Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumDo you think some of the "Supers" may take notice if Bernie wins WI. and upcoming primaries?
Bernie just got another "Super" from (of all states) Utah who switched. I get the feeling some of these people have to be thinking to themselves "am I going in the right direction?'
I am beginning to believe Bernie will win Wisconsin. He is up +4 as of today. I just can't get this thought out of my mind that Hills wheels could start coming off at any time. But this version is not clear yet because 2 Supers changed their vote in the last 7 days. Only the belief that it is possible. And add to the fact that with Wisconsin and other state he can win, it seems there comes a point when some of these politicians (who don't want to go against their constituents) have to be scratching their head.
I'm feeling very philosophical at the moment.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)the pledged delegates even though I'd like them to do it earlier.
HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)They can, and probably will, spin like a weathervane in a tornado right up to the convention. And the only time they will count for anything is the direction they are pointed when their state is called.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)But lets win Wisconsin first and on to NY, we will make our stand there!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There is no real benefit to them in switching right now. They've already taken the political hit for going against their constituents. Switching doesn't mitigate much of that.
So the vast majority will wait to see what the pledged delegates turn out to be. If Clinton gets more, they'll stay with Clinton. If Sanders gets more, they'll switch.
eridani
(51,907 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)only vote if there's not a winner in the pledged delegates.
Since the start of the super delegate era, that really hasn't been an issue, since for the most part they've always voted for the person with the most pledged delegates.
Which means whether you're a Bernie guy or a Hillary gal you really have nothing to worry about. If your candidate wins in the : primary/caucus season, you've got it made. And with only two candidates, there's almost no chance that the supers will really matter, or that we'll see a brokered convention.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Thats fairly encouraging. Then again, this "super delegate" stuff has had me confused from all the different definitions people put on here. So I'm happy there is a clearer picture in the middle of all this confusion.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)...before the primary race even started? Is there any precedent?
90% of the Dem party seem to act like they've been made an offer they can't refuse.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Until this guy with the strange name showed up.
I'm considering showing up here, pretending I've been in a coma since late 2007, and I'm all eager to find out how Hillary's two terms have been. Because if I'd gone into coma at that point, I'd have been happily confident that Hillary would be our nominee and of course she'd have won the election. And the re-election. Wait. She wasn't the nominee? What? And she's running again, now, in 2016? And she's just barely ahead of her challenger? Who in the world is this Bernie Sanders? Oh. Some guy on whose podiums birds land? Really?
The only time a Democratic candidate was anointed was in 2008, and that was Hillary Clinton. Only, as bizarre as this might sound, she wasn't the nominee that year. But she's been running since approximately November 7, 2012, clearly the anointed one at that point. Only, disturbing as it is, she's actually had some competition. She raised tons of money early on, in a clear move to intimidate anyone who might consider challenging her. In early 2015 it was obvious to the most casual observer that she would be our nominee.
But what happened? Why in the world is she fighting for her political life?
It's a simple matter of people not being willing to just go along with the status quo. Plus, the emergence of a genuine man of the people. No matter how odd that may seem.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)-Obama had tons of visibility ( / celebrity) by '08. Many mild HRH supporters were fine with either of them, but just preferred her to go first so that he could (wait his turn and) proceed her in '16.
-DNC Chair was never her campaign manager. Even something of an outsider at the time.
-How many Supers were glued to her then, no matter how big he won their states?
Sorry, I'm failing to see the similarities.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)but the common wisdom in 2007 was that he was just too young, too new to major league politics, but he'd be just right in four or eight years. As you said, he could wait his turn.
But he didn't. He decided to run. The Hillary supporters were irked, to say the least, because that spoiled her assured nomination.
And now, eight years down the road, Bernie Sanders is likewise spoiling everything for her.
I don't recall as big a fuss being made in 2008 over the super delegates. I rather think that far fewer of them declared their allegiance as early as so many have this time.
It's my opinion that people are freaking out over the supers unnecessarily. The majority of them will in the end go with whichever candidate has the most regular delegates, and I don't think they will change the nominee.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)We're only going to win this by the skin of our teeth. We can't afford to give them an inch.
As the slime slowly becomes exposed, they will try harder than ever to protect it. This risk really did not exist for them in '08. To make assumptions based on such comparisons, taking anything for granted based on history, will not get us to the finish line.
Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)n/t