2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders' problem: Winning over Clinton's superdelegates
WASHINGTON -- Bernie Sanders has a problem.
Remember those superdelegates, the Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who can vote for the candidate of their choice? The ones Sanders' supporters have been complaining about for months? It turns out, to have a shot at beating out Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, he needs them.
A lot of them.
He needs the ones who remain uncommitted, as well as more than 200 of those who have already publicly endorsed Clinton. Mathematically, Sanders cannot win the nomination without that support.
On Saturday, Sanders netted more than two dozen delegates over Clinton in Washington state after the party released vote data broken down by congressional district.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article76482787.html#storylink=cpy
msongs
(67,509 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,755 posts)When Sanders fails to convince many, if any, to change their support from Clinton to him it will flip back to the other side of the coin again.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)Perhaps Sanders supporters have complained about superdelegates, as the article asserts, but Bernie's position on them has been consistent.
Some invoke the following to accuse Sanders of contradicting himself:
Interview with Rachel Maddow at the end of March (Source)
The above expresses the view that voters in the states he won overwhelmingly are going to question the superdelegates who ignore their clear choice. That's not many states. It follows that the voters in states that Clinton won overwhelmingly are going to question any superdelegates who endorse him.
It also follows that voters in states in which the race was close don't have much cause to question the choices of the superdelegates based on the results in their state. That could be a factor, but other factors may be given more weight.
This statement is not, as some have claimed, a call for superdelegates to go with the one who has the most pledged delegates on June 15.
In the same interview, he goes on to say:
It's perfectly reasonable for superdelegates in states in which a win is not decisive to make their choice based on their judgment of which candidate will be stronger against Trump. It's also reasonable for them to go with the one who wins the most pledged delegates overall. He notes that the latter is most likely.
His point has always been simple: "Wait until voters in every state have their say, and then give the superdelegates a chance to consider, perhaps change their minds, and vote accordingly at the convention.
No one can possibly argue that the race did not change substantially after most of the superdelegates came out and endorsed Clinton. He is right. He needs to stay in until the convention to give those superdelegates a chance to take subsequent developments into account.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)What a complement! Much appreciated.
Maybe give this old version of the post (as an OP) a kick:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511899803