LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Via TPM One of the largest advocacy groups to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Wednesday gently nudged the Vermont senator toward the exit, arguing that the Democratic nomination can’t be won on the backs of “undemocratic superdelegates.” The liberal group MoveOn.org suggested in a statement that Hillary Clinton fairly earned the Democratic nomination after Tuesday’s primaries by clinching a majority of pledged delegates. “MoveOn members believe, as we have long advocated, that the nomination should go to the winner of the majority of pledged delegates, and that undemocratic superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters,” MoveOn Political Action’s Executive Director, Ilya Sheyman, said in the statement. Sanders won MoveOn’s endorsement in January with over 78 percent of the 340,665 votes cast by the group’s members. Sanders renewed his vow to remain in the race until the Democratic National Convention in July after Tuesday’s primaries, and his campaign has said it believes it can persuade some superdelegates to flip their support from Clinton to him. But even some of the Vermont senator’s most prominent backers have rejected that strategy. As Sanders' sole endorser in the Senate, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, said, “We have our nominee.” Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I don't get that. Of course it's democratic, those people decide themselves who they support. The public's votes have nothing to do with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Didymus said: I don't get that. Of course it's democratic, those people decide themselves who they support. The public's votes have nothing to do with that. What do you mean? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: What do you mean? "undemocratic superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, Didymus said: "undemocratic superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters" Right so do you agree or disagree with that sentiment? I can't extrapolate that from what you said. Did you mean "undemocratic"? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: Right so do you agree or disagree with that sentiment? I can't extrapolate that from what you said. Did you mean "undemocratic"? No.. lol The criticism is that the superdelegate system is undemocratic in nature, acting like Bernie winning because of a shift in superdelegate support would be opposite to democracy because it counters the vote of the public. I say that's a load of bull. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowcrest 2,487 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 These politics posts on this site* where people clearly have a bias. Just go away already Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Didymus said: No.. lol The criticism is that the superdelegate system is undemocratic in nature, acting like Bernie winning because of a shift in superdelegate support would be opposite to democracy because it counters the vote of the public. I say that's a load of bull. Oh well I don't personally believe they are necessarily undemocratic because they serve a purpose to protect the people and the party from Trumps, but that's what Sanders himself and his constituency supposedly believe in. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teo 609 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 He should have MoveOn.org a long time ago if you ask me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said: Oh well I don't personally believe they are undemocratic because they protect the people from themselves, but that's what Sanders himself and his constituency supposedly believed in. Well, they can't do that anymore now because Hillary would've won without superdelegate support too Anyway, the undemocratic argument is interesting and valid to me, but I don't get why a shift in superdelegates to Bernie would be suddenly so undemocratic. Didn't Obama win solely because superdelegate support? Would Bernie stans call that win undemocratic? I don't think so. I don't know, the voting process is so controlled by the party anyway, I find this whole "this is undemocratic!" talk just extremely amusing and counter-productive. If you really care about democracy, you're gonna have to change the entire system, not just abolish the superdelegate system which is more of an unnecessary evil more than anything else. Lazy way to look like decent people imo Better to flip the script and support a superdelegate shift in favor of Bernie. Who cares that it's hypocritical, if the superdelegates are convinced it's the best move, it's still completely in line with how the democratic process was designed for the US (if I know my stuff correctly). The party decides, not the voter. Don't like it? Then whine about something more than superdelegates pls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Didymus said: Well, they can't do that anymore now because Hillary would've won without superdelegate support too Anyway, the undemocratic argument is interesting and valid to me, but I don't get why a shift in superdelegates to Bernie would be suddenly so undemocratic. Didn't Obama win solely because superdelegate support? Would Bernie stans call that win undemocratic? I don't think so. I don't know, the voting process is so controlled by the party anyway, I find this whole "this is undemocratic!" talk just extremely amusing and counter-productive. If you really care about democracy, you're gonna have to change the entire system, not just abolish the superdelegate system which is more of an unnecessary evil more than anything else. Lazy way to look like decent people imo Better to flip the script and support a superdelegate shift in favor of Bernie. Who cares that it's hypocritical, if the superdelegates are convinced it's the best move, it's still completely in line with how the democratic process was designed for the US (if I know my stuff correctly). The party decides, not the voter. Don't like it? Then whine about something more than superdelegates pls. Barack won the majority of pledge delegates too. When people say, "He won solely because of super-delegates," it's because neither reached the necessary number of pledge delegates to get the nomination even though Barack had more. But the Super-delegates did go with the candidate that had the majority of pledge delegates. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.