2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThinking Like A Super Delegate
Let's say you were a Super Delegate at the DNC convention.
You are getting calls from both the Bernie organization and Hillary campaign, asking for your vote in 50 days from now.
Wow, you think, my vote is very important and could decide who wins.
So you start wondering, how could I make this work to my personal advantage?
Would one of them promise me a job in the WH? Maybe special support in my own campaign?
The opportunities are almost endless.
How would you handle such a ripe opportunity?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)they already have
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)In fact, it is proven that Bernie gets lots of Independent votes. Being as Indies are 40% of the population he would be the winner over Trump.
Most of the Supers, before the first vote was cast in the primary, claimed allegiance to Hillary. Before the FBI investigation and before Bernie proved he could win lots of other votes, some supers enlisted in the H camp. That was and is, undemocratic.
Now they are faced with a new situation, and changing their minds is their sole prerogative.
They will be campaigned by both camps and the best campaigning will enlist their support.
That's how the rules are set.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)No one can tell them how to vote. They are called supers for just that reason.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why the party relies on supers, idk, but it does. The leaders make up the rules, and Hillary is a leader.
Take South Carolina, please.
In SC just 13% of the D's voted. That means the supers there are mostly representing the 87% of SC who didn't care to even vote.
In a democratic sense, the supers there are just tools of the elite.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It is my job to represent my constituents. Just like a vote on a bill, or work in a committee, I would use my vote the way I think my constituents would want. I will see how my congressional district votes Tuesday.
Of course, no one would elect me. I do not have the fire in the belly to want that headache.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)I can pretty much guarantee that only the former is calling....
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And influence their decision.
It's weird how some think supers are all about altruism. They are not. Some are lobbyists, nearly all are politicians and we all know most politicians are not altruistic.
onenote
(42,383 posts)These are people who have self-identified as Democrats, served as Democrats, supported Democrats, received support from Democrats. They are the Democratic establishment.
And they'e been lambasted and railed against by Sanders and his supporters. They will have the President of the United States -- enormously popular among Democrats -- telling them that he's with Clinton. They won't even bother to take calls from the Sanders campaign.
If Hillary has already won, why hasn't Obama endorsed her?
What kind of deal is he angling for?
Since the supers are Democratic Party members, they will be aware of what is best for the party and the country. Bernie is best for the country, and Peace, and People, and the world.
I have confidence they will vote wisely.
onenote
(42,383 posts)He's not angling for a deal. He's waiting for the same thing other rational people are waiting for: when the number of pledged delegates plus supers tops 2383.
And if you think he buys the notion that supers don't count until the convention -- I have a bridge to sell you.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And don't try to offload that bridge you bought on me.
I think Obama is waiting on the FBI report.
onenote
(42,383 posts)You must have been asleep that year.
And maybe you missed this:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0YO00B
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)He knows that. Seems you don't?
Clinton Quit in 2008. Bernie is not quitting.
Clinton got the SoS job. No deal made there, eh?
onenote
(42,383 posts)The date of that story: June 4, 2008, referring to events occurring on June 3, 2008.
The date Clinton suspended her campaign? June 7, 2008.
I'm sure you think Obama would have retracted his statement from the night of June 3 if Clinton had announced on June 7 she was not suspending her campaign. But then again, you appear to think a lot of ridiculous things.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It says Hillary quit, she told Obama, she didn't tell you for a few days later.
Bernie isn't quitting.
onenote
(42,383 posts)and was declared the nominee by the media. Maybe you could point it out.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And repeat after me. Hillary quit, Bernie is not going to quit.
onenote
(42,383 posts)And only someone divorced from reality would think that either Obama or the media would have retracted their statements had she not quit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Obama beat her badly. Bernie is doing it again. Not so badly, but he will win.
The super delegates see all that is happening and they will save the party from making a Hillary sized mistake and save us all from much grief.
Reality is the legal troubles Hillary has caused herself, is why Obama will never endorse her and one reason the supers will not vote for her. Only someone divorced from those realities would throw down on your side.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Which brings up again the question of why the moment that Clinton has pledged delegates and current commitments of supers exceeding 2383 should be treated differently than the moment that Obama's pledged delegates and current commitments of supers exceeded the nomination threshold in 2008?
She will be the presumptive nominee at that moment. The strength of that presumption will vary each day thereafter, depending on whether Sanders is convincing supers to switch to him or she is holding onto her supers and/or picking up even more supers and depending on whether Sanders somehow prevents her from getting a majority of pledged delegates -- something we should know next week. The longer it goes with Sanders not moving the dial, the stronger the presumption is. But its still a presumption as soon as she gets to the threshold that has been applied in deeming other candidates the presumptive nominee.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why you want to make yourself look so foolish, I don't know.
Labeling the FBI and the justice system as a fairy just makes one look that way.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is what you are suggesting, and trust me, they are not doing that.
Oh there are other things that will happen, but not that. (It is too obvious not that corruption does not happen, la corrupcion somos todos)
Oh and I would never have that opportunity, After this primary I intend to continue to be a NDP in my state until the day I die. My contempt for partisans has only grown. And since I do not intend to run for office, I really do not need that.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I scratch your back you scratch mine. Lets make a deal.
Hell, I've done it. Its called politicking.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)things like that, I pass your deal, you pass mine.
It is never that obvious... well sometimes it is.. and that is when the feds might get involved, and might is the operating word
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It's how deals are made.
Congress does it day in and day out. The president makes deals.
If money changes hands, then no, but promises to scratch are not corruption.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it really does,
If money changes hands, or you can truly prove that there was a personal benefit you cross legal lines. There are some really obvious examples of this.
It is a razor thin line. This is one of the reasons, to try to curb this, that states, have things like the Brown Act... but does not mean it does not stop, That said, we do have quite a bit of corruption, but we all like to ignore it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Money sure changes hands then,
It's called getting political favors based upon votes and support.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)...because you're likely to have already committed two support Clinton. And if you didn't, your vote isn't necessary after Tuesday, so what would be the point?
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)high level Hillary supporters to go over the daily talking points with the press and the troops in your district/ state.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If you are interested in a political career and vote against Clinton and she wins then the Democratic machine will be set to finely masticate your prospects into a thin slurry.
On the other hand if you vote for Clinton and Sanders wins you may still have a shot as long as you're not a total ass about things.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bernie is not a crusher. All he has going for him is what's best for the country.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)to the force of new voters, Bernie or Bust supporters, and so on
demwing
(16,916 posts)If I were fortunate enough to serve, I would do my best to "make this work" for the 99% class who are not wealthy enough to afford their own lobbyists.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Others are not so altruistic. Heck, 400 committed before the first of the 99% even had a chance to vote. They can be persuaded, obviously.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Best advisor ever.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)These delegates will vote for the candidate who will help the party as a whole and down ballot candidates. Sanders does not care about the party and is not helping down ballot candidates except when he can use this support for political payback