TYT: Super delegates need to switch to Sanders IMMEDIATELY

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_FqAJ8k7oY

So, the clowns are now advocating that super delegates (who they consider undemocratic, no?) override the will of the voters, especially the overwhelming will of Democratic voters (has Sanders won Democrats  in any primary outside of VT & NH?) because Bernie, the candidate who they repeatedly complain gets no media coverage, is doing better than Hillary in GE polling.

[Pyro]

They're being facetious, I'm pretty sure. Cenk is mocking the DWS-esque idea that superdelegates exist to ensure the Democratic nominee is the most electable against Trump (even if that means over-writing the will of the voters.) Clearly, that system is in place to overrule the potential pledged delegate win of an outsider: as some once suspected Sanders would have been able to accomplish.

What TYT is saying is that unless the DNC sticks to their initial plan to nominate the candidate best suited for defeating Trump (granted, this theory relies on polling), then the superdelegate system needs to be abolished. If there is a sliver of seriousness in this avocation of the superdelegates to back Sanders, then there is not much a defense to be made of TYT or the Sanders camp.

[Doimper]

They're being facetious, I'm pretty sure. Cenk is mocking the DWS-esque idea that superdelegates exist to ensure the Democratic nominee is the most electable against Trump (even if that means over-writing the will of the voters.) Clearly, that system is in place to overrule the potential pledged delegate win of an outsider: as some once suspected Sanders would have been able to accomplish.

What TYT is saying is that unless the DNC sticks to their initial plan to nominate the candidate best suited for defeating Trump (granted, this theory relies on polling), then the superdelegate system needs to be abolished. If there is a sliver of seriousness in this avocation of the superdelegates to back Sanders, then there is not much a defense to be made of TYT or the Sanders camp.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that TYT is completely unbearable

[tallguy23]

TYT are essentially a liberal Fox News at this point. So sad.

[Volrath50]

From a political point of view, I think I agree with many or most positions of TYT, but every time I've had the misfortune of watching them, I find I can't stand them in the slightest.

[Xing]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

[Crumpets]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."

[Lyin' Steve]

They're being facetious, I'm pretty sure. Cenk is mocking the DWS-esque idea that superdelegates exist to ensure the Democratic nominee is the most electable against Trump (even if that means over-writing the will of the voters.) Clearly, that system is in place to overrule the potential pledged delegate win of an outsider: as some once suspected Sanders would have been able to accomplish.

What TYT is saying is that unless the DNC sticks to their initial plan to nominate the candidate best suited for defeating Trump (granted, this theory relies on polling), then the superdelegate system needs to be abolished. If there is a sliver of seriousness in this avocation of the superdelegates to back Sanders, then there is not much a defense to be made of TYT or the Sanders camp.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that TYT is completely unbearable

VILLAINOUS TRUMP RAPES, MURDERS MILLIONS
"Trump raped and murdered millions of innocent women and children"
"No he didn't"
"Agreed but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is a villain so the point stands."

[DS0816]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."

I want superdelegates gone.

I also want closed primaries. gone.

Superdelegates should not a be a part of the process of nominating a presidential candidate. The citizens (and superdelegates are human beings who are also humans) should be allowed one vote. And citizens are the ones to vote the nomination.

I want closed primaries gone because everyone wanting to vote in a presidential primary should have that opportunity. And there is no validity to having any closed primaries when taxpayers are paying to fund holding the elections.

[IceSpear]

So I see they're taking the "pretend Sanders will still win" route. How cowardly. All it does is delay the inevitable reckoning day with the beast they've created. It's like a mini left wing version of FOX News.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^You are aware that if Sanders had "done the right thing" and dropped out after March 15th or April 26th, you would have had to deal with Hillary winning West Virginia, right?

[Lyin' Steve]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."

I'm not a strong defender but I'll defend them.  They were put in place so the democrats would stop committing suicide by picking far-left populist candidates like Carter and McGovern.  They immediately succeeded by preventing McGovern's campaign manager and chief acolyte Gary Hart from winning.  Since then the democrats have mostly picked good presidential candidates (Dukakis was a flop, but the alternative was Jesse f**ing Jackson...) so it's hard to argue that the system isn't working.  It's especially hard to argue that the system should be changed because the superdelegates once again prevented an unelectable far-left populist who ran against the party from winning.

The GOP would give it's right arm to have had superdelegates this cycle.  A surge of endorsements for Rubio early might have given him an early delegate lead and more media credibility to combat Trump's win-win-win thing.  Now they're stuck with an unelectable far-right populist who ran against the party.

[IceSpear]

^^You are aware that if Sanders had "done the right thing" and dropped out after March 15th or April 26th, you would have had to deal with Hillary winning West Virginia, right?

When did I say he should drop out? It doesn't really make a difference to me whether he does or not. I said they should stop lying to their audience about him having a legitimate chance to win. This also goes for the other clickbaiter morons like H.A. Goodman, Seth Abramson, and the like. They're bigger jokes than Dick Morris and Dean Chambers combined (who ironically, I'm sure they mocked in 2012.) At least Romney had a chance of winning that didn't involve fantastical and utterly ludicrous events.

Oh, and she still might have lost it anyway. Do you really think WV voters are the type of people to care whether or not someone dropped out? lol. A convicted felon/prison inmate nearly beat the incumbent president.

[IceSpear]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."

I want superdelegates gone.

I also want closed primaries. gone.

Superdelegates should not a be a part of the process of nominating a presidential candidate. The citizens (and superdelegates are human beings who are also humans) should be allowed one vote. And citizens are the ones to vote the nomination.

I want closed primaries gone because everyone wanting to vote in a presidential primary should have that opportunity. And there is no validity to having any closed primaries when taxpayers are paying to fund holding the elections.

A closed primary is more democratic than an open caucus, which you curiously do not mention here. I wonder why...

[Ronnie]

The panelists on TYT are incredibly hackish, but their ramblings seem reasonable compared to the latest H.A. Goodman and Seth Abramson articles.  Those two clearly live on a different planet than the rest of us.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^You are aware that if Sanders had "done the right thing" and dropped out after March 15th or April 26th, you would have had to deal with Hillary winning West Virginia, right?

When did I say he should drop out? It doesn't really make a difference to me whether he does or not. I said they should stop lying to their audience about him having a legitimate chance to win.

A lot of the whole "BERNIE CAN WIN" mantra is pushed on by the candidate himself saying things along the lines of "The math is tough, flipping superdelegates is tough, but this candidacy has been extraordinary and can achieve anything!". The only way to turn off that is for Bernie to drop out - or outright admit he's going to lose, which candidates just don't say.

[Xing]

Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.

Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."

I know some folks who strongly defend super delegates. They claim that if only Republicans had super delegates, Trump might've lost.

[IceSpear]

^^You are aware that if Sanders had "done the right thing" and dropped out after March 15th or April 26th, you would have had to deal with Hillary winning West Virginia, right?

When did I say he should drop out? It doesn't really make a difference to me whether he does or not. I said they should stop lying to their audience about him having a legitimate chance to win.

A lot of the whole "BERNIE CAN WIN" mantra is pushed on by the candidate himself saying things along the lines of "The math is tough, flipping superdelegates is tough, but this candidacy has been extraordinary and can achieve anything!". The only way to turn off that is for Bernie to drop out - or outright admit he's going to lose, which candidates just don't say.

I'm sure Wendy Long and Ron Crumpton talk about how they can defy the odds and win as well. I'm pretty sure Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, and Lincoln Chafee did the same. OBVIOUSLY the politicians themselves are going to say those things. They're not going to admit their campaign is hopeless. It's up to their supporters to not be morons and kool-aid drinkers and look at the actual facts. It's okay to support and vote for someone knowing they have no chance to win. It's called being realistic. I still would've voted for Hillary in 08 (had I been old enough) even though by the time PA came her path to the nomination was essentially closed. I certainly wasn't entertaining scenarios about her winning the state by 50 points based off no evidence.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

From a political point of view, I think I agree with many or most positions of TYT, but every time I've had the misfortune of watching them, I find I can't stand them in the slightest.

Same here. It's like seeing the "Bernie can win if he gets 81% in CA" posts. Yes, it is mathematically possible to him to get a majority of pledged delegates. It's not going to happen though. People that actually believe it are just setting themselves up for disappointment. It's a testament to the Sanders campaign that he was able to win states other than Vermont and New Hanpshire. I figured he was basically going to be Bill Bradley 2.0 with the addition of two states. Instead he's won something like 20 states and has had and will have a yooj impact on the Democratic Party Platform and the ideas that Democrats espouse. But instead, people have deluded themselves into thinking that he can still win. Sanders isn't stupid. I guarantee that he knows he can't win and that he's known that since at least March 15th, if not earlier. He says that he can win to drum up support for his ideas, which was ultimately why he ran in the first place. People are talking about his ideas and Hillary is taking notice, as she should. I have no doubt that any Bernie supporter that actually believes in a majority of his platform (especially in regards to civil rights/minorities) would want Trump as president, even over Hillary. That kind of Bernie supporter (see Paul 2008/2012 as well as Trump 2016) is basically the anger at the establishment type that has no real political ideas aside from opposing the status quo.

At this point, it will drive down enthusiasm for Hillary. TYT and the like are basically doing the Republicans work at this point. Hillary definitely has her flaws, but they're nothing compared to the Donald's temper tantrum of a campaign. Hell, Bernie has his flaws. Namely his lack of major support for candidates that share his views, such as John Fetterman.

All of that said, I still marked Bernie for President on my mail in ballot today.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I feel for Bernie. The super-delegate system is garbage.

The whole process of nominating Presidential candidates appears dodgy on so many levels.

[Cruzcrew]

Not happening lol