The Sanders nuclear option: How would it play out?

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders has recently said that even if he’s behind in pledged delegates at the end of primary season, he could still win the nomination by convincing superdelegates to back him.  See, e.g.:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232478.0

But OK, let’s think this through.  We get to the end of primary season, and Clinton has a pledged delegate majority.  She has a majority of pledged delegates, but that’s not enough to clinch the nomination by itself.  Superdelegates are needed in order to give her a majority of all delegates.

But let’s say she has public endorsement from enough superdelegates that she has a majority of delegates in hand and is thus the presumptive nominee, more than a month before the convention.

Normally, that would be the end of it.  They guy who’s the runner up concedes defeat, even if he doesn’t necessarily endorse the victor just yet, and the presumptive nominee gets on with planning the convention.

But what are we to make of this “maybe I can convince the superdelegates” talk from Sanders?  Is the suggestion that, even if Clinton has enough endorsements in hand to win the nomination, he’ll keep trying to convince them to change their minds, and not concede defeat?

And if that’s the case, then how does the convention proceed?  As noted in all the talk of the RNC being contested, the modern political convention is not designed to be a deliberative body.  It’s designed to be a giant commercial for the party nominee.  Ed Kilgore on this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/this-problem-might-cause-chaos-at-gop-convention.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, hypothetically….Clinton declares victory at the end of primary season, says “I have enough pledged delegates plus super delegates to win.”  Sanders responds with “But the super delegates can change their minds, so it’s not over yet.”  I presume the DNC would then ignore Sanders, and nonetheless turn control of convention planning over to the Clinton campaign because they’d say that Sanders was being ridiculous?  Not exactly sure how this would play out, but it could get pretty ugly if Sanders refuses to concede defeat in advance of the convention.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't think that Sanders and his campaign are THAT delusional.
It's just an excuse for the suckers to keep opening their wallets and financing his quixotic run.

[Torie]

There is zero possibility of this happening, unless the FBI recommends an indictment by then, and/or someone other than Cruz or Trump gets the Pub nomination, and the polls show that Hillary is way behind the Pub nominee. That's my fair and balanced as always point of view.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It depends on how close it is. BTW, the caucus delegates aren't finalized until June 19th (Washington). Or maybe later if I missed one that is later.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

The nuclear option is still alive?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-22134455

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More here:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-campaign-manager-222180

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OTOH, other members of the Sanders campaign are sending the opposite signal:

https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/722623854435311616

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is a bad plan.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is a bad plan.

A bad plan which is not going to work. Even in an unlikely event of it working out, it would be very bad for the party in November.

[The Other Castro]

There's the idea of trying something like this when its 2029-2022, and then there's trying it when it's 2200-1851. An attempt in the latter situation simply won't happen.

[°Leprechaun]

It depends on how close it is. BTW, the caucus delegates aren't finalized until June 19th (Washington). Or maybe later if I missed one that is later.

That's a good point. I think the Sanders campaign is doing this prematurely. I also don't think it will work. He should be focusing on the idea that it is unlikely that Clinton can win the majority of pledged delegates before California polls close. If Republicans don't want Trump the strategy should be to register as Democrats and vote for Sanders (if they prefer him to Trump) since he would be more likely than Clinton to beat Trump.
I don't currently expect Sanders to win this, but there is no harm in fighting for pledged delegates until June 7, assuming that is the date one of them will get to a majority.

[PeteB]

I have to believe that two things will happen in a situation where the Superdelegates are the deciders:

1. Clinton will reach out to Sanders and offer him a consolation prize to bring him on board (it could be a major position in the administration or simply a possibility to influence and deliver one or more of his key asks (campaign financing, big banks regulation, additional education funding, even some health care modifications).  While she would probably win outright and does not really want to do any of this, it would avoid a nasty convention fight and energize the Democrats against, what increasingly looks to be a divided GOP.

and

2. Sanders (under pressure from his own supporters) would accept those offerings, and allow for an orderly Convention.  Going va banque against Hillary (and losing) could mean that the Democratic platform is totally devoid of any Sanders content and it would delete any historic value in Sanders' pretty impressive run.  Not to mention that even the most die-hard Sanders supporters would presumably prefer President Clinton over President Trump.

[Wiz in Wis]

Sanders isn't crazy... and if he were to float this, one call from Obama probably ends the idea. All Obama has to do is publicly endorse Clinton and it would be over. He is going to want to campaign for her all Summer... Sanders has to let him do that.

[Erc]

There's the other nuclear option of pushing for a rules change to let all the delegates be unbound, Ted Kennedy-style...but considering both sides get to vet their delegates, it wouldn't do much.

But no, this race is over June 7 (or June 14 if they don't want to hurt D.C.'s feelings); Clinton will be the pledged delegate winner, she'll get even more superdelegate endorsements, etc.

Sanders and Weaver could threaten to ruin the nice convention schedule to extract some concessions (I don't know what), but the media, President Obama, and 95% of the Democratic Party will consider Hillary to have won.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There's the other nuclear option of pushing for a rules change to let all the delegates be unbound, Ted Kennedy-style...but considering both sides get to vet their delegates, it wouldn't do much.

Back in 2008 a handful of Clinton's pledged delegates announced after IN/NC that in the name of party unity they would vote for Obama at the convention. If Sanders and his campaign want to continue their deranged plan then I could see the same thing happening.

[Averroës Nix]

Someone pointed out yesterday that Sandrs is in line to chair the Senate budget committee if Democrats take the Senate. In terms of giving him a place of influence and visibility in government, it's difficult to imagine any kind of position in a Clinton administration - including the vice presidency, not that it's even at stake - beating that.

[Ogre Mage]

The superdelegates are going to defect from the clear pledged delegate winner (probably by 200+ delegates) and popular vote winner?  That is absurd on its face.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Can we please get past this fantasy that Sanders is more electable than Clinton?

[Xing]

It would work out badly for everyone except the Republicans. He won't do it.

[RaphaelDLG]

Talk of this option by Weaver/Sanders is OBVIOUSLY a bluff designed to convince naive Sanders supporters to keep hope alive and continue to help him rack up delegates and spread his message even though Hillary has effectively clinched the nom.

[SteveRogers]

I think the whole "damage to the party" aspect of this is way overhyped. The Democratic Party is not going to tear itself apart if Sanders doesn't formally drop out and insists on a roll call vote at the convention. Heck, I think someone whose garnered ~45% + of the delegates is entitled to have their votes counted at the convention. That won't happen though because Sanders knows that the result would be embarrassing for him, not for Hillary.

I expect that Sanders will concede defeat once the primaries are over, and he'll get himself a nice speaking slot at the convention.

[Mr. Morden]

I think the whole "damage to the party" aspect of this is way overhyped. The Democratic Party is not going to tear itself apart if Sanders doesn't formally drop out and insists on a roll call vote at the convention. Heck, I think someone whose garnered ~45% + of the delegates is entitled to have their votes counted at the convention. That won't happen though because Sanders knows that the result would be embarrassing for him, not for Hillary.

Not formally dropping out and insisting on a roll call vote is fine.  The issue is more if he tries to stop the DNC from handing convention planning over to the Clinton campaign.  Every major party national convention for the past few decades has been conducted as a giant commercial for the presumptive nominee, because the presumptive nominee's campaign got to plan it, decide who could speak in primetime, what they could say, etc.  If Clinton declares victory, but Sanders says "No, the race isn't over yet.  We need to have an open convention, because the super delegates might change their minds.", that's a problem.

[IceSpear]

I think the whole "damage to the party" aspect of this is way overhyped. The Democratic Party is not going to tear itself apart if Sanders doesn't formally drop out and insists on a roll call vote at the convention. Heck, I think someone whose garnered ~45% + of the delegates is entitled to have their votes counted at the convention. That won't happen though because Sanders knows that the result would be embarrassing for him, not for Hillary.

Not formally dropping out and insisting on a roll call vote is fine.  The issue is more if he tries to stop the DNC from handing convention planning over to the Clinton campaign.  Every major party national convention for the past few decades has been conducted as a giant commercial for the presumptive nominee, because the presumptive nominee's campaign got to plan it, decide who could speak in primetime, what they could say, etc.  If Clinton declares victory, but Sanders says "No, the race isn't over yet.  We need to have an open convention, because the super delegates might change their minds.", that's a problem.

If that happened, 600+ superdelegates would just sign a letter stating they are going with the winner of the most delegates/votes, and have zero intention of switching their votes, and therefore hand over all control to the Clinton campaign.

It's not going to happen anyway though. He'd gain nothing from it, and could very well face repurcussions in the Senate if he tried.

[Dr. Arch]

I support Bernie, and I enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, but this is not the right way to go. He initially started campaigning strongly against the Superdelegate system, but now his campaign wants to use that very system to attempt to overthrow the pledged system should he lose the primary/caucus pledged delegates before the convention. I hope he considers going back on this. It's making me question my support for him even though he's essentially done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-superdelegates_us_5717eb61e4b024dae4f0ec60

[Lief 🗽]

Wow, I've never seen a HuffPo article with anti-Sanders comments. If he keeps this up, he'll be down to just his craziest fringe of supporters.

[Derpist]

Makes sense. If he does this, he'll win the election.

[Gass3268]

This is annoying.