Why the BS Line on Superdelegates is BS


hillarynewWe don’t know who’s going to win the Democratic presidential primary in California today, although polling suggests that Hillary Clinton should squeak by Bernie Sanders. But, as usual with the California primary it doesn’t really matter: more than 24 hours before New Jersey and four other states vote, and California’s delegates are apportioned, the AP’s survey Monday night confirmed her as the first woman nominee of a major party (let that sink in for a moment).

Hopefully, Sanders will now do the smart and decent thing and quickly endorse Clinton, who amassed more than 3 million more votes than him during the primary season, and decide to stop pushing the silly argument he’s been pushing, with increasing vehemence, for weeks: his demand that the superdelegates, who overwhelmingly support Clinton (who, with Bubba, has raised million$ for them over decades), should hold off voting until the roll call at the Democratic National Convention; then, on the theory that he would run better against Donald Trump, overturn the popular vote and Clinton’s delegate lead to make him the nominee.

Seriously? Three reasons that makes no sense:

1. Absurdism.  The argument itself is absurd. Not only is the contention that Sanders would run better based on never having faced a negative campaign, but imagine if their positions were reversed – if Sanders had more popular votes and delegates but the superdelegates overturned the will of the voters and installed Clinton as the nominee. The screaming and moaning from Sanders and his peeps would be riotous.

This is the most anti-democratic and cynical stance Sanders and his people could possibly take – that a guy who won fewer votes and delegates should be installed by the party elite, against whom he has railed for the better part of a year.

crybaby2. Perversity.  Although Sanders now would like to use superdelegates to his advantage if he could, his fundamental case for months has been to decry the role of superdelegates altogether.Which is even more wrong-headed.

Superdelegates are there for a reason: they’re elected officials and party leaders who have run for office and/or run the Democratic Party nationally or in their states. They’re the last vestige of party elders who have the best interest of their party at heart. They should have a say in who their party’s nominee is.

trumpangry3. Disunity. Which brings us to this point: Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat, has simply used the party opportunistically for a quarter century and doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether the Democratic Party’s chosen candidate is the nominee. He couldn’t care less about Democratic Party unity. Whether he cares enough to rally his troops for the party’s nominee and against Donald Trump remains an open question.

In the long run, it will benefit Sanders politically to be as graceful in defeat as Hillary Clinton was eight years ago after her bitter fight with Barack Obama when she conceded, urged her supporters and delegates to back Obama.

Delusional entitlement. At this point, Bernie’s bros and bots appear to have become so fanatic that they’re prepared to walk away rather than get behind  the only candidate standing between the nation and the nightmare of a Trump Administration. As Barrett Holmes Pitner wrote in an insightful piece at Daily Beast, Sanders’ “younger, predominantly white electorate” is struggling with its sense of entitlement:

bernie brosThe more I reflected on them, the more I realized the key point: They felt entitled to win, and a defeat meant that someone must have cheated or that their opinions did not matter, which of course couldn’t be true. They preferred to suspend reality and fabricate injustices rather than concede that Sanders has lost fair and square.

After Obama beat Clinton in one of the most bitter primary battles in recent history, she sucked it up and worked hard enough for his election to be asked, later, to be his Secretary of State.

It’s unclear whether Sanders has it in him to play that role.

subscribe to comments RSS

There are 8 comments for this post

  1. avatar hclark says:

    All true perhaps, and Trump is the candidate the GOP deserves. He is also the responsibility of a party that would put blue dogs in congress over progressive candidates. No Bernie and no shift by President Obama last week on Social Security. No shift by President Obama and candidate Hillary would still be looking to cut Social Security. Period.

  2. avatar pveesart says:

    “…first woman nominee of a major party…” Umm, except she’s hasn’t been “nominated” yet. The AP’s release of their delegate count (including super delegates) on the eve of California’s primary election only serves one purpose: to discourage Sanders voters from going to the polls. The AP’s (and your) message is: abandon all hope Bernie; time to toe the line and be a good Democrat. No wonder young voters feel so disenfranchised? They flocked to the Democrat party to support Bernie and the establishment snatches the football away at the last moment. And now they are all going to vote for Clinton?

  3. avatar sqrjn says:

    She sucked it and worked hard to elect Obama? That’s why she was Secretary of State?!? You sure it wasn’t a cynical back room deal between both camps worked out as soon as she lost the primary by loyal party bigwigs. Exactly the same people who Bernie supporters justifiably loathe. The people are right to feel cheated the fix has been in for years. I’m gonna go google Gary Johnson again.

  4. avatar Elliott_James says:

    The only thing that’s BullSh-t are the weasels at Associated Press who crowned Hillary the victor based on anonymous sources. The “journalists” at AP apparently have no professional ethics and no standards. Anything for a story, eh? Millions of voters in several states thrown under the bus just so AP can have their little scoop.

  5. avatar jhpolit says:

    It’s worth noting that Clinton took 4 days to drop out after Obama clinched. The press can give Sanders at least that many days before they freak out over it.

  6. avatar Sideline says:

    Please, bros, don’t whine to me about superdelegates (although I may share some doubts) unless you’re also willing to decry caucuses, about which I definitely have doubts. If you want to be all-in for democracy, then I would expect you to decry the “rigged process” that provided your guy with the most victories.

  7. avatar scribe1128 says:

    Sideline-I couldn’t agree with you more about the caucuses! For example, now that Clinton crushed Bernie in Calif., he needs to go and unite the party. But like the article says, he is not a Democrat and only became one for his convenience. The Berniacs will cry “rigged” and “voter suppression,” but if they don’t follow the rules of how the election in certain states work, shame on them. OK, caucuses – Bernie “won” North Dakota 253-101. How pathetic is that? That means 354 people in that whole state caucused. Is that democratic? Hell, no!

    • avatar Donald from Pasadena says:

      Now, I may be wrong, but I believe those numbers actually represent are the allocated delegates to each candidate for the upcoming North Dakota State Democratic Convention. They media did the same thing during the Washington state caucuses last March 26 by reporting the number of allocated county delegates, which made it look like only 17,000 people participated, when the statewide turnout that day was actually about 230,000.

Please, feel free to post your own comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.