DWS: superdelegates exist to stop grassroot activists

[Beet]

I would fully support Clinton even if she snatched victory from Sanders by one superdelegate. No matter what you think of the superdelegates, the rules are the rules and if Sanders didn't like them, he shouldn't have played.

[Beet]

She can't win the nomination with super-delegates and then win in November. This is why she was blocked from winning with them in 2008. Since she has attacked Sanders as disloyal to Obama, he may as well remind South Carolina she tried to do that. If she relies on superdelegates to be nominated, she surrenders the electability argument to Sanders. (in Debbie's defense, she's not the one who created super-delegates. Still, a Clinton loyalist shouldn't be chairwoman during this primary.)

Yeah, I don't think anyone who wants the Democratic party to win in November wants the nominee to win the primary just because of superdelegates.

Primary battles are overrated when it comes to the general. By November anyone who really cares about the future of the country, and is in a battleground state, will pick one of the viable candidates. Hillary herself is a great example. She won the most votes but was still denied the nomination; nonetheless did you see her endorsement and nonstop campaigning for Obama in 2008? She was on fire!

[Beet]

She can't win the nomination with super-delegates and then win in November. This is why she was blocked from winning with them in 2008. Since she has attacked Sanders as disloyal to Obama, he may as well remind South Carolina she tried to do that. If she relies on superdelegates to be nominated, she surrenders the electability argument to Sanders. (in Debbie's defense, she's not the one who created super-delegates. Still, a Clinton loyalist shouldn't be chairwoman during this primary.)

Yeah, I don't think anyone who wants the Democratic party to win in November wants the nominee to win the primary just because of superdelegates.

Primary battles are overrated when it comes to the general. By November anyone who really cares about the future of the country, and is in a battleground state, will pick one of the viable candidates. Hillary herself is a great example. She won the most votes but was still denied the nomination; nonetheless did you see her endorsement and nonstop campaigning for Obama in 2008? She was on fire!

Hillary only 'won the most votes' because caucus votes weren't counted.

Caucuses aren't real votes.

[Beet]

Who's whining. We're the ones with 400 superdelegates. You guys are whining. The rules are the rules. If you don't like them, change them next time (and I would support you), but I hope Hillary takes advantage of every possible advantage, including winning with superdelegates if the need arises. If you don't like it, file a lawsuit. Don't vote for her. Riot. Do whatever you want. But she has a right to look out for her self-interest and I hope she does.

[Beet]

Who's whining. We're the ones with 400 superdelegates. You guys are whining. The rules are the rules. If you don't like them, change them next time (and I would support you), but I hope Hillary takes advantage of every possible advantage, including winning with superdelegates if the need arises. If you don't like it, file a lawsuit. Don't vote for her. Riot. Do whatever you want. But she has a right to look out for her self-interest and I hope she does.

She won't do that. She is perfectly aware that if she wins only thanks to superdelegates, media will repeat until November that she is illegitimate and that the party stole the victory.

Electorally, the result would be calamitous for both her and the party.

And if she concedes the race to someone else despite having more delegates she gives up her one chance to become president. If it was me, I'd take that those odds. You may be right that she wouldn't. Either way, my point is that it's her right to choose either way, in that event. She runs according to the rules as given by the party, she didn't make them. She can play the game according to the rules and win fair and square.

[Beet]

Well, here's a case where everyone is against me, and I'm probably hurting my own candidate by pursuing this line further, but I just don't get it.

Forget Hillary for a moment.

By this line of argumentation, no less-electable candidate should ever run for their party's nomination against a more-electable candidate, because if they won, they'd be hurting their party's chances and thus their own constituency.

In a free society, everyone is entitled to act in their self-interest. I don't expect here anyone to care about Hillary's self-interest, but she herself certainly can without being blamed. If a person has a realistic shot at the presidency of the United States, especially after working at it for a decade, it's not absurd to expect them to take it. That's all. It will probably be as Mr. Morden said, the superdelegates acting in their own self interest and abandoning Hillary. That's much more reasonable.