Home | About | Donate

After Big Wins Out West, Sanders Seeking Superdelegate Switcharoos



Sorry Hillary, we're just not into you...


Why is the constant reporting that Sanders only picked up 35 net delegates for the weekend (10 in alaska, 9 in hawaii and 16 in washington)? When i look at the breakdown, it shows
Washington · 101 delegates
Sanders has won 25, clinton has won 9.

That only adds up to 34. Where are the other 67 delegates? If bernie won 70% of those also, he would have picked up something like another 40 delegates this weekend.

Everywhere I look, they are only reporting using these numbers. Is this just another excuse to downplay the impact of the weekend thrashing he delivered?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Also, everyone must contest the results of Clinton's so-called "victories" which were conducted under most suspicious circumstances. There is also a need to question why Hawaii took so long to reveal the results: could it be that Bernie had dealt a really crushing blow, e.g., winning by over 90 percent, and thus the Clintonites found it necessary to lessen the damage to their candidate? Unless such questions are satisfactorily answered, any ultimate Clinton "victory" must be considered invalid.


If Bernie wins in Wisconsin, California and New York it will put a lot of pressure on the super delegates to switch to Bernie and another good thing; it will expose the open-minded super delegates that want to beat Trump from the corrupt, close-minded super delegates like Debbie Schultz, that will back HRC even if it means losing to Trump.


Clinton has 2 1/2 million more votes than Sanders. Shouldn't the super delegates go with the popular vote?


The pledged delegates are what counts now and they will be what decides the convention.


Because Clintins wins happen in states where people actually vote, rather than caucuses? How would that make them invalid?


I can only hope they will. That they won't is my fear. But the voting ain't over, my friend.


You can't compare the total # of votes because some states are primaries and some are caucuses. Some are open. Some are closed. Comparing primaries to caucuses on vote counts is apples and oranges.

The pledged delegate counts are the best measure overall.

But, if you are a superdelegate from Washington, where bernie just destroyed clinton, there is no way you can claim to be representing the will of your voters if you don't go with bernie.


If Sanders wins in Wisconsin, New York, California he would likely be the nominee. If he loses New York, plus Penn. Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, it is unlikely he would then go on to carry Ca but even so. Clinton will be the nominee. The super delegates will not decide the issue.


Washington superdelegates also need to consider the State's voting statistics. For example: where independents do much better than in most states (didn't Perot get 30% in 1992 compared to 18% nationally ?), and superdelegate Governor Inslee barely won in 2012 and is less popular now. Anybody who attended the open caucuses (not just WA) during the past week noticed that dyed-in-the-wool Democrats participating were greatly outnumbered by independents.


Why would independents be a bad thing? These are democratic operatives who are hoping to further their own chances of winning elections.

You would think they would prefer a candidate who is getting independents involved and voting (since it makes it much more likely that they will benefit from those independents voting down the ticket). Basically, with more independents voting democratic...they are more likely to win statewide office.

Why on earth would you consider independents as a negative for a candidate?


No. Comparing elections to caucuses is comparing ten to a hundred thousand, or tens of thousands to a million. Clinton leads by 2 1/2 million votes. That's a lot of apples.


Look at Trump. He wins big in open primaries, not so big in primaries where only Republicans vote. A Green Party member boasted here about becoming a Democratic county delegate, but remaining Green. Why is that ethical?


That is the latest Clinton talking-point attempt to move the goal posts and is just plain ridiculous.

When Sanders catches up in pledged delegates, this is their attempt to try to say that she still "deserves" the nomination and that the superdelegates should override the will of the people.

Let the states play out and we'll see who has more delegates (excluding super delegates) at the convention. If Sanders wins that, but then Hillary tries these games to try to buy off the insiders to vote for her, then I think there will be quite a major issue at the convention.


Its ethical because the end goal is to win the presidency. Democrats do that when they get independents to vote for their candidate. Why would we not want to take their input into account and maximize our chance of actually winning in November.

Isn't that what this is all about?


This could be a historic convention. All the elements are present for a major breakup of the Democratic Party. The notion that a couple thousand Bernie delegates will accept defeat at the hands of a couple hundred ward heelers from around the nation, won't wash, all hell is likely to break out, on the floor and in the streets. This is serious busness, and I suspect the supers know it. Feel the Bern in Philly.


You may want to look at Nate Silvers FiveThreeEight site. He gives a state by state breakdown that I would trust more.