Come on now, HRC is winning but not by that much if you don't count the super delegates. Before the inevitable post claiming Republicans are just as corrupt or more do, so what? That doesn't make the concept of a super delegate less corrupt. I read constantly from Dem supporters that HRC is the best GE candidate. Maybe the polls indicate that but I think it is fair to state that as Bernie's campaign has moved forward, more people have learned more about him and are favorably disposed towards his ideas. I think name recognition has been a factor in her favor but that can be overcome. Seriously, HRC pretty much represents the status quo, she isn't that far to the left of someone like Kasich or Jeb. Bernie seems to represent the ideas on the left a lot better than she does. So what gives here?

they can't.

everyone who posts in support of HRC is a shill

Your premise is a bit flawed; her pledged delegate lead isn't huge, but it isn't tiny, either. Off the top of my head, Sanders needs something like 57% of the pledged delegates the rest of the way just to draw even. She's been sitting on a two-score lead the entire time.

As far as Dem supporters stating that she's a better GE candidate, I imagine these are the low-info types who are high on name recognition and low on following polling, all of which have him in better shape against Trump.

Yes, Bernie represents leftist ideas more than she. And yes, she's not incredibly far to the left. FWIW, I think Kasich's moderate or centrist labels are inaccurate; he's managed to pull this off not because he actually is, but because he's less insane than his debate mates.

Yeah, not sure I like superdelegates, but aiming this at HRC supporters seems somewhat odd at this point. I think its overwhelmingly likely the pledged delegate leader is the nominee but, if its not, its more likely that the superdelegates swing the nomination to Bernie from Hillary than vice versa (both are super unlikely).

I guess you could argue that, up until this point, they've acted as part of a thumb on the scale in terms of narrative, but meh.

It's not like super delegates are a new thing that HRC invented to swindle the election.

Because I don't hate the player I hate the game! #ImWithHer.

I think this comes from my background in a country where parties are much less permanent and there are more of them, but the super delegate thing doesn't bother me.

It should be up to the party how they pick their nominee. And it seems reasonable to me that there are mechanisms in place to prevent the party from being pulled in a significantly different direction. The people's choice is during the election.

And its not like super delegates are the only undemocratic part. Lots of people are left out of the process through various state rules / processes. Hell, the whole use of delegates is undemocratic. Why not just do popular vote across the country?

In the spirit of the OP, how do Sanders supporters support the concept of delegates where the person with significantly less of the popular vote still gets to be the nominee?

why do you assume HRC supporters support the concept of super delegates? Just because she's leading in support among super delegates? what does that have to do with her other supporters?

Even though the outcome of a jury trial follows the decision of laymen, there is a judge who does not allow certain evidence to be presented to the jury because he thinks that evidence is likely to be evaluated improperly. Usually because it is deceptive or preys on the juror's emotions rather than thought processes.

But the man on the street who makes a decision about political candidates DOES see and hear that kind of stuff. Stuff that might make him back somebody that he himself would agree later he shouldn't have. Since there is no way to prevent people from being subjected to unscrupulous professional persuaders like there is in a trial, there probably ought to be a way to reverse decisions that are obviously reached through these means. Especially close ones.

Yeah. I think the only way that the supes go against the pledged is if Hildictment comes down just prior to the convention and something comes out to make her look guilty as sin. She's just shy of a mortal lock to end up with the most pledged delegates at this point, and that's because she's more popular with Democrats than Bernie Sanders is.

The biggest advantage to having super delegates is that they give the Dems a chance to avoid nominating a terrible candidate. If the Republicans had (more) super delegates, they might not get stuck with Trump and might veer away from the cliff.

The primary system, super delegates and all, is a lot more democratic than every other country, where party nominees are literally chosen in back rooms.

I don't support Hillary, but I think there should be more super delegates rather than less. The American people haven't been doing a really good job at selecting candidates. Democracy is an empty vessel and it's worth depends on what you fill it with. How would you have liked to been a Gay black man in Mississippi in 1962. When they voted overwhelmingly to make you use other bathrooms, go to a bad school, and not talk back to a white man, would you have just shook your head and said "Hey, that's the will of the people, I'll get over it"? Then next year they decide you get hung from a tree if you look a white woman in the eye, but once again, will of the people.

Our Founding fathers understood direct democracy can become the fiercest form of tyranny, that's why they put buffers between the masses and the candidate selection method. Senators were appointed and Presidential candidates were selected by party bosses. Direct democratic selection of candidates actually makes money a more, not less, important factor in getting elected than before. When local party bosses, whose position depended on local voters, chose candidates it was actually quite a bit better. They depended on their local constituents for votes and campaign work. Now they depend on moneyed interests, whose needs may diverge from the electorate, to finance advertising campaigns that secure your vote. Quite a different concept. There was a time that a business moving into a certain city, getting zoning changes, tax inducements et cetera required them to basically "take care" of the citizenry. That's how the boss held onto his power. Now he holds on to his power by doing as many favors for moneyed interests so he can finance massive advertising campaigns, like he is selling Coca Cola or cigarettes to people who don't understand the ramifications of what they are purchasing.

No worries though, it will all be over soon, for sure in 2 or 300 years.

Quick clarification, I won't be voting for the Donald either.

I'd assumed as much from the top quote.

Good read my friend,

Yeah, this was posted elsewhere in the forum already, and it does a pretty good job explaining what sqred and others are getting at. Pure democracy aint the bees knees.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ald-trump.html

Why have primaries? Why not just have all super delegates? BTW political parties are not actually a part of the Constitution so the above doesn't really apply to selecting a political party's candidate for POTUS.

You are right about the Constitution not mentioning parties, but they did give State Legislatures the role of choosing Senators without even a vote. The back room selection of POTUS candidates gave us some candidates that went on to choose some pretty good Presidents. All the historical ones: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy.

The Primary system, and I admit it's a smaller sample size, has given us these candidates and Presidents: Nixon/McGovern, Carter/Ford, Reagan/Mondale, Bush I/Dukakis, Clinton/Dole, Bush II/Gore/Kerry, Obama/McCain/Romney, and now the quite embarrassing H. Clinton/Trump. Given that lineup, and how it has actually deteriorated over the life of the direct primary system, as the Parties have mastered business financed direct marketing, I would take my chances with the old way.

Consider the concept of constitutional civil rights then rewrite this.

This would have been a much more interesting question had Bernie won more pledged delegates. In that scenario the super delegates would have probably decided the election for Hillary and **** would have gotten a little crazy.

As it is the unfair part of the super delegates is in their being presented as pledged delegates across the media. If you google the democratic primary it is obvious that every attempt is being made to indistinguish pledged delegates from super delegates and give the false impression that Hillary's lead is far greater than it really is. Here in Chicago serious efforts were made to give the false impression that you couldn't register to vote close to the election so that new Bernie supporters would be discouraged.

The rules are the rules are far as the super delegate voting goes, but it is fair to call those rules antidemocratic. Also, if more primaries were open to independents there is a strong possibility that Sanders would be winning. He has brought people into the party but they don't count. They can't vote, even though their tax dollars, like ours fund the primaries. That is outrageous. The idea that an independent can't vote for who they want to in a tax payer funded election is outrageous. So by the end of the primary you could have a situation where Bernie is more popular than Hillary and polls far better against Trump but won't be the nominee.

Given the level of unfairness (the voting irregularities, the unfair treatment of the Sanders campaign by the DNC across the board) Bernie should absolutely run as an independent. The popularity of both parties is at an all time low, and corruption is as an all time high. Now's the time to bust it all open.

Not for nothing, but I guess the media has given up on this shady real estate deal between the suspended Brooklyn election official and the daughter of a Clinton super delegate...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york...ons-1409934333

The entire concept of Civil Rights (as it is usually used) wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms by a majority of Americans. In fact, it had to be crammed down the throats of a lot communities by a removed Washington elite, and enforced by men with guns, literally. It wasn't like Bull Conner took a vote of the other Hill Billies and they decided to open up the lunch counter.

It's not really a partisan thing, your "rights" are always susceptible to both the tyranny of the majority and of the autocrat. Donald Trump has advocated a loosening of the libel laws to make it easier to get judgements against media outlets, which would be a direct assault on the First Amendment. He has also called for religious identification of Muslim Americans, another doozy. Obama has killed American citizens without due process. There would be a very good chance of all these "Civil Rights" violations passing if put to a direct democratic referendum.

Maybe this depends on your source, but almost every site I read ignores super delegates. And even in the mainstream media I feel like the pledged delegates are the focus - particularly because it made for a more entertaining storyline on the Democratic side.

Given your entrenched two-party system, I guess this is a fair complaint. But its not crazy that people that refuse to identify with a party don't get to vote for that party's nominee and ultimately that party's platform.

In Canada, I would find it outrageous if non-party members COULD vote in the internal party elections.

Bernie supporters get a little ridiculous at this point. HRC has received far more votes then Bernie. Any argument that Bernie is more popular than Hillary is pretty speculative at best [Not necessarily wrong, but far from guaranteed to be right].

And polling better than Trump is also a ridiculous argument. Bernie's policies have gotten almost no coverage aside from very broad strokes. If he were actually the nominee and got known better by the general electorate his polling against Trump goes way down.

Edit: It's also typical Deucian double standards to focus on the polling showing Bernie better than Trump, but ignore the polling that shows HRC beating Sanders by a comfortable margin. In one case we should treat polls as fact. In the other... we should just ignore them and find other arguments to try to make our point.

Do you mean less insane politically? If so then yourself are calling him more moderate. How do you mean 'insane'?