The Clinton Campaign Has Secured Commitment of 500+ Super Delegates

[JaneyVee]

The Democratic front-runner's campaign says it has now secured the commitment of over 500 superdelegates.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has extended her already sizable superdelegate lead by several dozen since August, and is deploying former President Bill Clinton to bring more of the powerful endorsers on board.

Based on a memo from campaign manager Robby Mook and delegate figures provided by the Democratic National Committee, Bloomberg Politics estimates Hillary Clinton has well over 500 superdelegate commitments, putting her even closer to securing the minimum number needed to win the party's nomination before ordinary voters cast a single ballot in a caucus or primary.

“Today, Hillary has more support from superdelegates than all the pledged delegates awarded in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and a third of delegates awarded on Super Tuesday combined,” Mook said in the memo, which was sent to supporters on Tuesday and obtained by Bloomberg. (Politico reported on the memo earlier Wednesday.)

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-28/bill-clinton-rallies-superdelegates-as-hillary-s-campaign-hints-at-growing-roster

[DustyJoe]

1. Of course

Thiese commitments all rely on honoring the commitment in the face of a states voters overwhelmingly voting for an opponent.
Not a big fan of pre-bought votes myself.

[newfie11]

9. Me either

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

this needs to be decided by the people not the chosen ones.

[George II]

23. Which states' voters will "overwhelmingly" vote for an opponent?

[mythology]

25. How exactly are you determining that voters are overwhelmingly for Sanders?

Voting doesn't happen until next year. So there is no way to say who who the voters will prefer then.

But the best evidence we have are scientific polls which show Clinton significantly ahead.

[roguevalley]

38. theoretically theft. no surprise here

[mythology]

61. It's amazing how some people find conspiracy theories

Even in events that have not happened.

[brooklynite]

87. You can tell that the People support Sanders, because "People" is capitalized...

...meanwhile ordinary uncapitalized voters seem to support Clinton.

[MohRokTah]

41. But no states are going to overwhelmingly vote for an opponent

so your point is completely moot.

[BooScout]

2. Great News!

[NCTraveler]

3. Truly amazing.

This is one area where she didn't get the early start in '08. Axelrod was ahead of the game here and brilliant. I'm not saying they immediately pulled ahead of Hillary in this area, I'm just pointing out that they full understood the importance of this and worked early and aggressively to garner this support along with other endorsements. Hillary has really done it extremely well this time while Sanders doesn't recognize the importance of networking. O'Malley has also done a decent job in this area. Not necessarily Super Delegates, but serious endorsements. In the end these networks are how things get done in Washington. No one gets things done alone.

[cascadiance]

56. Back in 2008, both the two major candidates were more under control of big donor money then...

So they were less fearful then of someone like Obama beating Hillary then and were probably not willing to use campaign finance money to manipulate endorsements then to get them to line up behind Hillary when her losing wasn't as critical to retaining their power then as it is now. And they are also more ABLE to do that now with recent court decisions like Citizen's United, etc. to enable more pressure on politicians with campaign money than happened in 2008.

I'm still also wondering if they knew of Edwards' problems well in advance (wish an investigative reporter would try and research this more today), and perhaps told Edwards to stay in the race and advocate more populist/progressive viewpoints than either Hillary or Obama would give any kind of specific attention to then, to draw on that voter segment in the primaries which got shut down right before Super Tuesday when they in effect likely pulled the plug on Edwards then, to prevent Kucinich or any candidate like him to have enough votes to stay in the race and frame the subsequent debates to have more detailed questions on populist issues and allow a nebulous "Hope and Change" campaign by Obama to only say things like "he would renegotiate NAFTA" which didn't say crap, but people thought that to mean that he would work to reverse it, when he did the opposite with TPP when in office.

I think this time around, the population at some point is going to realize this, and know that these super delegates, endorsements, etc. are all attempts by the PTB to try and manipulate the voters before the primaries start. I for one am basically ignoring these endorsements, and see that more of a badge of honor for Bernie that he's sticking to working without the PAC money on his side now.

[NCTraveler]

66. I completely disagree with your last paragraph but don't disagree with all of your post.

When Lewis endorses someone I feel it is worth reading about. I also think he brings his own network to the table. I don't think he is bought and paid for as you insinuate. When Brown endorses someone, I think it is well worth reading why. Once again, he also brings his own network with him. I don't think he is a part of the "PTB" you are insinuating he is. When union after union endorse, I think it is well worth reading why. They bring their own network to the table. I think you can make a solid argument these days that union leadership far too often resembles the "PTB" I believe you to be using that term.

[cascadiance]

72. I'm not trying to make pols like Lewis "bad" by endorsing Hillary now...

Lewis marched with Bernie Sanders at that event honoring the history of Selma with photos commemorating this event. I don't believe he's aligned against Bernie, even if he's issued an endorsement now for Hillary.



But there's a lot of pressure on pols now, both good and bad, to line up behind Hillary and to not give any kind of tangible endorsement to Bernie (even if they might communicate in subtle ways their support for him, like Lewis's march with Bernie then), because they see that if they are pushed out by the big money system that is FAR MORE powerful this election than in 2008 with Citizen's United, that they won't be able to do anything as part of the government, and that it will be completely bought out unless they do a smaller deal with the devil in doing an endorsement now.

As for union leadership, yes, you can see a lot more exposed battle within unions against their leadership being co-opted to do an endorsement for Hillary against the popular support of the unions' members as noted in article like these.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/29/rank-and-file-teachers-object-nations-biggest-union-weighs-early-clinton-endorsement

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18321/bernie_sanders_machinists1

The union endorsements expose this kind of manipulation a lot more, as union members' voices are a lot harder for PAC money to buy out than politicians themselves where it is their personal endorsements that are being solicited, rather than the leadership of organizations that are being solicited against their members' will who in those cases won't be kept quiet when they see this sort of manipulation happen to them.

[NCTraveler]

74. Congressman John Lewis Endorses Hillary Clinton

"As our former Secretary of State, Senator from New York, and first Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to be President of the United States," said Congressman Lewis in a statement released Wednesday by the campaign.

"I know her heart. We need her leadership, not just here in America, but all over the world. She is tireless in her advocacy for those who have been left out and left behind. She is ready to be President on day one. Hillary Clinton has my wholehearted endorsement, and I plan to work and campaign for her to see that she is elected the next President of the United States."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/congressman-john-lewis-endorses-hillary-clinton-n440201

I refuse to believe he has been bought, is ruled by the "PTB," or been unduly pressured. Also look at the group he is helping to organize in support of Hillary. It is impressive.

[cascadiance]

77. I'm sure he likes her more than Republicans of course too...

... and probably is good friends with her as well.

Personally, I don't have that much animosity towards her, as I really thought the Clintons were adversely abused during the Whitewater messes, etc. in those times. But, I really think the times are that people want the insider manipulation of the party that IS happening, as I noted that is exposed with the attempts to manipulate endorsements from unions through their leadership, and to think that there wasn't pressure on Lewis to put for this endorsement now by these same power brokers is being naive.

I think at some point, the populist movement will realize that this is in play now, and will disregard for the most part those that fall in to the game of endorsing who the money of the PTB wants, and will reward more that try to work outside that influence game like Keith Ellison, etc. and will reward those candidates when they realize how much pressure they are pushing away when they do their endorsements for Bernie.

The populist voters now, that see that this sort of change in our government is necessary now, realize that this election is the first time we've had a real candidate to challenge the PTB, and know that the PTB are going to play all kind of games to try and counteract that. It won't be easy, but over time the next few months/year, the populist movement will fuel the awareness with the general public that this sort of manipulation is to be expected when we have a chance to really change the system to make it more answerable to the people instead of the corrupt system that they've seen more vividly over the last few years than before too.

Yes, the PTB are trying harder now to play these cards, and will try to use the corporate media echo chamber to try and reinforce this *coronation* that they want to happen. But I think the public will over the next few months see this for what it is, and at some point the PTB will realize that when there really is a new political revolution happening, that a lot of what they are trying to do to buy the system won't work as well as it did in earlier years.

[bigtree]

4. they can shift at any time

'They can change their commitments at any time, as Clinton saw in 2008 when support shifted away from her to Barack Obama.'

[Thinkingabout]

17. There is not enough super delegates to overtake 50% + of the primary so if they all changed there is

not enough to turn the primary around to a 30% candidate.

[George II]

24. 30% on a good day, more like 15-20% after the Primaries

[bigtree]

29. it's a silly boast

...not ONE vote has been cast.

[MohRokTah]

42. But almost nobody supports anybody else

so your point is moot.

[bigtree]

48. not moot

...not until after we've voted.

Already measuring for drapes in the Oval?

[MohRokTah]

49. .

[Ed Suspicious]

58. .

[bigtree]

65. ugh

...done with you.

[Thinkingabout]

84. Boast? No, check back next year after the convention, tell me if I am boasting.

[bigtree]

86. I think a lot of folks here have forgotten about the importance of the vote

...I've seen that over-confidence come back around and bite campaigns in the ass.

At any rate, it's smug and nauseating. You can carry on this conversation without me.

[Thinkingabout]

88. Yes, I have seen several others saying the candidate who is polling low is going to win, polls

are not the same as voting but an indicator. Like football game predictions, but the game still has to be played.

[Thinkingabout]

5. As some congressional members has the primary in their state there will be more endorsements.

I think there will soon be some high level and even President Obama and VP Biden.

[morningfog]

6. Obama and Biden won't until Hillary has it secured by actual votes.

[Fearless]

7. So democracy?

[newfie11]

12. Right!

Tell me why we bother to vote if it's settled beforehand.

Yes I will still vote for Bernie even with the shenanigans that may have Hillary elected.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Shenanigans? It is won by getting the votes. If you are saying Sanders is going to get less than

50% of the delegates along with getting all of the super delegates and win the nomination, this would be some kind of shenanigan, won't happen.

[Teagan]

69. Let me give you an interesting scenario, and I want your honest answer.

Suppose Iowa's caucuses is overloaded with millennials and Gen-X'ers with few Baby Boomers. 95% decide to caucus for Bernie because of his stances on issues and how much he is trustworthy.

Does the Iowan superdelegates who backs Clinton defy the wishes of the voters?

You tell me.

[Thinkingabout]

75. Where did you find the information if the state caucuses with a candidate the super delegates goes

with the vote f the caucus?

[Teagan]

76. So you think superdelegates are more powerful than caucus voters?

Nice to know where you stand.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Here is a link to what a superdelegate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

A "superdelegate" or an "unpledged delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically, based on their status as current (Republican and Democratic) or former (Democratic only) party leader or elected official. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.

Apparently some bad information is getting passed around about superdelegates, I hope this clears up the misinformation.

[Fearless]

93. It is a way to cheat democracy in favor of oligarchy.

[RiverLover]

14. ....

[livetohike]

8. One has to play to win. Looks like team Sanders is a bit late figuring out how it is done.

Also the fact that his colleagues aren't endorsing him is a problem. Is he that hard to work with?

[Ed Suspicious]

13. She has a stellar electoral record.

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 10:34 AM - Edit history (2)

Bernie knows little about winning election. He's only done it 14 times to her 2. I'm sure she learned a lot from her most recent loss.

Are those facts more or less hard to work with than you imagine Senator Sanders is?

[Amimnoch]

15. So you're saying it's not lack of knowledge it's incompetence?

[livetohike]

22. He has not run in a Presidential election. Hillary had gone through

two via Bill and one of her own. Obviously the scale of what needs done is much larger than running in your state elections. The rules are different as well.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. Those two elections with her husband and one of her own (Senate) still couldn't save her in 2008

against a freshman Senator from Illinois. Let's remember that.

[Teagan]

71. and yet you're supporting the same candidate that couldn't do it before?

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Yes. I'm a Democrat. eom

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Senator Barack Obama was far more of a novice than Bernie Sanders.

And he only garnered 17.5 million votes to Hillary's 18 million in 2008. But despite his inexperience, he still won the primaries because he quickly understood how that works. Sanders should've studied up on how that skinny kid with the strange and unpopular name was able to win from the Clinton juggernaut back in 2008. Sanders didn't bother. That's why he will lose.

[azurnoir]

16. so that's how it's done eh?

that kind of playing top win is why we do not support Hillary- what or who else will she "play to win" if elected

[livetohike]

20. That's the way the process works. n/t

[azurnoir]

33. so it's those what gots - gets even if it's political grease

but once again that in a nut shell why Bernie I and many others support Bernie who is the Hope and Change we wanted in 2008

[livetohike]

55. I'm talking about the delegates/ the electoral process and how a candidate gets elected.

Not everyone who becomes a delegate to the convention is wealthy!

[azurnoir]

70. No the delegates are not wealthy and I never said that

[frylock]

45. And the process will doom the party for years if they override the will of the electorate.

[Ino]

60. No, he's that EASY to work with.

If they don't endorse Hillary, and she wins, she will get revenge.
If they don't endorse Hillary, and she doesn't win, she will get revenge.

If they don't endorse Sanders, and he wins, he will be a gentleman as always.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-has-a-detailed-political-hit-list-2014-1

People on the list are graded on a one to seven scale, with one being "most helpful" and seven being "most treacherous."

For instance, Sen. Claire McCaskill has a score of seven after the Clintons campaigned hard for her in 2006, but she then endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama in the primary.

The piece reports that Clinton aides took pleasure in fact when their enemies fell:

Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/12/confidants-diary-clinton-wanted-to-keep-records-for-revenge/

Shortly before Hillary Clinton’s effort to pass health care reform died in the summer of 1994, the first lady asked a close friend and confidant for advice on “how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular.”

When asked why, according to the friend’s June 20, 1994, diary entry, Clinton said, “Revenge.”

[stonecutter357]

10. good

[riversedge]

11. Congrats to Hillary and her Team.

[MineralMan]

19. There will be 4720 total delegates at the convention.

To become the nominee, a candidate will need 50% +1 of those delegates - 2361, exactly. Candidates have to earn those in the caucuses and primaries. While superdelegates are important, they're hardly the whole deal.

[GummyBearz]

21. She does like her lists of "who was helpful" and who wasn't

Someone needs to come up with a parody of that Santa Claus song "hes making a list, checking it twice" for christmas

[BlueCaliDem]

30. You may dislike her "take no prisoners" style now, but when she wins the nom

and goes up against the Republican money machine next year, Liberals will LOVE her.

[azurnoir]

36. No we won't but most or some of is will hold our noses and vote for her anyway

because it's better than a Republican

[adigal]

52. No, I won't, and if she gets superdelegates that she didn't actually win

I won't vote for her in the General. I'll vote Green, I'll write in Bernie, but I will NOT vote for someone who stole delegates, and is no better than the Republicans. IF she does this. If not, and she wins fair and square, she will have my support.

And I bet millions of liberals feel the same way as I do. We are liberals because we care about the truth and fair play. Otherwise, we'd be Republicans.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Superdelegates/delegates only matter in a CLOSE election, like the 2008 election.

Hillary is savvy enough to ensure she takes nothing for granted, as she'd done in 2008, and although she won the popular vote by about half a million, she lost in the delegate/superdelegates to Senator Obama, and therefore lost the primary.

I don't believe she has anything to worry about this time, even should some "liberals" take their ball and leave the game because they didn't win.

[adigal]

67. Please read what I said...I wouldn't "take my ball and leave because I didn't win"

Nice straw man.

I would take my ball and leave if she CHEATS.

I hate when Democrats act like Republicans and don't read what people say.

[William769]

26. Kick & highly recommended!

[cantbeserious]

27. Riddle Me This - Does This Reflect Quid Pro Quo In Action

eom

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Excellent!

She's learned a lot from Barack Obama.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Why bother voting if the vote is immaterial?

Somehow, the superdelegate arrangement doesn't seem very "Democratic" to me. Is this their sole purpose? To force the will of the establishment over the will of the voters?

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Delegates matter when the vote totals are extremely close, as was the case

in 2008 (Senator Obama: 17.5 million, Senator Clinton: 18 million). I don't think it's going to come this close in the 2016 primaries, but Hillary isn't taking anything for granted.

[blackspade]

34. Superdelegates are a symptom of our party's broken primary system.

Or a feature.....

[MohRokTah]

43. Superdelegates guarantee NO MORE MCGOVERNS!!!!!

McGovern was a disaster for the party. Super Delegates guarantee that will never happen again.

[JonLeibowitz]

57. It would be a mistake

to judge the entire movement of liberalism by the failure of a single candidate.

I would say that the disaster was the cowardice of Third Way. But that's me (and yeah, I'm kinda new here, what do I know.)

[MohRokTah]

81. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis

I need say no more.

[blackspade]

85. Or Carters I suppose....

And what was wrong with McGovern?
Too liberal for you I guess.
I suppose you would have been one of the 'Democrats for Nixon" crowd....

[MohRokTah]

89. Carter was opposed by the Left.

McGovern was too radically left to stand a chance of winning, just like Sanders.

[blackspade]

90. Not my point.

You do know that the Hunt commission that was started in 1982, created the 'superdelegates' to solve what they saw as problems with the nomination process that resulted in the defeat of both the McGovern and Carter, correct?

This is the same nominating process that gave us Dukakis and Mondale, so I fail to see your point about how this corrected the "McGovern problem" as you see it.

You seen to find liberalism within the Party distasteful, why is that?

[MohRokTah]

91. Then you failed to grasp the original point to begin with. eom

[blackspade]

92. Nope.

What you are doing is flinging crap around and when called on it, fall back on " Then you failed to grasp the original point to begin with"

Pretty sad.

[jfern]

96. Superdelegates helped Mondale get the nomination so he could lose 49 states

In the 1984 election, the major contenders for the presidential nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[klook]

35. "Ordinary voter" here.

I've been under the impression that my vote actually matters.

"...even closer to securing the minimum number needed to win the party's nomination before ordinary voters cast a single ballot in a caucus or primary."

I think I'll press on and vote anyway, what the hell?

[Cassiopeia]

37. Back door strategy to steal it before even a single voter has spoken.

Yeah, that's a winning strategy. A strategy sure to piss off millions of voters to the point of destroying our party in down ticket races.

[frylock]

46. Yep.

The party is going to show an entire generation of young voters that the system is rigged.

[cascadiance]

62. The Democrats will become the Whigs if they choose to be UNDemocratic through these actions!!

They will be a party that gets destroyed by those wanting a populist solution they can no longer find in it, who will see the PTB in the party as having provided a terminal cancer to it when they infected it with the Koch funded DLC during Bill Clinton's time.

[Ed Suspicious]

63. Conservatives do like low voter turnout.

[valerief]

44. Just another part of the voting sham. nt

[AZ Progressive]

47. Bernie is the outsider, the nerd, and Hillary is the captain of the cheerleading squad

It's obvious who is much more popular within the party and thus would get most if not all of the super delegates.

Bernie has a real uphill battle in getting the nomination.

[AZ Progressive]

50. BTW Superdelegates must be the Democratic Party establishment's guard against outsiders...

[PATRICK]

51. Compared to 2008?

Wasn't there a superdelegate claimback then? Other frontrunners have brought this up in the natural course of primary events. This is not to criticize the Clinton campaign as much as to compare the strategy this time to past examples. Superdelegates of course are not meant to be used exactly this way but political advantage is political advantage. One expects a canny campaign to play all its cards.

So far getting those delegates and endorsements and poll momentum is being played out piecemeal and may falter with no one noticing, but it seems fairly well done. It is till much less than expected or hoped for in the final analysis. Perhaps relentless enough or near the highwater mark of their best effort.

[jberryhill]

53. Well, thank goodness the nomination process is over and done with

I was really getting tired of it.

[PFunk1]

59. And this is why the repugs will win

Because most dems because of crap like this further convinces folks their vote doesn't count so they don't vote. And low vote counts always helps the repugs.

Want to get more folks to vote. Ditch the SD system and let actually the voters (and no one else) decide.

[workinclasszero]

64. Awesome!

Go Hillary!

[Autumn]

68. Are they binding? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. It's all over but the conspiracy theories about voter fraud

[Ed Suspicious]

78. Hillarious.

[DCBob]

82. You think Bernie's refusal to call himself a Democrat might be why he has no superdelegates?

I think so.

[Gothmog]

83. This is great news

[Cha]

95. Good!

[oasis]

97. It's nearing "cut to the chase"time.