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

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:00 AM Jun 2016

Superdelegates put Barack Obama over the top over Hillary in 2008.

He had more pledged delegates. People said that was all that mattered and the superdelegates were representing the will of the voters.

Now we have some self righteous man, who wants to claim the opposite this time around. And void 3 million voters and hundreds more pledged delegates, cause he thinks he deserves it?

I sense a pattern. A double standard. Sexism.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Superdelegates put Barack Obama over the top over Hillary in 2008. (Original Post) boston bean Jun 2016 OP
You are correct. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #1
Playing "the victim" is their comfort zone. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #2
This whole campaign has been Bernie stomping his feet and claiming he's special. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #3
You are wrong... BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #4
That is another, absolutely truthful way to look at it! boston bean Jun 2016 #5
Sexism is the only possible explanation? thesquanderer Jun 2016 #6
The superdelegate total difference is yuuuuuge. It's not even worthy of a discussion, that's how R B Garr Jun 2016 #7
Oh, and more BS from BS: Hillary had to unite the party in 2008 after Obama clinched, and R B Garr Jun 2016 #8
It is appropriate to count super delegates Gothmog Jun 2016 #9
 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
4. You are wrong...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:12 AM
Jun 2016

It's WAAAAAY more than 3 million voters that Bernie Sanders wants to give a middle finger. More like 13 million, in fact.

thesquanderer

(11,983 posts)
6. Sexism is the only possible explanation?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:42 AM
Jun 2016

In a sample size of two events, there are many possible reasons for different perspectives or outcomes. If the shoe were on the other foot and Bernie was ahead with resistant opposition, would any objection to granting him the nomination automatically be evidence of anti-semitism? Could it be nothing else?

Also, the double standard you speak of only potentially applies specifically to people who took that position about super delegates for Obama in 2008--before even the last primaries had occurred--and are taking the opposite position with Bernie today.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
7. The superdelegate total difference is yuuuuuge. It's not even worthy of a discussion, that's how
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:48 AM
Jun 2016

large the difference. Sanders only has 46 (or so) compared to her HUNDREDS. That stat was just on a CNN crawler. He barely has 10% compared to her 90%. His dancing on the head of a pin about this is just absurd, phony, and desperate.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
8. Oh, and more BS from BS: Hillary had to unite the party in 2008 after Obama clinched, and
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:53 AM
Jun 2016

Sanders is now saying she has to do that again as the winner. So for both her loss and her win, it's HER responsibility to unite everyone. Sanders can just sit back now after all the chaos he's created and put it all on her. Double standards again!

Gothmog

(145,086 posts)
9. It is appropriate to count super delegates
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:45 PM
Jun 2016

This has been done in every other race since the creation of super delegates.

?1464552977

?1464620111

?1464554531

?1464555844

?1464621209

?1464616682



History is a good thing and Sanders does not get special treatment that is different from all past contested democratic primaries
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Superdelegates put Barack...