Changing superdelegate rules would still leave Sanders losing to Clinton - Polidicks

[quote]If the superdelegates from each state were to be awarded as a bloc to the candidate who wins each primary, Sanders would benefit, but still face an uphill climb. --- What if superdelegates were treated like pledged delegates, divided up proportionally, based on the popular vote in each state? Clinton would have 287 superdelegates, and Sanders would have 256. Even with these rules, Sanders would still need about 66% of remaining pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. --- Eliminating the superdelegates would lower the threshold needed to clinch the nomination to 2,026 delegates. Clinton would still be leading Sanders by nearly 300 delegates.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/democratic-superdelegate-math-sanders-clinton/index.html[/url]

I thought this was known and even stated by Bernie himself? It's purely to make his position stronger at the convention.

If only trump would lay into clinton some more, make the democrats realize how attackable she is and go with bernie, even though that will never happen, along with this superdelegate shift.

This is common sense because Clinton has more states won and more of the popular vote so obviously given that fact the super delegates would proportionately still be on Clinton's side more than Bernie's. Bernie just wants the delegates that he feels he earned and he has every right to try and get their support.

The greater point is that news outlets would report on Hillary's delegate count as if it were double that of Sanders, for months, misleading voters from the truth that they were within 5% of each other in votes. Even being too late for [I]his[/I] campaign, the system is corrupt and needs to change.

When did stating the obvious become news?

This is true. Ish. The superdelegates are more likely to vote in Sanders' favor now more than ever due to all the shit Hillary has been pulling IMO. The news outlets are hands down the people to blame for Sanders' current vote results, though. The media has far too much power.

This would have mattered at the start when super-delegates were in every primary/caucus summary and showed Clinton in a vastly more positive light.

I still wonder if Bernie could pull an 'Obama and win somehow.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;50336328]I still wonder if Bernie could pull an 'Obama and win somehow.[/QUOTE] Obama's numbers were much more favorable than Bernie's at the moment He's not going to win unless she gets indicted by the FBI

Not only that, but Obama always commanded a sizable superdelegate count throughout the primary. It was never like this.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50336286] The superdelegates are more likely to vote in Sanders' favor now more than ever due to all the shit Hillary has been pulling IMO. [/QUOTE] Citation? Because this entire article is literally saying the opposite

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50336370]Citation? Because this entire article is literally saying the opposite[/QUOTE] More likely than before I think he means, they were all going to go for Clinton by default at the start but Sanders has made a surprisingly strong campaign and Clinton has some baggage now with the FBI investigation.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50336159]If only trump would lay into clinton some more, make the democrats realize how attackable she is and go with bernie, even though that will never happen, along with this superdelegate shift.[/QUOTE] Why would he want to fight someone who he loses to in a general election poll, when he can win against someone who can easily get worse ratings from a impending FBI Investigation and is a easier target.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50336282]When did stating the obvious become news?[/QUOTE] Well its scorpius, he has to post every article his little heart can take of Bernie losing

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;50336881]Well its scorpius, he has to post every article his little heart can take of Bernie losing[/QUOTE] As opposed to posting every article random sensationalist headline poster can take of Bernie winning?

Bernie should run as independent and bypass all of this nonsense. The DNC showed their true colors in Nevada.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50337205]As opposed to posting every article random sensationalist headline poster can take of Bernie winning?[/QUOTE] No, as opposed to childishly trying to stomp out people's hopes. Like that seven year old who found out Santa wasn't real and then went out of his way to tell all the other kids.

[QUOTE=bitches;50336258]The greater point is that news outlets would report on Hillary's delegate count as if it were double that of Sanders, for months, misleading voters from the truth that they were within 5% of each other in votes. Even being too late for [I]his[/I] campaign, the system is corrupt and needs to change.[/QUOTE] For months leading UP TO the primaries they misled people claiming she was 500 delagates ahead, that's frankly criminal

[QUOTE=orgornot;50337325]Bernie should run as independent and bypass all of this nonsense. The DNC showed their true colors in Nevada.[/QUOTE] Even if a big candidate went independent on republican side it'd still be bad news, because if no one gets 50%, the house of representatives will choose the president, and they can choose the most corporate obedient republican they damn well please.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;50336881]Well its scorpius, he has to post every article his little heart can take of Bernie losing[/QUOTE] Posting reports of Bernie not succeeding ist verbotten as it erodes morale on the Sandersfront

[QUOTE=orgornot;50337325]Bernie should run as independent and bypass all of this nonsense. The DNC showed their true colors in Nevada.[/QUOTE] That wasn't the DNC, that was the Nevada state party.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50337363]For months leading UP TO the primaries they misled people claiming she was 500 delagates ahead, that's frankly criminal[/QUOTE] If you watched the news at all you would know those delegates are super delegates and are subject to change. Most articles even mention that.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50337856]If you watched the news at all you would know those delegates are super delegates and are subject to change. Most articles even mention that.[/QUOTE] Most Americans are not politically savy and probably didnt know super delegates existed until halfway through the primary.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50338553]Most Americans are not politically savy and probably didnt know super delegates existed until halfway through the primary.[/QUOTE] They can't tell you what a super delegate is, but can tell you what the Kardashians are up to on a minutes notice.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50338553]Most Americans are not politically savy and probably didnt know super delegates existed until halfway through the primary.[/QUOTE] Not surprising when over half of voters are Republicans or independents, neither of which have to deal with superdelegates.