And those people are bullshit, and I think Sanders has called them out as much as he can be expected to do. Myself I’ve called them out so much here that I suspect some people don’t believe I’m actually supporting Sanders at all :).
The Super-Ds should do what they are supposed to do-- support whom they think has the best chance in the general. I’m not sure if this was the same interview I heard, but Bernie was making a good point about HRC killing it in states like Mississippi, but neither of them is going to win that state in the general election. He’s winning in states where the Dems have a good chance. We’ll have to see how this plays out going forward.
Yeah, I was kinda half & half Clinton vs Sanders (I like Sanders better, but I think Clinton can get more done in office) but the bullshit GOP type propaganda spread by the “Sandernistas” has pushed me more into the Hillary camp.
Not to mention too many of them are saying they will vote for Trump if Sanders loses. :eek:
To which I say “Get the fuck out of my Democratic Party!”:mad:
If their commitment to the democrat process is that fickle, and they’re that petulant, I suspect they simply wouldn’t bother voting at all.
That’s an interesting premise John. Basically your suggestion is to ignore most of the voters and to instead have the supers send their collective weight to the candidate who wins the most EVs in swing states, preferably by a large enough margin to lay claim that they are by far the stronger candidate there.
Of course that disenfranchisement of a majority of voters and states is likely to play poorly down ticket and would therefore be very much against the greater interests of the party. It is stating explicitly that voters in Texas, for example, do not matter, because Texas will stay red for this cycle and at least a few more.
Meanwhile let’s accept your theory as a hypothetical to work with. Which of the potential swing states have so far been won by decisive margins? Which are upcoming? Which ones matter the most?
Virgina? 13 EV. Went to Clinton 64/35
Ohio? 18 EV. We’ll find out Tuesday but polling (could be very wrong) has her up by 20.
Florida? 29 EV. We’ll find out Tuesday, same caution until then, but polling has her up 31.5.
North Carolina? 15 EV. Same with current polling up 19.8
Colorado? 9 EV. A caucus result 59 to 40 for Sanders.
Pennsylvania? 20 EV. Does not vote until April 26. Current polling Clinton up 23.3. Extra caution.
Nevada? 6 EV. Caucus result 53 to 47 Clinton
New Mexico? 5 EV. No data. Not until June 7.
Wisconsin? 10 EV. Not until April 5, little polling which says toss up.
You want to add Michigan despite the fact that its D lean was over the mean for the country by 9% in 2008 and 7% in 2012 and even ramping up White non-college educated does not get it to flip on the 538 app before the GOP has already won 325 to 213? Sure. An extremely narrow Sanders win.
Specific to a Trump induced increased White non-college educated turnout and share, maybe these two become swings:
Iowa? 6 EV. A very narrow Clinton caucus win.
New Hampshire? 4 EV. 60 to 38 Sanders win.
So.
For races already taken place, counting only very convincing victories, the EV totals in potential swing states: Clinton 13; Sanders 10. Count Nevada’s 6 point margin and it goes to 19 to 10, but 6 points does not seem convincing enough. I’d like to see 8 or 9 to consider it resounding.
Assuming polls are not off by more than 10 then Tuesday will bring her convincing wins of 62 more potential swing state EVs. (FL, OH, and NC. IL and MO do not matter.) So we’ll know that in a very few days. Remaining potential swings have 35 EVs total; even he pulled impressive wins in each of PA, NM, and WI, he would still not be able to argue being better with “the states that actually matter.” Granting him those hypothetical resounding victories in those states she’d still be substantially better placed to be winning 71 more potential swing state EVs in the general than he would be. The states that matter.
He’d have to argue that winning Alaska, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, and the Dakotas is what really matters for winning the general.
Or maybe by number of races won? Not a rational argument but sure, WTH. So far he’s won 9 to her 13. Going by polls when available or 50/50 lean when not, he’s on track to win 18 of the remainder to her 11. Total 24 races Clinton to Sanders 27! There you have it! The supers would have to see that three more race wins obligates them to flip!
Let’s simplify this DSeid, what should the Supes do if Bernie ends up winning 30 states to Hillary’s 20, and Bernie’s 30 are the heavily Blue states to boot? Forget about the margins and regular delegate counts, should the Super Delegates from states Bernie wins throw their representation his way? What if Bernie wins the majority of delegates in the Blue states? He begins to appear as the choice of the Democratic party and it’s independent leaners, should the Supes back the candidate they decided on before the argument even began, or consider the party and the people and their judgment?
If we look at the Super Delegate premise we see that it retains a lot of power in the party leaders even though the idea was to spread delegate representation among the broader body of the party. When the Super Delegates announce their support before we get to see the candidates contend they influence the process initially, shouldn’t they have a responsibility to reconsider the party’s voice at the end of the process also?
There are two competing roles for the supe’s. I’m not sure which role is truly primary in the minds of the folks who invented the rules.
One is as TriPolar describes. … On the eve of the convention to look at the current landscape and decide who is most likely to beat the R nominee in the EC and back that person.
The other role is to decide *a priori *before the primaries begin which candidate the establishment conventional wisdom wants to present as the heir apparent. Who also becomes the R’s designated punching bag during primary season to the degree the R’s have any energy left over after whacking one another.
Life is simple for a super when there’s not much difference between the big picture at the start and at the end. But when there is, it gets complicated.
It’s even further complicated now, in the middle, when we can see the picture *might *be changing from the *a priori *assumptions. The pieces are shifting, but they may fall back into the original alignment, or they may settle into a new one. Everyone has an opinion today, but nobody will know for sure until the last primary ballot has been counted.
I think **TriPolar **raises a particularly thorny question in general: What if the D pledged delegate leader is particularly popular in safe red states while the runner-up is particularly popular in safe blue states? One can argue this isn’t a very likely scenario, but one has to admit it is a possible scenario. A separate argument is whether that’s what has/is/will happen in 2016, but I want to talk about it in generalities, not specifics.
My take is the supe’s need to be very circumspect about going against the pledged delegate plurality for anything but truly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Double-plus-good for evidence that’s real easy to explain to a skeptical D electorate. And ideally the overwhelming evidence will have come to light late, long after most primary votes were cast.
The R dream of a Clinton indictment just before the D convention is an example of something where it’d be smart, easy to explain, and IMO highly acceptable to the rank and file for the supe’s to abandon Clinton for Sanders en masse. It’s a darn good question how much less of a Clinton-explodes scenario could justify that. Clinton with a sizeable pledged delegate lead but Sanders doing slightly better in the plausible swing states? IMO that’s pretty weak sauce to justify the supes switching to back the People’s non-choice.
As the Rs are about to learn, if winning the Presidency splits the party one might do better to lose and try again in 4 years.
Bottom line: the supe’s role in not entirely the one in my second paragraph. It’s also properly the one in my third. The mix between them is situational and volatile. Proceeding from the assumption it’s all one or all the other is wrong & leads to wrong conclusions.
One last comment for TriPolar specifically: Count of states won is news media garbage. It’s meaningless in and of itself. It signifies nothing and should be put out of your mind as a skilled political analyst.
Only one thing matters: total votes in the EC. You can lose 47 states and win the country. Just make sure you can win the right 3 states.
Late edit- This:
Should read:
Only one thing matters: total votes in the EC. You can lose **39 **states and win the country. Just make sure you can win the right 11 states.
So no fighting the hypothetical of “forget about the margins and regular delegate counts”? And I assume forget about the overall popular vote?
In that case safe Blue states matter no more and probably less than safe Red states do. Your “simplified” question quickly becomes anything but.
Under the current set of rules, in which the supers are not bound by state results but by their assessment of the best interests of the party overall, the supers would need to consider:
The impact on important potentially close down ticket races. These are most likely to be in purple states but may be anywhere. This cycle there are Senate toss-ups in Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire. The Wisconsin and Illinois races lean D but are not safe. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arizona lean R but are potential pick ups. There are House toss-ups in Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Nebraska, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Texas. And of course they need to consider in each race’s case if the result in the Democratic primary was indicative of the down-ticket impact. In some cases the more extreme candidate may win a primary or a caucus but drive the majority of general election voters away.
What would be the impact on turnout of over-ruling a pledged delegate and popular vote result? Is the fracture that such would cause worth the plus side?
And yes the swing states matter. The most important states this go are likely to be Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa. Florida by itself, not heavily Blue, matters much more than do Rhode Island, Delaware, DC, Vermont, Hawaii, and Vermont combined. They are going to be won in any case and have less EV all put together than does Florida alone. In this hypothetical is there convincing reason to think that one will do better in those swing states?
Who do they think will hold up better in a general contest?
Meanwhile LSLGuy? Which 3 states add up to 270?? No, you need more than 3 to win. Maybe 12.
It’s still more of an inference than a statement, but this reading makes more sense in context - here’s the question he was responding to:
I’m still not by any means convinced that that’s what he was saying, but it’s at least plausible if you consider the question as well as his actual statement.
Precisely. What Sanders is saying is that while thecurrent delegate count has Clinton with an insurmountable lead of 1223 vs 573, this doesn’t tell the whole story. If he wins that majority of the pledged delegates, the Super delegates would have to have a damn good reason to stick with Clinton and overturn the will of the people. Prior to Trump/Cruz’s near inevitability, Clinton having a better shot against a moderate in the general election might have provided such a damn good reason, but now that that rationale has been brought into question, it is much less likely that the Super delegates will opt for an active role as kingmaker.
Given the love the establishment has for Clinton I don’t that under any circumstances, Sanders will win a majority of the Super delegates, but if he comes out with say 2050/4050 pledged delegates in his favor, I suspect that enough super delegates will switch over to him to grant him the nomination. So rather than saying that Sanders is behind 574 to 1223 on the road to 2,382. It is probably better to say that Sanders is behind 542 to 748 on the road to 2,026.
That was just to pose the hypothetical. It’s good enough if you assume that the mix of states in question correlates with delegates and other statistical factors. Not that it happens that way in real life though.
That is what it comes down to. If there is a close enough result in the primary they’ll have to consider that, and in that consideration look at the trends in the later stages of the primaries. That’s going to be a tough call for the Supes though, there would need to be clear signs that the party is dropping support for the delegate leader before they’d flip. And in a case like this where there isn’t that much distance between the candidates on the issues there’s even less incentive for a Super or the party at large to change sides.
Ah, man! 
I thought this was going to be some sort of tie in to the Incredibles , with the supers saving him at the convention from the evil Clintonerella (with cape, of courese). Talk about dashed hopes…
Hmm… my first thought was something about floor refinishing in rental apartments.
Um, 549 to 772 per 538, and 549 to 766 per CNN.
And yes that was the question he was asked. Given that massive pledged delegate deficit, how do you prevail? And the answer was I will win more states from here, states that matter in the general, and the supers will see that, and my general election head to heads being better than hers, and come to my side.
Again the exact quote:
Emphasis mine.
That is indeed the one thing he has a chance of doing, winning more states. So that now becomes the metric that he argues matters.
Show me where he discusses that they will rethink their commitment to her based on his winning more pledged delegates and more popular vote.
You read something into what he said that he did not state.
But for the fun of it let me ask the question, whether or not you agree with what I see as the clear meaning of his answer: if he loses the pledged delegate count should the supers switch if he wins more states?
ETA: alliteration gets no respect!
The thread is yet young. Put on your creative writing hat and entertain us all with your version of The Incredibles vs Hilleralla. Or should that be The Incredibles vs the Evil Stepmother?
As did you, IMHO.
Based on that single criteria alone, no.
For what it’s worth, I’ve reflected a bit and I now take Sanders to mean exactly what he said – if he continues to win states, we’ll see some superdelegates “rethink their commitment” to Clinton. I’d also note that taken literally, it’s a rather tepid statement. What does it look like when someone is rethinking something? How will we “see” that? Will superdelegates be walking around, heads on their fists, furrowing their brows in deep thought? Hard to say. It’s vague enough to be almost meaningless, almost as if he’s talking like a politician.
It’s that fine line between giving his supporters hope while promising nothing. He has to be careful as well because some superdelegates have already been on the receiving end of harassing messages from Bernheads, and he doesn’t want to ignite another round of that.
Well apparently others also understand that his current approach is as I understood his statement.