness and the polls as voters learn more about her; one potentially facing indictment from the FBI for violating the Espionage Act; and one with many secrets relating to her family foundation, her emails, and her speeches. Superdelegates, step up.

First, let’s explain that superdelegates will most likely determine the election. It would take Hillary Clinton amassing 69 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to gain the nomination without superdelegate support. Sanders would need 98 percent. Neither scenario is likely.

It would be a mistake to assume while the battle is being waged for the Republican party, there is not an equally fierce and important battle for the soul of the Democratic party. It’s being waged over the leadership, institutionally and politically; the means of fundraising; the priorities up and down the ticket; the platform; the behavior that we tolerate; the meaning of democracy and how it applies to politicians; and the scope and vision for our nation. Casting away a politician favored by millennials, by Democrats and independents, by devoted intellectuals, discarding an uncharacteristically bold senator who has been screwed by a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation would be tremendously harmful to our nation.

The fate of our country lies with those who have not yet voted, with those who remain politically active, and with the superdelegates. Ultimately it’s the last who could potentially have the greatest role – endorsing today and following up at a convention where they will make a choice that determines the future of this election and the vision of the Democratic party. They’ve seen what’s above. They know what is happening. It’s past time to make a choice for freedom, truth, peace, justice, and opportunity. Superdelegates, #FeeltheBern.

Read the full article at:
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/01/superdelegates-will-choose-nominee-vote-bernie/

[YouDig]

1. They should vote for who the voters chose: Clinton.

[griffi94]

2. They'll vote fot whoever has the most pledged delegates.

That's going to be Hillary.

It's pretty straight forward. She'll win on the first ballot.

[imagine2015]

7. Not if they think her candidacy will lead to the destruction of their careers and Democratic Party

They are free to vote for whomever they want. In 2008 around 200 super delegates abandoned her and voted for Obama at the convention. Remember that.

And right now over 150 super delegates have not indicated who they intend to vote for at the convention!

And finally super delegates are not even required to vote on the 1st ballot. They can abstain and leave Hillary twisting in the wind.

[griffi94]

10. In 2008 Obama led in pledged delegates.

And nothing will destroy their careers in the Democratic Party
faster than setting aside the results of the primaries
in order to give it to the candidate with the fewest pledged delegates
and the fewes poplular votes.

All the arguments I've seen. Yeah but what if they flip to Bernie. What if they retoractively count provisional ballots.

I think the odds of Bernie supporters wishing that into reality is about the same
as wishing yer lotto ticket to hitting all 6 numbers.

I get that Bernies supporters really want him to win
but that's happenening and trying to toture logical scenarios so they come out in Bernies favor just doesn't seem very realistic.

[redstateblues]

12. Elected Democratic officials will get as far away from Bernie as possible

[Demsrule86]

19. Right because Obama was ahead in super delegate count.

Bernie is ahead by no measure.

[mythology]

3. Super delegates didn't switch to Obama because they thought he was the better candidate

They switched because it was apparent he was winning the delegate count. The entire article is based on an incorrect premise.

[imagine2015]

8. So you read the entire article and posted your comment in less than 5 minutes!

That's amazing!

Also a bit hard for me to believe.

You're not kidding us, right?

[rock]

4. "...one out of touch with the populus..."

She only has 3 million more votes than Bernie. Maybe you're the one that's out of touch.

[imagine2015]

11. The primaries have been rigged to prevent someone outside the money establishment from winning.

It's been well documented in numerous factual articles written by actual liberals and progressives who want to end corporate/Wall Street control of the government.

Have you seriously studied any of those objective articles and if not would you like me or others to provide you with credible links?

[rock]

43. So that would mean you're clueless

Welcome to DU. Stay a while.

[NanceGreggs]

46. Yeah, right.

Why did Bernie lose the race to be the Dem nominee? Let me count the ways:

Nobody knows him - despite having been a politician for decades.

The "media blackout" - despite having had more airtime than HRC.

The debates - they were all scheduled at the wrong time on the wrong dates. Even the most fervent "revolutionists" can't miss a sports event, and apparently don't know how to record a debate for later viewing, or watch it on-line.

In addition, the debate moderators were clearly pro-Hillary plants, as evidenced by the fact that they asked BS questions about things he had no answers for - unimportant things like foreign policy, or how he actually planned to deliver on his campaign promises.

Closed primaries - because all states hosting closed primaries should have changed their long-standing rules in order to accommodate Bernie.

Vote fraud - it started with Iowa when those much-touted "first time voters" Bernie promised failed to show up, and their absence was put down to "fraud" in not being counted.

Continued "vote fraud" in every state Bernie didn't win - no evidence necessary.

The primaries have been "rigged" - yeppurs, in every state that Bernie didn't win - amazing coincidence.

HRC endorsers were all "bought-and-paid-for" - it's amazing Hill had any money left to fund her campaign, considering how much she had to spend to "buy" all of those endorsements.

Bernie is a loser and he got there on his own merits - or, more to the point, on his lack thereof.

[KingFlorez]

5. Super delegates have never voted contrary to the voter choice

It's incredibly crooked for Sanders to want to become the nominee this way.

[imagine2015]

9. So it's OK for Hillary to try to woo super delegates but not Bernie. Got ya!

Bernie isn't trying to win super delegates votes with promises of White House appointments and other highly sought after jobs that can lead to personal financial enrichment.

Now that would surely be corrupt. Don't you agree?

[KingFlorez]

25. Do you have evidence of appointments being offered?

What is corrupt is trying to usurp the will of voters.

[TM99]

15. What is crooked is that the Clinton Machine

had a slew of SD's already in their pocket prior to her announcement to run.

[KingFlorez]

23. Super delegates are free to endorse whoever they choose

There is nothing crooked about that.

[TM99]

24. Then you won't have a problem if Sanders

attempts to get them on his side?

You really can't have it both ways.

[KingFlorez]

26. Trying to use super delegates to overturn action election results is wrong

In 2008, super delegates flipped based on the pledged delegate count and Clinton did nothing to try to get them to overturn voter will, even though she had a smaller pledged delegate deficit than Sanders.

[TM99]

28. Then all of those SD's

should not have given their endorsements to Clinton prior to the primary even starting.

As I said, y'all have no ground to stand on.

[KingFlorez]

30. There is always the option to switch after the primary

That's exactly what happened in 2008.

[TM99]

32. Then they are still free to switch

which is all that is being discussed.

[KingFlorez]

35. And it's clear that they aren't going to overturn voter will

They have never done so and there is no reason to expect that they will do so now.

[TM99]

39. Around and around we go

with the circular logic, a tried and true Clinton speciality.

[rhett o rick]

53. Does that mean you agree that the super-duper delegates from Washing the

State should support Sanders? The voter's choice was 75% Sanders.

[KingFlorez]

54. The overall election isn't 75% Sanders

States other than Washington voted and the overall totals add up to a delegate lead for Clinton.

[griffi94]

6. This is the 2nd or 3rd OP

I've seen recently suggesting the Superdelegates will toss
it to Bernie.

Serious question here. No snark.

Do you really suppose the Supersdelegates would do that.
They vote for who has the lead in pledged delegates.
That's what they go by.

[imagine2015]

16. "They vote for who has the lead in pledged delegates." Really? What convention rule is that?

They are "free agents" and can vote for whomever they and they can even abstain from voting on early ballots.

[griffi94]

21. They vote for who has the most pledge delegates

Yes and they've never broken from voting for the candidate who had the most pledged delegates.
The majority broke for Obama in 08 and put him over.

The majority will vote for Clinton and put her over.

You really seem to be trying to wish something into being that just isn't there.

It's not going to be Bernie.
Sorry.

[Kip Humphrey]

13. It is the superdelegates' purpose to ensure the party nominate the candidate most likely to defeat

the republicon candidate, end of story.

[sadoldgirl]

45. Sorry, but that is not their purpose at all.

They have been created to give the party
establishment a greater say against a possibly
more popular candidate.

They instituted this right after the McGovern
nomination.

[RobertEarl]

14. Why have super delegates?

If the pledged delegates are enough to select a nominee as so many here are yacking about, then why even have super delegates?

The reason is to make sure that we nominate someone who can win in the GE. There being evidence that H can't win indies and therefore will lose the GE, then the supers are the party's last hope to ensure a GE win.

They know and most of us know it. Bernie will be the real winner!

[Demsrule86]

18. Not true...

Supers always vote for the winning nominee...and I have seen no evidence that Bernie would win a general...I doubt he would.

[grasswire]

44. all of the polls show him winning over any GOP candidate...

.....in much, much greater numbers than Hillary. Hillary even loses to Kasich in a matchup.

[Demsrule86]

51. total nonsense

I expect you know that. Such polls are meaningless this far out with am unvetted candidate.

[Demsrule86]

47. To prevent

A brokered convention wich lead to McGovern.

[Demsrule86]

17. So Bernie folks and Bernie

Advocate overturning the will of the voters...and giving the nomination to a man who did not earn it. Not very ethical or democratic of you...one word. NO. It is not going to happen.

[SaschaHM]

22. The democratic party is never going to crown...

a white man that failed at getting the nomination over a woman who is winning because she decisively wins the black vote. Why Sanders is trying harder than most republicans to throw out the vote of black voters is beyond me. It's not going to happen and June/July is going to be absolute hell for him when a member of the CBC goes on T.V. and calls him out for this shit.

[TM99]

27. Yay, identity politics

instead of which policies are the best for all demographics.

[SaschaHM]

29. That's not for polls to decide.

Black voters have overwhelmingly gone for Hillary. As one of those voters, I don't want my vote being thrown out because of some damn polls. If Bernie wins a majority of the pledged delegates, give him the nomination. If he doesn't, the votes of black voters who overwhelmingly went for Hillary over him shouldn't be thrown out because white people think they were mislead or not correct in their thinking.

[TM99]

37. Well there have been plenty of

other minorities that don't want their votes to be meaningless either when Clinton is indicted and/or losses to Trump.

This is why the Democratic Party sucks right now. It isn't about policies for real people, it is fucking narcissistc checkers.

But hey when she loses, I am sure all of us color folks will do great under Trump. And if she, fucking gods forbid, wins we can return to the good old days of the 1990's and more welfare reform, more criminal justice (haha!), and continued expansion of the drug war.

[SaschaHM]

41. There is a difference between losing a two person race and throwing out votes.

Their votes aren't meaningless. They elevated Sanders to a platform that no one would have saw him at months ago.

I'm sorry that Daddy couldn't keep it up and complete his task. Maybe he will still be alive in 2024 so that he can run at the ripe old age of 83.

[TM99]

49. Do your parents let you leave the house

after using such vile language? Sexist much?

Go away kid, I am so sick of the smuggness of Clinton groupies.

[Demsrule86]

52. He already said that the Southern primaries were not a true measure

I wonder why...

[underthematrix]

20. Let's be clear. There's absolutely nothing about

Bernie that even comes close to candidate Obama or President Obama. Nothing.

Like Candidate Obama in 2008, Candidate Hillary in 2016 has a broad based coalition and I don't mean race or ethnicity or gender or age. I mean a diverse economic coalition and she/we are gonna need that to get things done. President Obama has been a master at using corporate America, celebrities and critical events to get his message out to CHANGE the conversation.

Hillary gets it. Yes corporate America can have a seat at the table but they can't have the whole table. The Republicans' NAZI TRUMP is going for not only the table but the entire room.

So yes. I'm with her

[tonyt53]

31. Thank you for a voice of reason and clarity.

[underthematrix]

50. Right back at you

[NanceGreggs]

33. By all means ...

It makes perfect sense that the super-delegates should overturn the will of the voters - those same super-delegates who BS and his supporters initially said would be be traitors if they did so.

But that was when Bernie thought HE would represent the "will of the voters". And now that it's clear he doesn't, the exact opposite position has suddenly become the "right position".

Super-delegates will no doubt be moved by Bernie's life-long commitment to the Democratic Party - which is non-existent, beyond his declaration that he only ran as a Democrat because he needed the media attention doing so would attract.

How could any super-delegate possibly resist tossing the clear votes-and-delegates front-runner aside in order to side with the loser - a man who has denigrated the Dem Party for three decades, a man whose answer to honouring his commitment to raise funds for other Democrats was "we'll see", a man whose campaign surrogates have referred to elected Dems as "whores"?

The super-delegates - along with other Democrats - have had Bernie's number from the outset:

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

And now the self-proclaimed hypocrite thinks he should be handed the nomination of the very Party he publicly disdained for thirty years - until that Party could be used to advance his own political ambitions.

Fuck that shit to the max.

[tonyt53]

34. Perfect!

[Fresh_Start]

36. because they may as well throw away all pretense of being a democracy...

the voters be damned...

[Buzz Clik]

38. The same mantra being repeated over and over by the Sanders crew: HRC is flawed.

It simply isn't true. The exact opposite is the case. Gratefully, those who have been doing this for more then ten minutes realize it.

[tritsofme]

40. It is laughably pathetic and delusional to think that SDs will endorse the loser at the convention..

[Thinkingabout]

42. Hopefully the super delegates looked at the agendas, the records of the candidates, their

Experience and ability to be president and the result will be Hillary. By listening to his interview with NYDN it was oblivious Sanders is nit ready for the position. On Sanders core issue with the banks he was not able to give a clear presentation.