The concept of "flipping" Supers

[SheenaR]

I am posting as someone who understands the process. I am aware Supers vote with their state, not at a different time.

What I find so difficult to understand here at DU is this:

For months, when Sanders' supporters bitched about Supers, the Clinton supporters said "That's the rules, too bad" or "Tad Devine created this, complain to him". The Supers, we were told, were designed to make decisions for us and they deserved the status they have been given.

Now, the thought of Supers "changing their mind" is on table for both camps. What is difficult to understand. If I said out loud right now, "I'm voting for X in November", that does NOT bind me to vote for that person and I have the right to vote for whomever I want. Some of these Supers voiced their opinion OVER A YEAR AGO. Why then, (since they are for our betterment and deserve their spot) can they not evaluate the election and vote for the candidate they feel best gives us a chance to win in November?

Subverting the will of the people? That's the whole point we made about Supers from the start and you laughed at us. They are free to vote however they want, regardless of how they publicly stated support previously. THEY have a vote. THEY are not beholden to anyone.

My vote went to my pledged delegates. So did yours. None of our votes will be subverted. And the Supers SHOULD do what YOU all said they should do from the beginning. And that is to choose the candidate that can and will win in November. If that is Clinton in their mind, so be it. But you all laid the rules down that they can do what they want. So if they vote for Sanders at the convention, good for them for seeing the writing on the wall.

And that's why we are still in this to win it. Because we actually WANT to win in November, not because we are "fake Democrats".

Flame away. Thoughtful rant over. At work, and I'm sorry if there are run on sentences.

[hack89]

1. Ignoring its voters is a very dangerous thing for a political party to do.

that is why we all expect, just like in 2008, that the SDs will switch as required to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They will reaffirm the voter's choice, not overturn it.

Why don't you trust the voters?

[lagomorph777]

24. See Bernie's comments on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/

Despite his very consistent position, there is an ongoing meme that Bernie is trying to steal the nomination by flipping the SDs (who were never voted on).

[hack89]

31. That doesn't change things - Hillary will still win.

her landslides were in large states with a lot of delegates. His were not.

[lagomorph777]

36. Fine, so relax. Don't worry about OR, NJ, CA, etc...

It'll all be fine.

[hack89]

38. Where does this notion that particpating in a discussion = "worrying" come from?

we are not locked in a life or death struggle here - we are two people engaged in a political discussion in a forum far removed from the real world. Nobody should be worried about anything here.

[lagomorph777]

39. There seems to be a lot of worry about supers being "flipped" and then you turn the discussion to

Hillary winning no matter what. It all comes across as nervous.

[hack89]

41. The only way Bernie can win is to flip all of Hillary's SDs

it is not complicated. And it never will happen for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being Bernie has no reasonable path to overtake her in pledged delegates. And the SDs will not hand the nomination to the runner up.

Trust me, there is no nervousness. Hillary's lead in delegates is a land slide in historical terms.

[LonePirate]

2. The thought of flipping Supers is not on the table for both camps.

The Hillary side has consistently said the Supers should vote how they want. That position has not changed because they are confident the Supers will remain committed to Hillary.

The Bernie side has performed an about face with regard to Supers. First, it was that they were undemocratic and they should vote how their states voted. Now the Bernie side wants the Supers to vote how they want provided they think the Supers believe Bernie has the best chance to win in November. And somehow many of these people toss out the weathervane moniker for Hillary, unaware of the irony.

[lagomorph777]

25. Oops - Bernie has been extremely consistent despite the recurring meme

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/01/bernie-sanders-says-superdelegates-should-follow-voters-will-in-landslide-states/

[LonePirate]

26. Go back a couple of months here on DU and read all of the undemocratic posts about SDs.

The Bernie camp here on DU has definitely changed their tune regarding SDs.

[lagomorph777]

34. I'm talking about Bernie, not his followers

who may occasionally shoot off our mouths.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/bernie_sanders_to_superdelegates_if_a_candidate_wins_your_state_by_40_or_50_points_who_are_you_going_to_give_your_vote_to.html

Some have tried to portray this (or the courting of SDs) as inconsistent with condemnation of the undemocratic nature of the SD system. Yes, obviously the system is rigged, but if you are competing within it, you are forced to play by the system's rules (or risk being just as bad as the system). So, courting SDs is mandatory.

However, that doesn't change the simple fact that SDs are, by design and intent, undemocratic:
But to be clear, the superdelegate process was designed so the party can stop candidates it determined to be unelectable. “The superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow,” wrote the late Geraldine Ferraro, a member of the Hunt Commission, back in 2008.
https://newrepublic.com/article/129707/superdelegates-really-stop-bernie-sanders

[jwirr]

33. So talking to the SDs about changing their minds due to the

different circumstances today is not allowed. That seems to be a very bad rule. IMO SDs should have kept their mouths shut until the convention and not take the decision out of the hands of the people before there was even a vote.

When they voiced their opinions way back then even Bernie did not believe that he would get this far and we had no idea that the FBI would be investigating Hillary. The SDs were influenced by the establishments of 32 state Democratic Parties who were actually supposed to remain neutral in the primary. But of course now you say that they should not be approached by either of the candidates or us voters.

This is NOT a democracy.

[LonePirate]

44. There are no different circumstances today.

They have always been free to change their minds. Very few have so that tells me nothing has changed from how they see things.

I'm not sure if it is amusing or pathetic to see all of the changed views about SDs - going from despising and threatening them to needing and placating them.

Some of us have remained consistent throughout - they should be abolished.

[brooklynite]

3. Nobody on the Clinton side is complaining that the SDs shouldn't be able to vote for their choice..

...they're pointing out that the SDs choice won't be changing in favor of a second-place candidate because of some six month out national head-to-head polls.

[SheenaR]

8. They are not changing a choice. No choice has been made. Which is my point

[brooklynite]

12. Wrong...a choice HAS been made

400+ Superdelegates have CHOSEN to announce their support for Clinton; they could have announced their choice for Sanders; they could have stayed silent.

They have chosen a candidate. Now, they can CHANGE that choice, but my point is that Sanders hasn't come up with a compelling argument that will lead them to.

[SheenaR]

14. I told my fiance I was going to have fish last night

But when it came down to it, I had leftovers.

Saying something doesn't make it so.

Refresh also, how many made their "choice" when this wasn't even supposed to be a Primary campaign.

Don't think for a second that I cannot fathom what you are saying. I get it. I'm providing a rational alternative explanation to the process.

[panader0]

4. Supers should be flipped..

off and out of the primary process. The very concept that one person can have as much clout as ten or twenty
thousand of us proles is inherently Undemocratic.

[SheenaR]

11. Can't disagree with this

Again, all I can say is when people like me said this earlier on, I was told "too bad, this is how it goes."

[Arkansas Granny]

30. My understanding has been that the role of the supers was to prevent the nomination going to the

Democratic version of Donald Trump.

[panader0]

32. Unfortunately, most of the supers are already doing that.

[jwirr]

35. Totally agree.

[etherealtruth]

5. I am not sure about the wisdom of voting against the majority of primary voters

I am not a big fan of the "super delegate" .... but, if they exist I don't see the wisdom in voting against the wishes of primary voters.

[SheenaR]

13. They are not voting based on anything but their own preference

That's why they are there I was told. They are not required to even examine the results. They vote on their criteria.

[etherealtruth]

19. I know, that's why I am not fond of them ....

.... and can't see the wisdom in voting against what the voters have voted for. Again, I am NOT fond of the concept ... the voters alone should decide.

[SheenaR]

21. Agreed

Even if that meant my candidate loses. But this is the crazy system we were given.

[Tarc]

6. The superdelegates traditionally vote for the person who wins the most pledged delegates

So their role can at most be described as rubber-stamped ceremonial.

At the beginning, particularly after NH, Camp Sanders smugly assumed that their populist message would carry the day, that he would win the most pledged delegates and the overall (though symbolic) popular vote. They stamped and screamed about the superdelegates who had already pledged to Hillary, demanding that they be dissolved or compelled to vote for him so as to not counter the will of the voting public. It was insider politics, collusion, and so on, if they supers did not switch to him at the convention.

But a funny thing happened along the way to Bernie's coronation; he found he has zero appeal with people of color, women, and registered Democrats, thus he is now in an practically insurmountable pledged delegate hole. his only chance now...irony of ironies...is for the supers to do what he feared they'd do for Hillary; jump ship and vote for who they wanted rather than who the voters wanted.

[SheenaR]

10. The explanation I and others were given

when this was supposed to be a romp that would be over in February, was that Supers are not rubber stamped. They are charged with what is best for the Party.

[Tarc]

16. Then you were misinformed or misunderstood

[SheenaR]

17. I was informed by Clinton supporters here at DU. Duly noted.

[firebrand80]

7. They can certianly go against the PD winner

if they so choose. However, the voters on the other side would be justifiably upset. I don't the think the SDs would want to go down that road.

Think about it this way: If they did the same thing to Bernie, would you be ok with it? Would most Bernie supporters go home and say "oh well, that's the process?"

[SheenaR]

9. They aren't going against anything. They are independent of all

They vote how they want to vote.

[firebrand80]

15. Yes, those are the rules

The next questions are: what are they likely to do, why are they likely to do it, and what are the probable consequences of their actions?

[SheenaR]

18. Nothing you say I disagree with

They have to make their choice based on those factors. Whether they indicated in March of 2015 a Presidential preference should not matter when the vote happens.

[YouDig]

20. It doesn't matter, they aren't going to subvert the democratic vote. Hillary is going to win.

The only thing that Bernie and his supporters are doing by pleading for the superdelegates to override the will of the people is show how much they don't like democracy.

[SheenaR]

22. Thanks for stopping by

Kinda missed the point of the OP

There is no will to override. They can vote how they want. From places that Clinton won to places that Sanders won. Their vote is independent of all of this. They are not required to examine anything but their conscience, just like when we voted to get our pledged delegates. The problem is the power that one person then possesses.

I am not pleading for anything thank you.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. "I am aware Supers vote with their state, not at a different time." Are you sure?

[SheenaR]

37. How I read it is that they are included in the roll call for each state n/t

[Attorney in Texas]

43. No. They vote at the convention and may change their minds (or may not) between now and then.

That's why counting superdelegate votes NOW is like counting a pre-election poll as if the votes had already been cast. That's why Hilary had a commanding superdelegate lead over Obama in 2008 and then, as she lost state-after-state, she didn't.

Here is " target="_blank">some discussion of the process.

[laserhaas]

27. Run on..Speak on..Preach on....In it to Win It

Gripe..brow beat...support the person and rigging DNC

BUT

.............WE'RE

.........................STILL

...................................HERE

[center]

[LenaBaby61]

28. The Supers Flipping ...

IMHO is not going to happen.

Moot point at this time anyway, because we still have primaries happening on our side.

[CrowCityDem]

29. Bernie's argument...

was that Supers are undemocratic and 1) should not exist, and 2) should reflect the results of the primaries.

Until he needed them, at which point he has twisted himself like a pretzel trying to come up with an argument that doesn't make him look self-serving. He has said he should get all the supers from his big wins, and that he should also get supers from Hillary's big wins, because he's the better candidate. He has created a sliding scale, where the 'right thing' is whatever benefits him in each case.

[Waiting For Everyman]

40. Supers exist specifically to NOT agree with the vote (if necessary).

Here's a very good background and analysis of the situation as it stands now:

https://www.laprogressive.com/bernie-could-still-win/


Supers also are not supposed to declare before the end of the process. Otherwise, they influence the vote along the way, as has happened heavily in this election. Each time there was a vote, the media showing supers added in unduly influenced the outcome. People were deceived into thinking, "well she's way ahead already, I may as well just vote for the winner". The fact is, a lot of votes and delegates were stolen from Sanders in that way.

So if anything, he is OWED some compensation and reconsideration by the Party (before they even look at his better chance of winning in November). Unless that is, they would like to just go with holding a blatantly RIGGED election.

[Demsrule86]

42. You are completely wrong

The supers will vote for the candidate who has the most delegates and polling plays no role. And if Bernie wanted the supers to consider him, I guess he should not have spent the entire campaign bashing Democrats. I now despise Bernie. I am sure the supers feel even more strongly...his behavior is such he won't turn the super delegates and why should he. He lost by all measures. To give the nomination to Bernie when he did not win would create chaos. They have no reason to do so.