Have superdelegates helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign?

[Nichlemn]

Getting this in now while it remains uncertain whether Sanders will use "I'll flip the superdelegates" as a justification to try to stay in.

[IceSpear]

Nobody voted based off a number on the NY Times or CNN website. This is a pathetic excuse. If you're going to blame something, blame the debate schedule.

Superdelegates are worthless though and do nothing besides breed resentment, and that goes for any year.

[Pyro]

Definitely hurt, but it didn't matter in the end, did it?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Sanders is going to be a footnote in history in the Mo Udall/Eugene McCarthy tradition.  It's his choice.  He'll be constructive if he chooses the Mo Udall route.  He'll be a train wreck if he goes the McCarthy route.

[SillyAmerican]

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Agreed; nothing says "fairness" like stacking the deck and shrugging it off after doing so.

[RaphaelDLG]

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

In terms of Hillary's vote totals and lack of electoral challenges, OBVIOUSLY this. 

It's astounding that this option is losing 25-75%/a testament to how warped perception is around here.

Most nobody knows the difference between a delegate and a superdelegate, and if the supers hurt hillary reputationally, it's among sanders diehards or after the fact.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Agreed; nothing says "fairness" like stacking the deck and shrugging it off after doing so.

It should be noted that "superdelegates" were implemented to (A) give extra power to states which provide actual Democratic officeholders, and (B) prevent the Democratic Party from nominating a candidate so far from the Democratic mainstream as to cause McGovern III (Mondale was McGovern II).  The Democratic Party lost 49 states twice in 12 years and it wasn't THAT long ago.  They have never gotten over the McGovern and Mondale debacles, and have done everything to prevent them.

In that respect, the "superdelegates" were an attempt to ensure that the Democratic nominee for President was representative of the party as a whole, and not just its leftist base groups that disproportionately vote in primaries.  The Democrats are not the "big tent" they once were, but the superdelegates do put a check on a process that isn't always reflective of "the will of the people".  Hillary did win more votes, more states, etc.  As much as I dislike her, she deserves the Democratic nomination for President.  There is no basis on which one can say otherwise.

[SillyAmerican]

They have helped.  They have preserved the "inevitability" of Hillary's nomination in the minds of many Democrats.  Sanders would have had a stronger case had the delegate count been closer. 

Agreed; nothing says "fairness" like stacking the deck and shrugging it off after doing so.

It should be noted that "superdelegates" were implemented to (A) give extra power to states which provide actual Democratic officeholders, and (B) prevent the Democratic Party from nominating a candidate so far from the Democratic mainstream as to cause McGovern III (Mondale was McGovern II).  The Democratic Party lost 49 states twice in 12 years and it wasn't THAT long ago.  They have never gotten over the McGovern and Mondale debacles, and have done everything to prevent them.

In that respect, the "superdelegates" were an attempt to ensure that the Democratic nominee for President was representative of the party as a whole, and not just its leftist base groups that disproportionately vote in primaries.  The Democrats are not the "big tent" they once were, but the superdelegates do put a check on a process that isn't always reflective of "the will of the people".  Hillary did win more votes, more states, etc.  As much as I dislike her, she deserves the Democratic nomination for President.  There is no basis on which one can say otherwise.

Yes. I think that Clinton actually believes she's above the rules that exist for us underlings, and can do no wrong. That said, you're absolutely right: she has won more votes, more states, and deserves the nomination of her party (despite her not earning my support/vote).

My big objection to "superdelegates" has to do with what Bernie Sanders was saying: very little justification can be made for having such delegates committed to a candidate prior to any primary or caucus having taken place. I understand the reasoning behind having the mechanism itself (and actually don't disagree with said reasoning), it's just that I would hope the party would be sensitive to voter's feeling disempowered by such tinkerings. Hopefully, tweaks can be made so that future contests don't have such an "insiders know best" feel to them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Primary: helped
General: hurt, not that the Hillary campaign gives a sh**t

[ElectionsGuy]

There's no way they helped considering she easily won a majority of pledged delegates. The fact that they exist as a mechanism to protect the establishment and that they overwhelmingly backed Clinton could totally be used against Clinton.

[RaphaelDLG]

There's no way they helped considering she easily won a majority of pledged delegates. The fact that they exist as a mechanism to protect the establishment and that they overwhelmingly backed Clinton could totally be used against Clinton.

Have you ever heard of the "bandwagon effect?"

[mgop]

lol at those who vote hurt. if they really wanna "hurt" her, they will vote for bernie at the convention.

[Figueira]

I think we'd all be better off if superdelegates were ignored until after the voting took place.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Unquestionably hurt. They gave ammunition to the argument that the process was rigged in her favor from the get-go, and then they gave ammunition to the argument that her opponent could use them to rig the process in his favor, even though these two arguments are completely contradictory.

[IceSpear]

There's no way they helped considering she easily won a majority of pledged delegates. The fact that they exist as a mechanism to protect the establishment and that they overwhelmingly backed Clinton could totally be used against Clinton.

Have you ever heard of the "bandwagon effect?"

The bandwagon effect was never really present in the D primary. Even after each candidate got yuge wins, they got little to no "momentum" out of them. Considering that, I highly doubt any people were switching their votes based off a number on CNN or the AP's website.

[Maxwell]

Hurt - Otherwise it would've been a clear Clinton win with no gimmicks.

[Vosem]

The argument that superdelegates hurt Hillary's campaign is equivalent to the argument that Cruz's victory in Colorado helped Trump. Victories always help you, that's the point of them. You can fight your opponent painting your victories as unfair, but your opponent can't really fight the edge in delegates you gained by your victory.

[IceSpear]

The argument that superdelegates hurt Hillary's campaign is equivalent to the argument that Cruz's victory in Colorado helped Trump. Victories always help you, that's the point of them. You can fight your opponent painting your victories as unfair, but your opponent can't really fight the edge in delegates you gained by your victory.

The difference is that "momentum"/bandwagoning actually existed on the GOP side. After NY the party's voters collectively decided enough is enough and wanted to get the primary over with. That may have partially been due to Trump's rigged system arguments.

[Gustaf]

The hurt argument would have a lot more cred if it weren't for most news outlets focusing on the pledged delegates in all reporting and everyone being aware that Clinton's superdelegate lead meant nothing in 2008.

And as noted there was zero evidence of bandwagon effects in the Dem primary anyway. They clearly hurt her. It allowed BernieBros to muddle the waters and pretend things were rigged when the truth is that they just lost the election by a significant margin.

[Figueira]

There's no way they helped considering she easily won a majority of pledged delegates. The fact that they exist as a mechanism to protect the establishment and that they overwhelmingly backed Clinton could totally be used against Clinton.

Have you ever heard of the "bandwagon effect?"

The bandwagon effect was never really present in the D primary. Even after each candidate got yuge wins, they got little to no "momentum" out of them. Considering that, I highly doubt any people were switching their votes based off a number on CNN or the AP's website.

There was a bandwagon effect, but it happened early on, and it was more about who people's Facebook friends were supporting than who was actually winning contests.