DWS: superdelegates exist to stop grassroot activists

[Adam Griffin]

How has this woman remained dnc chair for so long?

I think DNC Chair elections are only every 4 years or so.

Yeah, there's no official vote on her leadership until the DNC 2016 winter meeting. But Obama could use his influence to force her out at any random moment, the DNC as a whole wouldn't dare oppose him.

It surprises me that Obama hasn't tried taking her out yet after all the dumb s--- she's said.

Because Debbie has threatened to call him sexist if he does. Dead serious.

I really don't think DWS would go that far. Can somebody give me proof on this?

Google something like "DWS Obama anti-woman anti-Semitic". There were 2 different pieces from Politico that covered this - one in more detail than the other. Obama does not like DWS. He was apparently considering replacing her after the 2012 election, at which point she got paranoid and was planning to begin attacking him as "anti-woman" and "anti-Semitic" if he did. I don't think it would have worked: I'm not really sure why he didn't follow through with it.


Also, as far as I recall, superdelegates haven't actually decided/flipped the outcome of a single election other than maybe 2008 (and even then, I'm pretty sure that Obama won both the PV & delegates when excluding MI & FL's disqualifications). If Sanders somehow had a PV and/or delegate advantage - especially in the case of the latter - and the superdelegates threw it to Clinton, you can rest assured that Clinton will be destroyed in the general along with the Democratic Party.

[Prince of Salem]

I think if Sanders continues to win primaries and lose delegate count, The Dem establishment is asking for trouble.

[This account no longer in use.]

Even if you agree with DWS, it's important not to let the establishment have the only power in the party. The Republicans tried that, and it's not working very well for them.

[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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[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!

[President Johnson]

TRUMP was right when he said that she's a horrible person! She's a disgrace to the Democratic Party. Superdelegates are a scam and should be abolished.

[This account no longer in use.]

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.

[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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

um, i don't think that the last time the democratic party turned its back on democracy that the candidate selected was any more "electable" than the alternatives. if hillary clinton is so great, so electable, she should be able to become the nominee based on votes, not "superdelegates". any suggestion that the primary process is fair or democratic as it currently stands is an utter farce and hillary backers know this. why not simply admit this and quit whining! if hillary lost the nomination based on primaries alone, she was going to go on to lose the general election anyways.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

In primaries where they were both on the ballot, Obama beat Hillary in the popular vote.
She did try to use superdelegates in 2008 to be the nominee anyway but the party recognized how disastrous it would be for them. If she did now she'd lose to even Trump or Cruz.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is... literally true. What's the issue?

Can you imagine if only the activists got to choose the nominee? Holy s*** we'd have never won the White House in a generation.

Yeah, who needs the people who actually invest their time and energy in the party because they care about the beliefs it purports to stand for? Better have a bunch of establishment bigwigs decide everything, that will definitely lead to great candidates and policies.

Sorry to be that guy, but elections are about winning, not feeling good about yourself. Sometimes, like in 08 and 12, you can do that. I mean, I'm in a minority around here by thinking Hillary is a better candidate and I support HER, not support her because I don't support Sanders, but I respect the difference of opinion on that.

But I completely agree with the idea of binning both caucuses and super-delegates.

[MaxQue]

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.

[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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

No one is whining. I am pointing out that you ought not whine if no one takes Hillary seriously as a legitimate candidate if she wins based on "superdelegates". I'll vote for her in November and I'll weep when she inevitably loses. I care more about defeating Republicans than I do about Bernie Sanders. This is why I think that if Hillary Clinton's only possible path to the nomination involves superdelegates that she should gracefully exit the race and allow Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee.

I care about winning elections and promoting legislation/reforms/policies that have the potential to promote the public interest/the common good. I do not care about the "self-interest" of a public figure or what they are "entitled" to do. In fact, I believe that politicians are entitled to sacrifice for the good of the voters that they represent. How would a protracted lawsuit battle do anything to serve the interests of Hillary's base, who are ultimately interested in defending Obama's legacy from the attacks of the GOP? I do not understand your viewpoint. I think it is juvenile.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My God, Hillary wouldn't want to win off the back of superdelegates. If that looks like it'll happen, then whatever happens, HRC won't be the nominee.

[Shadows]

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.

Good luck, this is one of the reason I dislike Hillary & it's not just Hillary it's these mentality & comments.

This is a horrible, unethical person & any decent person should speak against it. Everyone knows this can't be changed mid-way but I hope Sanders tries to do that, working with the party. if elected. I would lose respect for Sanders if he supports this after getting elected. 

[Mr. Morden]

My God, Hillary wouldn't want to win off the back of superdelegates. If that looks like it'll happen, then whatever happens, HRC won't be the nominee.

I think the point is that the choice won't be up to her because the superdelegates, realizing that creating 1968 redux would look terrible and damage her electability so that it would be worse than that of Sanders, won't actually back her if Sanders is the pledged delegate winner.

Thus, sure, the rules are the rules and she's entitled to take a victory via superdelegates.  But it wouldn't happen, because the superdelegates wouldn't go through with it*.

* Should clarify: They wouldn't go through with it, unless some kind of John Edwards 2008-esque scandal befalls Sanders after the primary is over.  Sure, if people vote, and a majority pick one candidate, and then before the convention some huge scandal come out about the presumptive nominee, then in *that* case the superdelegates could overturn the verdict of the primary voters.  But otherwise, I don't see it happening.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My God, Hillary wouldn't want to win off the back of superdelegates. If that looks like it'll happen, then whatever happens, HRC won't be the nominee.

To be fair, could such a result be compared with Bill Shorten winning the parliamentary caucus but not the membership?

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

My God, Hillary wouldn't want to win off the back of superdelegates. If that looks like it'll happen, then whatever happens, HRC won't be the nominee.

To be fair, could such a result be compared with Bill Shorten winning the parliamentary caucus but not the membership?

It's not really comparable, since in Australian political culture, there is not a similar expectation that the party leader is chosen "by the people".  Whatever the intent was when the current party nomination rules were being written decades ago, the American electorate now has the expectation that they get to pick presidential party nominees in some kind of "democratic" manner, even if they don't understand the nuts and bolts of it.

[Torie]

That's a nice way of saying unelected party hacks should have a say, just because they should.

[Averroës Nix]

The single scenario in which I can imagine myself not voting for the Democratic nominee is if there's a clear popular vote or pledged delegate winner who is denied the nomination because of superdelegates. I care enough about process that it would completely discredit any nominee in my eyes.

This should have been fixed after 2008, when it was a real possibility that the superdelegate system would cast doubt on the eventual nominee's legitimacy. The concern, of course, isn't just that Bernie Sanders or some other candidate might not get his or her due, it's that a "superdelegate veto" of a nominee would do immense damage to the party.

I also strongly disagree that the superdelegates have a better sense of who is "electable" compared to the collective wisdom of Democratic primary voters. The interests of the superdelegates are aligned with those of the party as a whole, but they aren't identical.

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.

Presumably - I am not actually sure about this, but I would like to believe that it's true - Hillary Clinton cares about things other than her own odds of becoming the POTUS. And maybe, just maybe, those other priorities should carry enough weight in her decision to not favor accepting a superdelegate-granted victory. What I find perplexing is your insistence that you "hope" that she will, even if the result destroys Democrats in November and alienates reliably Democratic portions of the electorate for years.