Plan B Forum

If the situation were reversed and Hillary Clinton was openly adopting this strategy?

Sanders, in an interview with Rachel Maddow:

We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us. Rachel, in almost every poll, not every poll, but almost every national matchup poll between Sanders and Trump, Clinton and Trump, we do better than Hillary Clinton and sometimes by large numbers. We get a lot more of the independent vote than she gets. And, frankly and very honestly, I think I am a stronger candidate to defeat Trump than Secretary Clinton is and I think many secretary -- many of the super delegates understand that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ntion.html

So here's what he's really saying, (and I saw him repeat this theme several times):

" So long as I have won 'a whole lot of delegates' even if Hillary wins the majority of pledged delegates, [at the moment she's ahead by more than 300 in pledged delegates] and even if she got the majority of the votes of primary participants and caucus voters,[at the moment she leads him by more than 2 million votes] I'm going to try to get the superdelegates to ignore all of that, and deny her the nomination and give it to me because I think I have better chance to win".....


Frankly, I don't really wonder how Sanders supporters would react if Hillary were taking this position; I'm pretty sure of what the reaction would be...

They would be in full hair-on-fire mode, worked up in a red-faced lather of self-righteousness, screaming indignantly, "How DARE she try to deny 'the choice of people' the nomination by using the un-elected superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie! Woe be to any of these political insiders who turns their back on the will of the people!"

But apparently since it's Sanders taking this approach, his supporters have no problem with it...I guess when you see yourselves as the guys in the white hats, it's all good...


BTW this is a very different situation from the one in the Republican party. It's a completely different matter to deny someone who only won a plurality of the votes and delegates the nomination, than it is to deny the person who won an outright majority...

Well you might well be right about the response, but then isn't this why we have superdelegates? To ensure the candidate best-likely to win the general election is nominated? Indeed, aren't the superdelegates there only for that reason? It is inherently anti-democratic (small d), and the process may well be flawed, but they are all playing by the same rules, so I see nothing inherently wrong with that strategy, regardless of who employs it.

This is getting embarrassing for HRC -- goes oh-for-3 this weekend and not even close in reliably blue state Washington. Bernie still has no realistic chance, but come on, the Clinton campaign is a tepid, wobbling blob.

Agree with Big RR (and LR for that matter). "Superdelegates" have indicated who they might support, may support, probably will support, definitely will support.... depending on what happens. If "what happens" is that Hills would lose and Bernie could win against Trump.... de supers is gonna start delegating.

Nothing wrong with Bernie pursuing those superdelegates - presumably he believes he is the best candidate for the country and for his party both in terms of policy plans and winability. If he doesn't believe that, then he shouldn't even be running.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Nothing wrong with Bernie pursuing those superdelegates -

In a democracy there would be no "super delegates".

This isn't a democracy

MajGenl.Meade wrote:This isn't a democracy

Exactly. In a true democracy there wouldn't be representative government- the people would vote on EVERYTHING.

Political parties wouldn't have the power they have now. Every time you did hold an election, you'd get a ballot with every single candidate that applied on it. Maybe you'd have primaries to whittle down the field, but it wouldn't be broken down by party.

What we have is a republic which elects its leaders through semi-democratic means. But the political parties can still select their candidate in whatever manner they choose. At the conventions. Generally they follow the will of the people, but not always. And the local election boards kowtow to the political parties and generally give them the spots- one D and one R. Anyone else has a mountain to climb.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:This isn't a democracy

No, it's fun house and Happy Easter, everyone!

Gob wrote:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Nothing wrong with Bernie pursuing those superdelegates -

In a democracy there would be no "super delegates".

You may well be right, but then should a candidate for a party nomination be chosen democratically by those who profess to be party members/supporters (according to their peculiar state laws) or should they be chosen to be the person who has the best chance of winning the election for the party? Often the two coincide, but sometimes they do not.
Face it, if people don't like what a particular party is doing, they can leave and form their own and run whatever candidate they choose (by whatever means).

One person, one vote, easy peasy.

We don't even have that in our national presidential election; just look at the electoral college.

Gob wrote:One person, one vote, easy peasy.

So in Oz any random person can declare themselves a candidate for PM on the Labour, Liberal or Green ticket? And whomever gets the most votes is declared head of the party and PM?

Sue U wrote:
So in Oz any random person can declare themselves a candidate for PM on the Labour, Liberal or Green ticket? And whomever gets the most votes is declared head of the party and PM?

Nope. Parties are self contained, only members can vote in leadership elections.

That's not very democratic. Here, most voters (the vast majority) are not "members" of any political party - but get to vote on the leadership anyway.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:That's not very democratic. Here, most voters (the vast majority) are not "members" of any political party - but get to vote on the leadership anyway.

That's not very democratic. Do you get to vote on who is Prime Minister of Canada too?

Why should anyone not a member of a party, with no ideological and financial commitment to the values of the party, have a say in it's leader?

Your system is nuts.

Just out of curiosity...just what sort of commitment does it take to become a "member of a party" in the UK or Oz? Are there meetings to attend? Are there membership dues? Do people who provide more financial support get more of a say in running the parties? Please enlighten me, because I really don't know. I'm thinking that perhaps what we call "political parties" here in the US are really in some fundamental way different from what they call "political parties" in parliamentary democracies?

FWIW, the current system in the US is somewhat of a reaction to the way political parties were run in the past: then, a small number of insiders ran the parties and made all the decisions as to who could run for which offices. Surely the current system, which gives a larger number people a say in the nomination of candidates, is preferable to a small number of wealthy and powerful individuals being the only ones who can make those decisions?

In the most recent election for the UK Labour Party leader, what it took to vote was a willingness to pay five pounds...

In both the UK and Australia, the party leader is frequently replaced by an internal party establishment coup without any input whatsoever from a single voter or regular party member. Even when the party won a majority with the expectation by the voters that the person who led the party would be Prime Minster until the next election.

In Australia, this has happened no less than three times in the past three elections. (Twice by the center-left Labour Party,and most recently by the center-right Liberal Party)

The idea that a system like this is somehow superior to ours (even with all the differences that our federal system allows for) is, what's the phrase?

Oh yeah...a load of old bollocks...

Econoline wrote:Just out of curiosity...just what sort of commitment does it take to become a "member of a party" in the UK or Oz? Are there meetings to attend? Are there membership dues? Do people who provide more financial support get more of a say in running the parties? Please enlighten me, because I really don't know. I'm thinking that perhaps what we call "political parties" here in the US are really in some fundamental way different from what they call "political parties" in parliamentary democracies?

Labour party membership UK

Conservative party membership UK

Under the Political Party Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) you must be on the electoral register in the UK excluding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in order to make a donation of more than £500.

If you donate more than £7,500 to the Party, we are obliged under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to report such a donation to the Electoral Commission, who will publish the fact that you have made a donation over £7,500. For more information, please see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

If you donate more than £7,500 to the Party, we are obliged under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to report such a donation to the Electoral Commission, who will publish the fact that you have made a donation over £7,500.

What's the top donation limit?

No upper limit.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/f ... al-parties