• Sanders: 'It will be a contested convention'
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50261728]Can you explain to me how this is the case when Hillary Clinton has won more open primaries than Bernie Sanders?[/QUOTE] I wasnt saying it would
[QUOTE=k2.;50261683]The most trump could do is socalist jokes comrade[/QUOTE] Obama already exhausted the supply of those
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE] tl;dr ahead I'm actually rather enjoying the irony of this whole situation. I agree that the superdelegate system is undemocratic, but as a Sanders supporter I also acknowledge that if superdelegates were working in my candidate's favor, I probably wouldn't be so quick to cry foul. That's not the point though. The point is that by now, it's unlikely either candidate will have a majority of ALL delegates by the time the convention rolls around. Superdelegates will be called upon to break the deadlock, and they are obliged to support Clinton because of her pledged delegate majority. This is perfectly legal under the DNC's convention rules, but it's bound to ignite the anti-establishment fury of the Sanders camp, particularly those voters who come from states Bernie won, but whose superdelegates are siding with Clinton regardless. For example: In my state (Maine) Bernie won with 78% of the vote. Out of our five superdelegates, one has endorsed Sanders, one has no preference, and three have endorsed Secretary Clinton. So long story short, the DNC has put itself in a bind. The superdelegate system virtually ensures victory for Clinton, but at the cost of calling suspicion to the whole process. I wouldn't be surprised if after this election people begin calling for voting law reform in closed primary states like New York, and possibly the abolishment of the superdelegate system altogether. The irony, of course, is that Clinton doesn't even [I]need[/I] superdelegates. Voter suppression notwithstanding, she's already winning "fair and square" with a solid majority of pledged delegates. Leaning on superdelegates only reinforces the public's perception of the DNC as a corrupt political establishment. That perception alone, regardless of this election's outcome, might lead to real change. And THAT is reason enough for Sanders to stay in the race until the bitter end, regardless of whether he wins the nomination or not.
[url=http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475696028/like-in-2008-ex-pa-governor-says-clinton-will-win-states-democratic-primary]"The Sanders folks hated us, the superdelegates, back in February. ... And what are the Sanders people saying? Their road to victory is the superdelegates. You can't bash us in February and woo us in April." - Superdelegate Ed Rendell[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50262263][url=http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475696028/like-in-2008-ex-pa-governor-says-clinton-will-win-states-democratic-primary]"The Sanders folks hated us, the superdelegates, back in February. ... And what are the Sanders people saying? Their road to victory is the superdelegates. You can't bash us in February and woo us in April." - Superdelegate Ed Rendell[/url][/QUOTE] Considering the original justification for superdelegates was to give party leaders a way to contradict public opinion in favor of nominating the most viable general election candidate, Rendell's argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Sanders camp has been saying the same thing since the beginning- that Bernie is the more electable candidate. Just because superdelegates are paying attention now doesn't mean that the Sanders campaign itself has flip-flopped. I can see this applying to some Sanders supporters, but not to the campaign as a whole, and certainly not the candidate himself.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50262263][url=http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475696028/like-in-2008-ex-pa-governor-says-clinton-will-win-states-democratic-primary]"The Sanders folks hated us, the superdelegates, back in February. ... And what are the Sanders people saying? Their road to victory is the superdelegates. You can't bash us in February and woo us in April." - Superdelegate Ed Rendell[/url][/QUOTE] Technically he isn't wrong but I really doubt more super delegates would have gone over to Sanders if his supporters had just been nicer. I imagine they support Clinton for more important reasons.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50262499]Technically he isn't wrong but I really doubt more super delegates would have gone over to Sanders if his supporters had just been nicer. I imagine they support Clinton for more important reasons.[/QUOTE] I'm sure his supporters have made an impact, even if on a small degree. [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50262394]Hypocrisy accustaion? Rich coming from a politician, to a politician[/QUOTE] :what:
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE] Sanders is not calling for anything undemocratic, he's asking for the superdelegates to be democratic unlike they were intended. "he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him." he's not asking for [i]all[/i] the superdelegates to just hop ship, he's saying that in order to be democratically responsible the ones in the states he's won should support him.
Isn't bernie still done for? Lmao
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50261261]Who the hell are these deluded people who clearly have no clue who think that Clinton somehow gets destroyed by Trump just because she captures less of the immature tantrum throwing anti-establishment vote [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] Less lead =/= Clinton loses, and there are other reasons for this state of affairs other than Clinton being 'unelectable'[/QUOTE] Lol she has no support among independents and Republicans. Trump would defeat her with ease
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE] Did you even read the article? He never said anything at all about trying to use the superdelegates to overpower the pledged delegates, he said he wants the superdelegates who voted undemocratically against him in states that he had a majority of the pledged delegates to vote for him instead. There's nothing at all inconsistent about that. [QUOTE]"In the state of Washington, we won that caucus with almost 73 percent of the vote there — 73 percent of the vote. In anybody's opinion, that is a massive landslide. But at this point Secretary Clinton has 10 superdelegates from the state of Washington, we have zero," Sanders said, offering an example of a state where he won the popular vote but did not collect any superdelegates. "I would ask the superdelegates from the state of Washington to respect the wishes from the people in their state and the votes they have cast."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50262263][url=http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475696028/like-in-2008-ex-pa-governor-says-clinton-will-win-states-democratic-primary]"The Sanders folks hated us, the superdelegates, back in February. ... And what are the Sanders people saying? Their road to victory is the superdelegates. You can't bash us in February and woo us in April." - Superdelegate Ed Rendell[/url][/QUOTE] Fuck Ed Rendell, he was a mediocre governor. Supporting Hillary in 08 before switching to Obama leaves him no room to talk.
[QUOTE=Elspin;50262537]Sanders is not calling for anything undemocratic, he's asking for the superdelegates to be democratic unlike they were intended. "he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him." he's not asking for [i]all[/i] the superdelegates to just hop ship, he's saying that in order to be democratically responsible the ones in the states he's won should support him.[/QUOTE] But that contradicts the purpose of superdelegates in the first place. The whole point of having them is to prevent a contested convention. Even if you go under a winner-take-all system for the superdelegates (which would be equally undemocratic) Sanders still trails by over 300 delegates.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50262626]Lol she has no support among independents and Republicans. Trump would defeat her with ease[/QUOTE] [Citation needed] Name a demographic where Trump has the advantage other than white men.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50263196]But that contradicts the purpose of superdelegates in the first place. The whole point of having them is to prevent a contested convention. Even if you go under a winner-take-all system for the superdelegates (which would be equally undemocratic) Sanders still trails by over 300 delegates.[/QUOTE] I don't think the point of the superdelegates is to prevent a contested convention, I believe it's to ensure that a candidate with popular support cannot win despite not matching party values (see: precisely what's happening with Trump). A winner takes all system for superdelegates being "undemocratic" does not make logical sense because it just means that the person with the popular vote wins, ie the same as no superdelegates, which is of course democratic (aside from weirdness relating to delegates hypothetically not voting for the person they're supposed to)
[QUOTE=Elspin;50263238]I don't think the point of the superdelegates is to prevent a contested convention, I believe it's to ensure that a candidate with popular support cannot win despite not matching party values (see: precisely what's happening with Trump). A winner takes all system for superdelegates being "undemocratic" does not make logical sense because it just means that the person with the popular vote wins, ie the same as no superdelegates, which is of course democratic (aside from weirdness relating to delegates hypothetically not voting for the person they're supposed to)[/QUOTE] Its a bit of both really. Superdelegates were brought about by the Hunt Commission, which was created in response to both the deadlocked 1980 convention, and also the weak campaigns of McGovern and Carter which many in the Democratic Party saw as being the result of a lack of party control. I think the real question at hand here is what's Sanders' endgame with this move? Even if the Superdelegates do switch over, it won't be enough to take a lead against Clinton, let alone avoid a contested convention. And I can't buy an argument that a candidate who wins 50%+1 of the popular vote in a state should be entitled to control of all superdelegates of that state as being any more democratic than the system as it stands now.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;50262631]Did you even read the article? He never said anything at all about trying to use the superdelegates to overpower the pledged delegates, he said he wants the superdelegates who voted undemocratically against him in states that he had a majority of the pledged delegates to vote for him instead. There's nothing at all inconsistent about that.[/QUOTE] I didn't say Sanders, I said his supporters, as there have been plenty of posts lately on places like /r/s4p about a 'path to the nomination' that involves convincing superdelegates that only Sanders can beat Trump and that they need to go with him instead of Clinton even though she won the primaries. As for Sanders himself I'm confused as to what he's up to, because if he did get the superdelegates to vote proportionally to the pledged delegate results, he'd still lose the nomination. I guess he just wants a bigger number so that he can make a stronger case for influencing the platform etc. at the convention.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50263203][Citation needed] Name a demographic where Trump has the advantage other than white men.[/QUOTE] "Name a demographic whete Trump has the advantage other than the majority of the country."
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE] They started picking sides to make Clinton look better early on before the election even started, hoping to create a "win more" effect. That's a pretty big problem. That's not their stated purpose, however keeping Clinton from the general, when she's at risk of Indictment, is what they're supposed to be there for. [QUOTE=Riller;50261185]I am just amazed that the DNC is still pushing someone who stands worse in the national polls, [I]and[/I] who got a current criminal investigation going on which is just candy for anyone running against her for the general election. Not even counting in which candidate I prefer (since I honestly don't see why Hillary is [I]that[/I] bad), it just puzzles me that they would push for the one with less chance of winning the actual presidency against Trump. Then again, the entire U.S. party system is a puzzle to me. How come they don't have front-runners predetermined like everyone else?[/QUOTE] Hillary's pretty bad, she's just better at hiding it than Trump. Here, just look at [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI"]this[/URL] and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uWu0nSsg7w&feature=youtu.be"]this[/URL].
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50262263][url=http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475696028/like-in-2008-ex-pa-governor-says-clinton-will-win-states-democratic-primary]"The Sanders folks hated us, the superdelegates, back in February. ... And what are the Sanders people saying? Their road to victory is the superdelegates. You can't bash us in February and woo us in April." - Superdelegate Ed Rendell[/url][/QUOTE] it's funny, because thats exactly how i feel about clinton wanting me to vote for her. you dont get to insult someone one month, and then expect their vote the next month.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50264791]it's funny, because thats exactly how i feel about clinton wanting me to vote for her. you dont get to insult someone one month, and then expect their vote the next month.[/QUOTE] I'm really enjoying her backpedaling on not needing to court Bernie supporters to full on trying to court Bernie supporters.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50261094]\Those only specifically factor in pledged delegates; the coming stages have a large number of super-delegates, plus one from previous states that could shift their position.[/QUOTE] Which means going against the wishes of the people they represent, which is pissing in the face of democracy.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50264801]I'm really enjoying her backpedaling on not needing to court Bernie supporters to full on trying to court Bernie supporters.[/QUOTE] wait, when did she start back paddling proof please,. ?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.