Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the DNC's Super Delegate Fraud.





The AP headline read:  Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss.

It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud. Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was 32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in the primaries.

Because as of this moment,all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates. 

CNN has also been doing it's share of inept and dishonest reporting by perpetuating the fiction around Clinton's bogus superdelegate count .

Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention  circumstances that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is too inept to know and too lazy to find out about.Or too dishonest.

Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote. And it's not even purely their choice to vote. They are there to break a deadllock. Which is why superdelegates haven't cast a vote in 32 years. Clinton and the DNC know this. 

But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't.  Ignorant, incompetent journalists who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they are fed.

Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes.  Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before, and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention. They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 60% majority needed, even then superdelegates didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super delegates have no vote now and the declarations are non-committal?

It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's not even open and claiming it as an asset.

It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial margin when she isn't.  And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking about trying to steal the nomination?

This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.

The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher  (yes, let's name names) had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New Hampshire" . 

Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real  and the "endorsements" count for nothing in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.

Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well,no, that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.

So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least not now:

Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but didnt have the magic number needed for the nomination. But even then they didnt play a role in the nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed Mondale to get to the  approximately 60% threshold as required by DNC rules. They have never cast a real vote since. And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations now are bogus.

Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time  super delegates voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus.Like a post dated check on a bank account that hasn't yet  been opened.

Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984,  that neither candidate finishes the primary season with the 60% majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries - if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote or  the delegate count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after the first ballot to get to the 60%.. 

 Then superdelegates could be used to get them over the top and to avoid what Democrats were afraid of when they created super delegates - a contentious convention and floor fight. Without being needed to vote superdelegates wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates won. If they ever tried it might bring down the Democratic Party.

When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote at all.

So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,and mean nothing now as real votes, and  super delegates may never vote at all?

Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries. Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now. And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination.

So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in 1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now  and for all intents and purposes dont even exist. When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions.

If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000  pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another three hundred to get the 60% majority with Clinton say, 300 delegates behind,there would be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal on picking a vice presidential running mate.But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring for her now (which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination at a contentious convention. It would bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president. And Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics or begging DNC officials tried over Supreme Court nominations etc.

Super delegates are there only as a last resort and most importantly as mentioned earlier, super delegates have  only once in the history of the Democratic party ever cast  a single meaningful vote and that was 32 years ago.Yet Clinton and the DNC in collusion with a dishonest news media were and are counting them as if they are part of Clinton's pledged delegate totals.That is pure fraud.

So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being  underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Obama's  hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.

The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.

But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans -- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.

There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they can do to affect  the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote in certain communities. The principle is the same.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter. 

This idea that super delegates have declared  anything for her carries no authority, no weight, no certainty.  Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now?

And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party. That was enough to stem any thought of superdelegates casting votes and deciding the nomination.(Some claim superdelegates voted in 2008- they did not. When Obama reached the requisite 60% of pledged delegates during the roll call vote a motion was made to nominate by acclimation which carried. Therefore all votes were recorded as being for Obama including those who never had the chance to cast actual votes . Those included superdelegates whose votes were recorded but never cast).

If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party in 2008 if super delegates were to  decide the nomination so can Sanders voters in 2016. And they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries to steal the nomination from Sanders by using super delegates they can count on Sanders voters staying home and Democrats getting wiped out in November.

Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what? I have a trick up my sleeve."(Ed note: it has since been proved the Clinton campaign was caught cheating in Nevada and Bernie Sanders has been declared the official winner)

If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination, Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like the threat made by Donna Brazile which will bring the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton and the Democrats no good in the general election.

Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig the nomination then the Democrats will have to face the music and take another drubbing  like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell out of the health care public option to the insurance companies.

Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.

And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.

Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very clear.

ADDENDUM:  This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time super delegates have ever voted. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton includes in her totals are completely bogus.

NOTE: CNN and MSNBC are still showing super delegate totals for Clinton though the New York Times announced on March 6 they are no longer including them.

ADDED NOTE TO READERS: Apologies to the last 37 commenters (good and bad) whose comments were only now (March 29)  just published. Unbeknownst to me Google placed them all in a "Need to be moderated category" that I never checked or saw. I do not use moderation on this site and so never checked the file and dont know why they were placed there (and others werent). I published them en masse without reading them.  The only comments that ever get deleted here are spam.  I will reply to as many as I can over the next few days.

POST SCRIPT:

The above was written as the date shows, Feb 23 2016. In recently re-reading the piece i felt compelled to say to the DNC, the news media and everyone connected with the Clinton campaign, I told you so. All I had written back in February, all I predicted if Clinton and the DNC insisted on continuing the dishonesty, has come to pass.

This is being written 3 days before the Inauguration of Donald Trump, something even I could have never envisioned last February.But before a single hacked DNC email was published by Wikileaks, or any of the Podestas emails, it was clear to me the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. And it would never work.And in a subsequent piece as recently as this past June, I predicted Clinton would lose if Democrats insisted on rigging the nomination for Clinton over Bernie Sanders. And they did. With super delegates.

The emails eventually did offer documentary proof of what I could see with my own eyes and knowledge of the system given my support of Hillary Clinton in 2008 as Executive Director of a PAC supporting Clinton though this time around supporting Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately for Democrats they seem to have not learned the lesson afforded them by the election which aside from suffering the losses I predicted both in terms of the presidency and the lackluster showing of down ticket Democrats should have been a wake up call to reform the party and end the corruption and corrupt leadership that was evident even back in February and confirmed in the emails.

Instead the Democratic party establishment decided otherwise, re-electing Pelosi, inventing empty and dishonest excuses for why they lost including the preposterous and dishonest excuse of blaming Russia for hacking emails which only revealed the truth about the dishonesty of the DNC and Clinton campaigns and their collusion with a dishonest media ,fraud, rigging and more that the Clinton campaign and the Democrats would have rather kept hidden. Even though there is no evidence that the emails effected the election it showed a pattern of dishonesty that seemed to have been a way of political life.

So the dishonesty that cost them the election continues, blaming the Russians, Comey, the Electoral College, Sanders, Sanders voters, everyone but those who deserve the blame -- themselves.

Which leads to another prediction: unless the Democratic party reforms in a major way, accepts the truth as to why they lost, knock off the dishonesty and arrogance when they have nothing at the moment to be arrogant about, and stop all the lying, they will lose again in 2018 and lose big. And keep losing until they decide that really, honesty is the best policy.

141 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a great article. Please please read it!

Alex G said...

Finally, an article that points out the blatant Clinton PROPAGANDA. #Bernie2016

Unknown said...

Your entire article is based on a falsehood. Superdelegates HAVE voted against the popular vote before. Look up the 1984 primaries. Superdelegates gave the nomination to Mondale against the popular vote. It cost them the general election.

debijeanm said...

This would be a powerful post if you would link your sources. I have been unable to find the Democratic Party rules to verify that superdelegates only vote in a hopelessly close convention. That piece of information going viral would make a huge difference in this primary, but without verification from source, I will not share this.

Anonymous said...

For someone lambasting journalistic ethics this is pretty poorly written obviously twisted in its facts. Even as an opinion piece it lacks enough substance and logic to be near worthless.

TheChief said...

Donna and I are life long Progressive Democrats. We strongly support Hillary!

News for Bernie's supporters - Hillary is winning the popular vote by 1.5 MILLION.

My question for you all - will you support Hillary if she gets the nomination?

If not, you must not be true progressives.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

TheChief said...

Donna and I are life long Progressive Democrats. We strongly support Hillary!

News for Bernie's supporters - Hillary is winning the popular vote by 1.5 MILLION.

My question for you all - will you support Hillary if she gets the nomination?

If not, you must not be true progressives.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Steve Magruder said...

TheChief, no, Hillary is a corporate-centrist and neoliberal, and true progressives know that. Are you really going to support a fauxgressive who flip-flopped into spoken progressive positions just to win the nomination?

Charlie Mann said...

First of all, the number you cite uses the same biased accounting that Clinton tried to use at the convention in 2008. It totally discounts voters in caucus states that do not report individual votes.
Second, it focuses on an early batch of states that both sides agree favor Clinton.
Third, to steal a line from your own candidate, you don't get to define who is or is not progressive.
To answer your question, it depends. Independent non-partisan evaluations of the candidates show what most of us know, that Clinton is only slightly closer to center than the GOP candidates. So, if I have the choice of two candidates fairly close in policy, experience and ties to special interests, but one uses a lot more deceit and dirty politics (like discounting votes that don't help her make her personal case for the nomination), I'm going with the one with more integrity. Right now, Kasich has her best by a mile and Rubio by a few inches at least, so I will likely either vote FOR Sanders or hold my nose casting a vote AGAINST Cruz or Trump if something big doesn't happen soon.

Anonymous said...

Please cite your sources, preferably from the DNC rule book. I would like to believe this but can find nothing to substantiate it.

Justin Renquist said...

This article is absolutely incorrect. Superdelegates determined the 2008 dem nomination. I'm a superdelegate expert. They also determined the 1984 Hart v mondale nomination ad overrode the popular vote. They vote in every convention always as unpledged delegates. Wow please retract or correct this article. Www.ussuperdelegates.com you are misleading bernie supporters. Horrific.

Mike said...

Here's Nate Silver's take on it. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/

Ron said...

Why should "true progressives" vote for anyone who is NOT a progressive. I won't vote for Republicans, and we all know $Hillary is a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Not quite a 'falsehood' as one of the posters described it. The Mondale situation was not commensurate with the way Hillary Clinton and the DNC are currently describing the 'advantage' of superdelegates. Here's a NY Times article from 1984, indicating the situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/26/us/party-s-rules-give-mondale-edge-as-super-delegates-are-chosen.html

Kurt said...

Well, the angry and irrational tone of this article doesn't hide the fact it is factually wrong. Bernie Sanders is a great American and would make a great President. But sadly he has seemed to attract a number of factually challenged supporters.

Anonymous said...

I need sources .. we ALL need sources. This is too big. My hope is you're right, but provide sources!!

Anonymous said...

So, please provide a list of the following:1) each state that already had had their primary, 2) the popular vote for each candidate and 3) the "pledged" delegates. Many of the lists I've looked at have pre-counted superdelegates in their totals even before a primary has occurred. They state, in some cases, the elected officials had committed to a candidate BEFORE the primary. I emailed the Election Central's web site and complained about the way they posted super delegates in advance, and they quote sources from Blumberg News, and NYT. Something is not right.

Daniel54 said...

Wrong, Sen Hart trailed into convention. Mondale held lead in pop vote and delegates. Super delegates did the job when they were supposed to, at the convention.

Anonymous said...

NYT does include super delegates, but if you check their delegate count listed state by state they also include a total of pledged delegated alone.

Anonymous said...

Who is "Wendy Wasserman-Schultz"?

Unknown said...

Voting Hillary is like voting Republican... http://tumblr.macleodsawyer.com/post/135269791552/we-see-a-lot-of-graphics-showing-bernie-vs-hillary

Marc Rubin said...

"Your entire article is based on a falsehood. Superdelegates HAVE voted against the popular vote before."

Always willing to stand corrected by a reader I did look it up and your entire criticism is based on a falsehood.

Here are the results of the 1984 Democratic primaries:

Walter Mondale - 1.606 pledged delegates won in the primaries.
Gary Hart - 1,164 pledged delegates won in the primaries
Jesse Jackson - 358 pledged delegates won in the primaries.

As I stated in the article ( I believe repeatedly) the only role super delegates have would be in the extraordinary circumstance where no candidate has the 2/3 majority needed and the delegate count by pledged delegates won at the convention is so close the convention is deadlocked. This was the case in 1984 but super delegates who did vote to break the deadlock ( on that youre correct) did NOT go against the pledged delegate winner based on primary victories but gave Mondale the nomination who clearly won the majority of the pledged delegates though not by much.

I stand by everything in the article in terms of super delegates, their role and function. That you are correct in that they did vote in 1984, 32 years ago, and that it is the only time they ever did, only underscores how rare it is that they do vote since that was the only time. And they voted to give the nomination to the candidate with the highest pledged delegate count which was Mondale and did NOT go against the results of the primaries.

That was also the point of the article. That whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates whoever it is, should be the nominee. In that case super delegates are only affirming what the majority of voters voted for, and are simply exercising a technicality -- giving a candidate the 2/3 majority required.

Which makes listing super delegates in Clintons total still a travesty since if Sanders wins the 2/3 majority in the primaries super delegates will not vote at all, and, as the article stated, if Sanders wins the majority and super delegates ever went against the will of Democratic voters to nominate the second place finisher it would bring the Democratic party to its knees. Nothing about the article is based on anything false. Its your misinformation about the result of the primaries in 1984 that is false.

Marc Rubin said...

"This would be a powerful post if you would link your sources. I have been unable to find the Democratic Party rules to verify that superdelegates only vote in a hopelessly close convention."

As my reply to another commenter above shows, the only time super delegates ever voted was in 1984, 32 years ago to break the deadlock between Mondale and Hart with Mondale winning the delegate count in the primaries but by less than 500 delegates and neither having close to the 2/3 majority won. Super delegates havent voted since, not even in 2008 when Obama's delegate lead over Clinton was only 65.

I have many sources but Wikipedia is one.If you want to check one by one you can check the primary results of every presidential year, but if you Google Democratic Primaries 1984 you will find the information regarding the only time super delegates ever voted and they gave the nomination to the candidate with the highest primary delegate count won during the primaries. From then on till 2008, Dukakis, Clinton twice, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, all won with the 2/3 needed by victories in primaries and super delegates never voted.

In 2008 when it was the closest delegate count in memory and it looked like super delegates were switching from Obama to Clinton to break the deadlock, Donna Brazile issued a statement that said " if super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic party". No super delegates voted and how they managed to nominate Obama may be the subject of a book I may write someday.

Marc Rubin said...

"For someone lambasting journalistic ethics this is pretty poorly written obviously twisted in its facts. Even as an opinion piece it lacks enough substance and logic to be near worthless."

Of course you couldnt cite a single instance or provide a shred of proof to back up a word you said which makes your comment not near worthless but totally worthless. As worthless as a super delegates declaration in March.

Marc Rubin said...

"News for Bernie's supporters - Hillary is winning the popular vote by 1.5 MILLION."

Excuse me for mentioning the calender but its only March with the rest of the country still to vote. And outside of the South, when Clinton wins she wins by a thread and when Sanders wins he demolishes her by landslide numbers from Maine to Colorado. So we will have to see what the remaining 35 states have to say.

Marc Rubin said...

"First of all, the number you cite uses the same biased accounting that Clinton tried to use at the convention in 2008."

Since I was Executive Director of a non-connected committee advocating for Clinton in 2008, The Denver Group, and I created, wrote and produced ads on her behalf and was well connected with what was going on at the convention especially with Clinton supporters, more so than you Im sure, I dont know what biased accounting you are talking about. Though I support Sanders now, if there was any biased accounting at the convention in 2008 it was biased against Clinton not for her.

Marc Rubin said...

"Please cite your sources, preferably from the DNC rule book. I would like to believe this but can find nothing to substantiate it."

The Harvard Kenney School of Government at Harvard will give you a history of super delegates. Super delegates were created by the DNC after the 1980 convention and the only time they ever voted was in 1984, 32 years ago to break a deadlock between Mondale and Hart with Mondale winning the majority of pledged delegates but with less than a 500 pledged delegate lead over Hart, not enough to reach the 2/3 majority needed. Super delegates voted for Mondale so he could reach 2/3 required by DNC rues but simply voted for the candidate who had won the majority of pledged delegates during the primaries.Google " super delegates Mondale" and that information will come up.

The last time a Democratic candidate did not win the 2/3 majority needed in the primaries was 2008. And super delegates did not vote even then. Every other election from 1988 till 2008, the Democratic nominee won the 2/3 majority either by winning primaries or running without a challenger as Bill Clinton did in 1996. It was only in 1984 that super delegates ever voted.

Marc Rubin said...

"This article is absolutely incorrect. Superdelegates determined the 2008 dem nomination"

You are absolutely incorrect or hallucinating or badly confused. Either way you dont know what youre talking about. I was personally involved in 2008 right through the convention and super delegates never voted.Obama was finally nominated through acclimation after he cut a deal with Clinton. In fact as I cited in the article, Donna Brazile said at the convention in 2008, when it looked like super delegate MIGHT vote and they MIGHT vote for Clinton, that " if super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic party". They never did.

Marc Rubin said...

"Well, the angry and irrational tone of this article doesn't hide the fact it is factually wrong. Bernie Sanders is a great American and would make a great President. But sadly he has seemed to attract a number of factually challenged supporters."

Gee Kurt since you are unable or unwilling to point out or back up a single assertion you made factually or otherwise, I think its you who are irrational and I hope you you go back to your meds.

Marc Rubin said...

"Many of the lists I've looked at have pre-counted superdelegates in their totals..
Something is not right."

Youre right something is not right. The super delegate totals shown by the media are not only not binding, they may never be cast. Why they are being shown is gross media irresponsibility. And more proof that the DNCm the source of the super delegate numbers, is in the tank for Clinton as David Gergen said,and is trying to create false appearances as per Obama's marching orders.

Marc Rubin said...

Who is "Wendy Wasserman-Schultz"?

Youre right, it should be Debby not Wendy and I will correct it

Alex Crowley said...

It's actually Debbie*

Alex Crowley said...

Just wanted to shout out to the editor I saw a typo informative article though! "Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes don't count until *THEY* are cast at the convention,"

Anonymous said...

...but none of this is true, superdelegates are automatically seated and vote just as delegates do? they cast 823 votes in the 2008 election for example.

Unknown said...

Progressive is a term coined by the Clintons.

Lindsay Shugerman said...

Spot on. There is one progressive running, and it is NOT Hillary.

Blame Girl said...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/

The author is right!

Michelle Kisliuk said...

Did you read the article? It cites this exact instance.

Anonymous said...

In 1984 the superdelegates did not vote against the popular vote:
"By the time the Democratic Convention started in San Francisco Mondale had more than enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1984

Karen Ratzel said...

#NEVERHILLARY !! We WON'T !! lyin cheatin overthrowin illegal nation bldg in S Amer wall st big $ SOB

Ole Olson said...

Super Delegates don't matter until the convention in July. Despite what the corporate media tries to sell you, don't buy it. There's zero chance SD's would overturn the popular will, or they would spark a revolt that destroy our party and guarantee a neofascist GOP takeover.

Ike Deez said...

Progressives don't support candidates who are pro-wall street, pro-fracking, pro-war little darlings of the banks. You're just a dino democrat. A mirror of the past. The party will ove to the left, despite people like you who proudly support neo-liberals.

karen Morris said...

You idiot, the entire article says 'this has only happened 1time before in 1984'.

Victoria Sanders said...

You must not have read the whole article because that was discussed in the article a couple of times.

K. L. Christianson said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Parakletos said...

As I understand it -- or understood it at one time, to be more precise -- some (not all) states have laws that require the Super Delegates to vote in accordance with the pledged delegates. In other words, they cannot work against the will of the people. But that's the problem -- it's not a uniform policy.

Parakletos said...

Exactly. Hillary is a neo-Dixiecrat. Her argument against Gay Marriage was that it ought to have been left up to the states. Such states rights red democrats have no right to dictate to us true-blue democrats whom we may vote for. Especially when they'll almost certainly not even win their own states!!

janar floyd said...

cos i refuse to vote for a lying power hungry bitch that makes me and ppl like me who all see the gaping hole in her fuckin whole life,lol makes us some how un progressive? do you hear how that shit sounds??? you Dunmb asf!

Unknown said...

His "entire article" is NOT based on a "falsehood". Did Mondale win???? NO. So whats YOUR point? This is a great article actually, and explains the entire process thoroughly.

Richard Archer said...

Snopes and several other fact check sites have done extensive evaluation of the super delegate issue. All basically concur with Mr. Rubin's blog posting. Yes, there are super delegates. Yes, at this moment Clinton has far more super delegates who have stated support for her. Yes, super delegates can and have switched support in final voting. Yes, when voting in the past super delegates have consistently cast their votes for the candidate who had the majority of pledged delegates from the caucus and primary voting processes. No, Clinton is not guaranteed to receive the votes of the super delegates who have made initial statements supporting her. So far, there is only one super delegate supporting Clinton who has publicly stated that he doesn't care how the final voting goes by the actual pledged delegates and by the people voting in the primaries. That is Howard Dean, currently a very well paid lobbyist, who said he doesn't care about the primary voting and he doesn't feel obligated to consider it in casting his super delegate vote, if that vote becomes necessary.

Linda said...

Well done Mark! I have had a hazy conception of what the "mysterious" SUPER delegates role was anyway, and have been very concerned obviously, but you helped ease my mind a bit, and now I'm trying to help educate the other nervous Bernie peeps on Facebook by letting them know the correct information. Thanks again!

Cold & Salty said...

Nope.

Anonymous said...

I would be nice if you listed a bio with credentials, it would lend more support and validity to your writing. But otherwise found the article interesting.

NH said...

The superdelegates seems to me to be a clear anti-democracy function, they essentially mean that some people are more worth than others.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton there are some questionable stuff circulating, not only the mail server issues but also the Clinton Foundation that got money from questionable sources related to weapon deals.

You need to check if Hillary Clinton can survive a detailed scrutiny and tough attacks from the Republican side before deciding on Hillary or Bernie.

Anonymous said...

HEll NO!! #BERNIEORBUST! #WRITEINBERNIE!!

dkatiepowellart.me said...

Thank you, great article, sharing this on FB.

SG said...

Hah real rigged numbers is more like it. Do you honestly think WA had 30,000 people vote?

Use your brain for once.

Slickriptide said...

Since Wikipedia is being cited as a source, this is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Superdelegates:

"At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, superdelegates cast approximately 823.5 votes, with fractions arising because superdelegates from Michigan, Florida, and Democrats Abroad are entitled to half a vote each. Of the superdelegates' votes, 745 were from unpledged PLEO delegates and 78.5 were from unpledged add-on delegates."

Is that true or false?

Anonymous said...

If all this is true, then why isn't the Sanders campaign raising it as an issue?

Alexei Christopher Matt said...

Will you support Bernie since he has much better chance of winning the general election?

Shane Albritton said...

This article is grievously inaccurate. Superdelegates cast 823.5 votes at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

Ryan said...

Nice troll Chief. Real progressives are anti-establishment. Time Warner is donating millions to the HRC campaign. It would only be fitting that their"journalism" should follow suit. Not voting for Clinton. The DNC and corporations will find out just how many primary votes they suppressed in November when Hillary loses again.

Ryan said...

The author supposes that journalists are either 'ignorant or don't know '.

It would be more accurate to say they get to keep their jobs if they tow the line and they KNOW that. These so-called journalists get paid well to lie on behalf of Time Warner, GE, and all their other corporate handlers.

Anonymous said...

The author keeps saying that superdelegates don't vote, except in unusual situations such as that in 1984. However, a review of the convention voting results for all of the conventions since 1980 shows that the votes of superdelegates (unpledged PLEOs and unpledged add-ons) are counted and included in the total for each candidate. The author offers no proof to support his claims, other than to keep stating that superdelegates don't vote, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is simply no substantiation in the DNC rules for the author's claims. Factual, verifiable substantiation -- rather than the author repeating his own words -- is needed. Absent that, the assessment in several previous comments -- that the article is based on a false premise -- seems to be accurate.

Dana Richards said...

Hillary is hiring hate groups to try and ruin trump. She wants to start a new world order and this is what america will look like http://foxnews.com/crisis2100

akovia said...

Plenty to think about and discuss here. But this article is so poorly crafted that I cannot take it too seriously. Repetitive, poor selling and worse grammar weakens the truth. Especially when discussing politics. Please, don't post any more rough drafts.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is everything I support Bernie Sanders for opposing. Hillary is not sufficiently different from Trump for me to hold my nose and vote for her. The source of greatest concern is who will appoint the next three Justices of the SCOTUSA and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that her appointments would be every bit as corporatist as Trump's. Look at her primary corporate sponsors--Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner and the prison for profit industry.

Sheryl Karas said...

PLEASE, I would love to share this post, but you have not cited a source that can be checked! In the comments you say "The Harvard Kenney School of Government at Harvard will give you a history of super delegates." How? If I show up to someone's class? PLEASE CITE A REAL SOURCE that can be checked!

barbara.larcom said...

I read somewhere (sorry, would have to find the source) that in 2008, Hillary Clinton asked the convention (including the superdelegates, I believe) to nominate Obama by acclamation. Correct?

Anonymous said...

Exactly. Superdelegates DO vote at EVERY primary as well. This article shows a fundamental lack of understanding about our election process and is FAR from journalism. It's laughable.

Forthebern said...

For some reason, when sharing this on Facebook, the snippet of text included in the "preview" that gets posted uses the text of one of your inaccurate, negative commenters, rather than text from your article. I can't find any way to edit this. Can this be fixed?

Anonymous said...

I agree, superdelegates do vote at every primary. Too many people comment and write articles about something they obviously don't understand and to demonize the process is really disingenuous when Bernie is trying to sway those same bad superdelegates to win the nomination. So it's only bad and unfair if they pledge to your opponent.

Anonymous said...

Marc, I can't find anywhere besides this post where a 2/3 majority of pledged delegates is cited as the number required to secure the nomination. Can you tell me where I might find corroboration of that? Every other source I've seen shows that 2,383 delegates are needed, which is a simple majority of the total of all pledged AND unpledged delegates.

Marc Rubin said...

"Marc, I can't find anywhere besides this post where a 2/3 majority of pledged delegates is cited as the number required to secure the nomination. Can you tell me where I might find corroboration of that? Every other source I've seen shows that 2,383 delegates are needed"

See the link below. I found the 2/3 referred to in a variety of places in different articles including accounts of the 1984 Democratic convention when super delegates were used for the first and only time because though Mondale had a 500 delegate lead over Gary Hart he didnt have the 2/3 needed for the nomination and it was super delegates that gave him enough.

I have seen the 2383 figure myself and it only accounts for 50% of the total 4763 delegates so why that number is repeated I cant answer. I do know all it takes is for one news site to get it wrong and they will all copy the same number. That is not to say the DNC didnt change the rules aince 2008. But I did find sites that referenced the 2/3 majority to win the nomination - that is 2/3 of pledged or a combination of pledged and super. Which is where super delegates would come in if someone didnt reach the 2/3 threshold. Which, allowing that there could have been a rule change, the 2383 doesnt make sense since it is only 50% of the 4763 total of all Democratic delegates, pledged and super and I will be very surprised now if it all it takes to get the nomination is 50%.

But here is a link to CNN All Politcs, one site where they specifically mention the 2/3 needed and you can see for yourself. If you look up accounts of the 1984 Dem convention when Mondale was awarded enough super delegates to reach the 2/3 plateau you can find it there too.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/rules/index.shtml


Marc Rubin said...

"I agree, superdelegates do vote at every primary. Too many people comment and write articles about something they obviously don't understand"

And many people comment on things they are totally ignorant about and dont understand and you could not be more wrong or more misinformed. Super delegates NEVER vote in primaries as super delegates. They vote in a primary as one vote like anyone else which has nothing to do with being a super delegate only an American citizen and a registered Democrat if its a closed primary. Super delegates do not cast votes in primaries AS super delegates and have not voted for a presidential candidate at a Democratic convention in 32 years. So Im sorry to say you are one of those people who comment and write about things you dont have a clue about.

Marc Rubin said...

"Anonymous said...
In 1984 the superdelegates did not vote against the popular vote:
"By the time the Democratic Convention started in San Francisco Mondale had more than enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. "

Wikipedia as you know is information left by people and on some occasions is wrong. This is one of them. Mondale went into the convention with a 1606-1164 lead over Gary Hart. Had he had enough for the nomination super delegates never would have voted.He didnt. They voted to give him the 2/3 necessary for the nomination but still reaffirmed the results of the primaries.

Marc Rubin said...

"Karen Ratzel said...
#NEVERHILLARY !! We WON'T !! lyin cheatin overthrowin illegal nation bldg in S Amer wall st big $ SOB"

FYI latest poll showed 40% of Bernie voters said they will not under any circumstances vote for Hillary. It was broken down into the 3 Republican candidates but it totaled 40%.

Marc Rubin said...

Ole Olson said...
"Super Delegates don't matter until the convention in July."

Absolutely correct.

Marc Rubin said...

Anonymous said...
"Marc, I can't find anywhere besides this post where a 2/3 majority of pledged delegates is cited as the number required to secure the nomination. Can you tell me where I might find corroboration of that?"

Here is another link to try. The first one is a bit obstuse since it refers to a 2/3 "vote" needed prior to 1936 that was changed, but vote and delegates are not the same.

Try this other link below. It was referenced by another reader. Twice it mentions Mondale having not reached " the magic number" to win the nomination though he had a clear 500 delegate lead and more than half. They dont give the "magic number" but clearly there was one and it was more than having a majority of delegates since that was not enough.

The Democrats need to clean up their rules instead of changing them and making them this complicated. But Pelosi did say in 2008 super delegates were obligated to reaffirm the delegate leader from the primaries.


http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/

Marc Rubin said...

"For some reason, when sharing this on Facebook, the snippet of text included in the "preview" that gets posted uses the text of one of your inaccurate, negative commenters, rather than text from your article. I can't find any way to edit this. Can this be fixed?"

It happened to me too. I dont know why. I reposted it on Facebook and the same incorrect reader comment was included in the posting and I couldnt find a way to get rid of it. Must be a Facebook glitch since there were almost 40 comments at the time and I dont know why that was chosen. Since there are many more comments since, you could try again and see what happens.

Anonymous said...

This doesn't match up to the Wikipedia page on Superdelegates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate It looks like they are in play every time. Why the discrepancy?

TimeDancer said...

For better posts: You can put any post together yourself. Copy & paste the URL of the article you wish to share on Facebook. If the box that comes with it doesn't contain the text or image you want to feature (and often they don't) — delete it by clicking on the 'x' in the upper right corner of the box. Then copy & paste the text and image (if any) that you want to appear in your post. Sometimes you may have to drag & drop an image from the article onto your desktop and them upload it to your post. This is not copyright infringement because it is an image that was published with the story. And yes, you better make sure that all you are putting together belong to the same story or that would be dishonest and get you into trouble. As for photo credit, that generally appears in the story when people click on your post, but make sure you don't also have to include a credit with the image you select. This comes in handy also when sharing a story but an image from a different story or an ad automatically comes with the share.

Vibraphonist said...

As I understand, super delegates almost voted in 2008, but then did not. This Wikipedia entry suggests they did. Would you claim this a false entry? I'm trying to get clear on this but at the moment things are about as clear as mud. Your explanation is the most logical I've come across. If you could respond to this Wikipedia entry when you have time that would be much appreciated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

Anonymous said...

Jeeez...THANK YOU for trying to bring some actual FACT to counter this misinformational diatribe!
.
.
Quoting original author:
"Without being needed to vote superdelegates wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates won"

OF COURSE THEY WOULD DARE!! That is their very raisin d'etre, to counter pledged delegates when it's not going the way the Good Ol Boyz want it to go! THAT is precisely why they were created, to have a means whereby the party elites could override the popular vote, should the voters choose not to get in line behind the DNC's Chosen One. Superdelegates are a shameless failsafe for the Good Ol Boyz! Nothing more nor less. The threat is REAL, people! Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

Anonymous said...

Marc, the problem with your expose is that it minimizes the Very Real Threat the superdelegates are!
.
.
Quoting you:
"Without being needed to vote superdelegates wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates won"

WTH?? OF COURSE THEY WOULD DARE!! That is their very raison d'etre, to counter pledged delegates when it's not going the way the Good Ol Boyz want it to go! THAT is precisely why they were created, to have a means whereby the party elites could override the popular vote, should the voters choose not to get in line behind the DNC's Chosen One. Superdelegates are a shameless failsafe for the Good Ol Boyz! Nothing more nor less. Just look at WHO they are!!
.
. The threat is REAL, people! The media are along for the ride. So get UP AND BE HEARD, BERNERS!! Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. THEY ARE!! And only real people, really voting will stop them!!

Cinthya Carbajal said...

There is also another super delegate from Alaska who says they will vote for Clinton even though the majority of her state voter for sanders . This super delegate is Kim Metcalfe

Cinthya Carbajal said...

Kim Metcalfe is another super delegate, from Alaska who says that she will vote for Clinton even though the majority of her state voted for sanders.

Daniel LaLiberte said...

I for one would still like to see the rules of the democratic convention. A few supportive interpretations are helpful, but I still haven't found anything authoritative and definitive. The WikiPedia article on the Democratic National Convention actually talks about the end of the 2/3 majority rule in 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention

Anonymous said...

Guys.

I don't claim to know all that much about American politics, BUT from what I do understand, this claim is false. Super delegates have voted in every election since 1984, which is the one time they influenced the result.

Spreading false info like this does not help the progressive cause. And for all of the American progressive dummies out there who plan on staying home if Bernie loses... please pull your heads out of your bums. While you may not like Clinton (in part because you have been affected by years and years of the rightwing campaign against her), she is still a billion or so times better than Trump.

If I were an American, I would support Bernie. But if Bernie isn't the candidate, I would support Clinton hands down. Why? Because ANYONE but Trump/Cruz is the strategy you should take.

Mirtos said...

This is untrue. They vote in primaries, yes as individuals, but they also vote in the convention. And they have in pretty much every convention. To say they dont is untrue.

The information you cite is that they havent made a difference because the pledged delegates which (for the most part) have to vote for their candidates and generally have the magic number, thus making the super delegate vote not mattering much in the first ballot. But they absolutely vote.

Obama voted for himself in 2008 (he was a superdelegate). Clintons (both Bill and Hillary were super delegates) also voted for Obama in the convention.

Mirtos said...

However, Super Delegates DO exist. They DO vote at each convention, not just ties. So while its tru theyve never really changed the vote from 84, the information you are presenting just isnt true.

ginnyjollykidd said...

Sanders supporters don't have to stay home if Clinton is elected in the primary. On every ballot I have ever voted is the option for a write - in candidate. If I can't have my candidate nominated, I will write in Bernie Sanders' name in the general election ballot.

Never forget you always have an option!

Anonymous said...

There is a YUGE difference between what Debbie said and what you keep saying. She said super delegates never determined Democratic nominee (ignoring 1984), which is a well known fact, as they never voted against the popular vote. You say they "never voted" - period. That is a very different thing. I could not find any other source supporting that. Google "super delegates never voted" with quotation marks and it only brings up your article or links to it out of the whole internet. I read all your responses above and you haven't listed a single source making exactly this claim.

The Democratic National Convention isn't a secret meeting, but you seem to have some secret knowledge in your unpublished book that nobody else seems to know about. I quote what Wikipedia says about the 2008 case as an example:

"On February 2, 2007, the Democratic Party published 'Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,' the rules governing the convention. There was 3,409.5 pledged delegates ... There was about 823.5 unpledged delegates ... for a total of about 4,233 delegates, requiring 2,117 votes to constitute a majority of the convention"

The page lists the vote results:

Barack Obama 3,188.5 votes
Hillary Clinton 1,010.5 votes
Abstentions 1.0
Delegates who did not vote 219.0
Totals 4,419.0

The number of "Delegates who did not vote" simply is much less than the total number of super delegates. So, they couldn't have "not voted".

Now, I have noticed that some links to their sources are broken and some numbers do not quite add up. But I did verify the announced "official results of the state tally sheets that were collected during voting". The bottom line is: they add up to 4199. Assuming none of the almost 800 super delegates voted, as you claimed, there would have to be at least 5000 total delegates! How would that be possible?!

Finally, your suggestion that they voted as citizens not as super delegates, in response to a comment above, is just absurd: Would their "citizen vote" get counted in the total "delegate vote" numbers in that case? Why would they have to cast their citizen vote at the Convention, rather than just vote with their fellow citizens at the State primaries?

I am with you on supporting Bernie, but not doing it by spreading false information.

Sources:
Not listing any links as the post might get stuck for moderation. But look up:
[1] Wikipedia under 2008 Democratic National Convention
[2] "Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention" the PDF document
[3] 2008 Democratic National Convention Roll Call Results

Lokust said...

If you think Hillary is a progressive then you aren't paying attention. If you're voting for her at all you aren't a progressive.

Kris said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

Kris said...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-16/party-superdelegates-won-t-swipe-nomination

Kris said...

At this point with all the fraud that is taking place by the DNC and the Clintons, I don't see a big difference between Hillary and Donald!!! I will not vote for Hillary! I think Trump is all talk and loves the attention so he says things that get attention, he is not a stupid man and he knows he cannot do half the things he says he's going to do but we'll see!!??

Anonymous said...

Reading this is just depressing. Seems the voting rules Were created to stymy the process. No wonder so many young people have given up.

Rose Raven said...

No, it is not a term coined by the Clintons. Hil defined progressive as progress to call herself a Progressive. She is not a Progressive she is a pragmatist.

Marc Rubin said...

"I would be nice if you listed a bio with credentials"

My credentials are Im an artist,a former art director in the ad business having won a variety of awards for my ads and TV commercials,Ive been the head writer on a number of prime time network TV series and in 2008 was the Exec.Director of a PAC called The Denver Group that supported Hillary Clinton where I created ads and TV commercials for her candidacy that generated a lot of media attention and was interviewed by the NY Times (twice) Huffington Post(twice) Congressional Quarterly, The Hill,have done TV interviews on ABC News, Fox News, and written about in a bunch of other places.There's more but that's probably enough. But my best credential is I can think. And take nobody's word for anything. Which is about the same thing. And, yes supporting Bernie Sanders now over Clinton. Not a credential, just transparency.

Marc Rubin said...

"Anonymous said...
If all this is true, then why isn't the Sanders campaign raising it as an issue?"

First, it's all true. Second its a very good question. If I were advising them I would have been all over this after New Hampshire. Why they arent I dont know. Speculation? Bernie has no surrogates other than his campaign manager. Maybe when they get air time they want to talk about other things. The NY Times as of March 6 stopped showing supers as part of the delegate total and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has given two interviews this month on MSNBC and Fox and was asked about it and stated the news media shouldnt be including supers. I have gotten Tweets back from Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny and John King at CNN complaining about showing the supers and their answers show how uninformed they are.

Personally I think the Sanders campaign should have brought it up because it highlights Clinton's dishonesty in rounding up a bunch of Dem pols to make declarations that dont count to make it look like her lead is bigger than it is.

Marc Rubin said...

" Slickriptide said...
Since Wikipedia is being cited as a source, this is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Superdelegates:

"At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, superdelegates cast approximately 823.5 votes, with fractions arising because superdelegates from Michigan, Florida, and Democrats Abroad are entitled to half a vote each. Of the superdelegates' votes, 745 were from unpledged PLEO delegates and 78.5 were from unpledged add-on delegates."

Is that true or false?"

I was personally and actively involved during the convention in Denver and it is 100% false. There was not one super delegate vote cast in 2008, mostly because they were poised to vote for Clinton.

Donna Brazile made this public statement at the convention: " If super delegates decide this nomination I will quit the Democratic Party". They never did. They never cast a vote. What actually happened and the entire 2008 campaign is subject for another time and maybe even a book.

Marc Rubin said...

"Sheryl Karas said...
PLEASE, I would love to share this post, but you have not cited a source that can be checked! In the comments you say "The Harvard Kenney School of Government at Harvard will give you a history of super delegates." How? If I show up to someone's class? PLEASE CITE A REAL SOURCE that can be checked"

If you Google the Harvard Kennedy School of Politics and Super delegates you should find the page that will give you the entire history of super delegates. I found it so I know its there and got a great deal of information there.

Also as to super delegates and their validity, just this month Debby Wasserman-Schultz did two TV interviews, one with Maria Bartolo on Fox and the other on MSNBC which are still online and can be seen where she says the media should not be counting super delegates.

Finally as to the 2,383 number which I too have seen in the media repeatedly, you can fact check with your own calculator. The Democratic Party lists 4,763 total delegates including super delegates. The number 2383 the media keeps showing is only 50% of that total so it cant be right if supers are included. There are 712 supers. If you subtract the supers from that total you get 4051 pledged delegates to be won. The 2383 number is about 60% of that total where 2/3 would be 66%. So its either 2/3 (66%) or 60% to win the nomination if they changed the rules. Either way its at least 60% of the pledged delegates. But it also shows that the 2.383 number which is 60% of pledged delegates does NOT include super delegates which also shows that based on Democratic party rules under normal circumstances they are not even expected to vote and are not counted as part of the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. They are there for emergencies only. Neither Clinton nor Sanders are going to end the campaign with the minimum number of delegates needed for the nomination. And as with the one time in the past, if supers do vote they would be expected to affirm the pledged delegate winner assuming one or the other has a reasonable lead. If neither does all hell could break loose.

If all this sounds confusing you can thank the Democratic party and their insane way of doing things including this horror show called superdelegates.

So the

Marc Rubin said...

"Shane Albritton said...
This article is grievously inaccurate. Superdelegates cast 823.5 votes at the Democratic National Convention"

You and unfortunately the village idiot you believe who wrote that on Wikipedia are grievously inaccurate. Not one super delegate cast a single vote for anyone at the Democratic convention in 2008 and I know that first hand for an absolute fact. Also the moron who wrote that in Wiki obviously didnt know there are only 712 super delegates to begin with in the Democratic party.

Marc Rubin said...

"The author keeps saying that superdelegates don't vote, except in unusual situations such as that in 1984. However, a review of the convention voting results for all of the conventions since 1980 shows that the votes of superdelegates (unpledged PLEOs and unpledged add-ons) are counted and included in the total for each candidate."

Your sources stink. No super delegates have voted since 1984. And in 2008 after cutting a deal with Clinton who released her delegates a motion was made to nominate Obama by acclimation which is what happened.

Anonymous said...

This may possibly answer some questions?
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

Anonymous said...

Just stumbled onto this link. Is it helpful?https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

Marc Rubin said...

"akovia said...
Plenty to think about and discuss here. But this article is so poorly crafted that I cannot take it too seriously. Repetitive, poor selling and worse grammar weakens the truth. Especially when discussing politics. Please, don't post any more rough drafts."

Thank you teacher. And thanks for pointing out the "poor selling". And that "poor grammar weakens the truth". Ben Franklin couldnt have said it better. I assume English is a second language.

Anonymous said...

Could prove helpful?

http://demrulz.org/wp-content/files/12.15.14_2016_Delegate_Selection_Documents_Mailing_-_Rules_Call_Regs_Model_Plan_Checklist_12.15.14.pdf

Marc Rubin said...

"barbara.larcom said...
I read somewhere (sorry, would have to find the source) that in 2008, Hillary Clinton asked the convention (including the superdelegates, I believe) to nominate Obama by acclamation. Correct?"

Close. A little more complicated but close. Hillary refused to release her delegates before the convention which she was pressured to do. She and Obama had a closed door meeting at Clinton's home and made a deal which obviously resulted in her named Sec. of State in return for her support. After Obama reached the magic number during the roll call on the first ballot, then it was agreed to nominate him by acclimation.

Marc Rubin said...

"Exactly. Superdelegates DO vote at EVERY primary as well. This article shows a fundamental lack of understanding about our election process and is FAR from journalism. It's laughable."

Exactly not. Your an idiot. They never vote in primaries as super delegagtes they have no standing in primaries as super delegates and the only vote they cast in a primary is to drag themselves to the polls and vote like everyone else. And they have not voted at a convention since 1984. Maybe you should just leave the election process to grown ups instead of making comments that are laughable.

jeremy stout said...

Neither of these links contain any information about unpledged delegates not voting. They each have 1 vote like every citizen. They simply are not bound to vote for their State's nominee..they can vote for whichever Dem they choose..which in a very close primary election, it is hoped they will break the tie. They vote just like the rest of us.

Marc Rubin said...

"Anonymous said...
Marc, I can't find anywhere besides this post where a 2/3 majority of pledged delegates is cited as the number required to secure the nomination. Can you tell me where I might find corroboration of that? Every other source I've seen shows that 2,383 delegates are needed, which is a simple majority of the total of all pledged AND unpledged delegates"

Someone else had the same question and I left a lengthy answer. Trying to keep it short Im also aware of the 2383 number. However it cant be right and come from pledged and unpledged delegates. As I pointed out in my other answer the total number of delegates, pledged and unpledged, that is including super delegates, is 4763. The 2383 number is only 50% of that total so it cant be right otherwise you could have two candidates with 50% of the total and then what? Its not even a majority.

The number of pledged delegates is 4051, minus 712 supers. The 2383 number is 60% of that where 2/3 is 66%. Maybe they changed the rules since 2008 so only 60% is needed not 66%. Though previously it was 2/3 which is why super delegates gave Mondale enough to meet the threshold in 1984.

However your source saying a candidate needs 2383 of pledged and unpledged is clearly wrong.As pointed out that number only be 50% of the total of pledge and unpledged delegates which wouldnt even be a simply majority.

jeremy stout said...

Yes, if there is a source for this, someone please post. Thus far it seems the author has confused a vote with the 'unpledged' status. Unpledged delegates vote..they are unpledged to stick with their respective State's pick. They can vote for whichever Dem they choose, which theoretically would break a tie.

Marc Rubin said...

" Anonymous said...
This doesn't match up to the Wikipedia page on Superdelegates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate It looks like they are in play every time. Why the discrepancy?"

The Wikipedia statement is wrong. I dont know what you mean by "in play". They are always there to potentially vote but only if called on and havent been called on since 1984. And havent cast a vote for a nomination for president since 1984.

jeremy stout said...

True. Just as blinded by the process as the Trumpsters. I a Bernie supporter 100%, just not buying the Bernie weedpipes and other nonsense these excitables proliferate.

jeremy stout said...

Please source this, "they did vote in 1984, 32 years ago, and that it is the only time they ever did, only underscores how rare it is that they do vote"
I can not find a source to validate this claim. Trust me, we all hope you are correct.

jeremy stout said...

A superdelegate's pledge is only as useful as a poll number. Their vote counts as a vote. You've certainly done your part in exciting this conversation! Still googling like a madman to find proof that superdelegates do not vote, except in mitigating circumstances.

jeremy stout said...

Now this statement clears things up! They do vote, at the convention. And not only in the case of tie..

MaryP said...

It would be great if accurate. It is not. Superdelegates have voted at every convention. Only in 1984 were their votes decisive. Go back through the convention tool call votes for documentation. Pledged delegate votes do not count until they are cast at the convention either.

Marc Rubin said...

Vibraphonist said...
I understand, super delegates almost voted in 2008, but then did not. This Wikipedia entry suggests they did. Would you claim this a false entry?

It is a 100% false entry.

Marc Rubin said...

Cinthya Carbajal said...
Kim Metcalfe is another super delegate, from Alaska who says that she will vote for Clinton even though the majority of her state voted for sanders.

Sad to say these are party hacks of which there are too many who have made a deal in return for something that clearly has more to do with what they were promised personally than being honest. All the more reason the party needs someone like Sanders to clean house. I would also take odds that they will change their minds if Sanders goes to the convention and the tide turns because these people are have no integrity and will turn on Clinton in a minute if they see she wont deliver what was promised.

Marc Rubin said...

"I for one would still like to see the rules of the democratic convention."

Since they are always changing the rules and doing it behind closed doors it might be hard to find what the rules will be in July right now. You could try and find the "2008 Call to the Convention" from the last presidential election. That is given out to all convention goers and includes the nominating rules.Its like a program.

As for right now, just do some math as I pointed out to two others. There are 4763 total potential delegates which includes 712 supers. The 2383 figure widely published as needed to win the nomination is only half of that total.So it cant include supers. If you subtract the supers (which is proof in itself that they are not counted on to vote) you get 4051.

2383 is 60% of that number. The difference between 60% and 66% (or 2/3) can be explained two ways: they either changed the rules since 2008 so it takes 60% not 66%, OR there are a number of "at large" delegates which are different from supers or pledged (Washington state has a number of them and so does Iowa)and subtracting those from 4051 could bring the 2383 number up to 66% or 2/3.

Marc Rubin said...

Anonymous said...
Guys.

I don't claim to know all that much about American politics, BUT from what I do understand, this claim is false. Super delegates have voted in every election since 1984, which is the one time they influenced the result.


Youre right about one thing: you dont know much about American politics.And about this you know nothing. You are 100% wrong. They havent voted since 1984. Which is why super delegates arent even included in the percentage of delegates needed to nominate. The number must be reached NOT INCLUDING supers who would only vote if requested and havent been since 1984.So what you understand is wrong.

Marc Rubin said...

"Marc, the problem with your expose is that it minimizes the Very Real Threat the superdelegates are!"

Everything I have read from many sources all agree the super delegate system is not just dumb its undemocratic. So far in only voting once,they upheld Mondale who won the most pledged delegates and only voted to bring him up to the number he technically needed. Is it possible they could be stupid enough to go against the pledged delegate leader? Democrats do have a knack for finding ways to lose but if they did they'd bring the Democratic party to its knees, Sanders voters would never support Clinton and they'd get killed in congress too. Is it possible they could be that stupid? Yes.

Marc Rubin said...

"Mirtos said...
This is untrue. They vote in primaries, yes as individuals, but they also vote in the convention. And they have in pretty much every convention. To say they dont is untrue.

The information you cite is that they havent made a difference.."

Again you are someone who doesnt have a clue. They do NOT always vote they have NOT voted since 1984, they did NOT vote in 2008 and its not that they didnt make a difference, they didnt vote. Whether they didnt vote because it wasnt necessary as would be the case if the requisite number of delegates were won in primaries or there was only one nominee as with Obama in 2012, Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000 is besides the point. The point is they havent voted. Period.

Marc Rubin said...

Annonymous said: "On February 2, 2007, the Democratic Party published 'Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,' the rules governing the convention. There was 3,409.5 pledged delegates ... There was about 823.5 unpledged delegates ... for a total of about 4,233 delegates, requiring 2,117 votes to constitute a majority of the convention"

The page lists the vote results:

Barack Obama 3,188.5 votes
Hillary Clinton 1,010.5 votes
Abstentions 1.0
Delegates who did not vote 219.0
Totals 4,419.0

The page lists huh. What page is that? Wikipedia?Your powers of observation are truly impressive.

It's dated Feb.7 2007 and lists the results of a nominating convention that didnt take place until August of 2008. Very impressive. Can they predict winners at the track too? Who wrote it? You? Or Rod Serling? I wont go into all the rest that was wrong not the least of which that in 2008 Obama was finally nominated in the end by acclimation which was the official result, meaning ALL delegates ( thats what we call them in our secret meetings -- delegates not votes) were cast for Obama.

Marc Rubin said...

" Anonymous said...
There is a YUGE difference between what Debbie said and what you keep saying. She said super delegates never determined Democratic nominee (ignoring 1984)"

First why ignore 1984 since it was THE ONLY TIME they voted? Second not determining Democratic nominee means to you they voted? Why would they vote if they didnt determine the nominee? For exercise? Third, did you hear her say the media should not be including superdelegates now in delegate totals? Can you figure out why?

Marc Rubin said...

"Alexei Christopher Matt said...
Will you support Bernie since he has much better chance of winning the general election?"

Ive been supporting Bernie from the beginning.And always felt he had a much bigger chance than most were giving him credit for. He has at least proved that much true and I think he will end the primary season with more pledged delegates than Clinton.It wont surprise me if he wins New York, but he doesnt, anything close in small single digits where they virtually split the delegates would be a major blow to Clinton and set Bernie up to win the pledged delegate count

Marc Rubin said...

"Thus far it seems the author has confused a vote with the 'unpledged' status. Unpledged delegates vote..they are unpledged to stick with their respective State's pick. "

Unpledged and super delegates are not the same thing. I hope this clears up your confusion.

Marc Rubin said...

Jeremy stout said...
Please source this, "they did vote in 1984, 32 years ago, and that it is the only time they ever did, only underscores how rare it is that they do vote"
I can not find a source to validate this claim. Trust me, we all hope you are correct"

I am correct because my sources are correct. As for your not finding something, are you trying to prove a negative? That they didnt vote? Instead try and find a year since 1984 in which they DID voted. If you cant then its safe to say they didnt vote. Because they didnt.

Marc Rubin said...

" Pledged delegate votes do not count until they are cast at the convention either."

The reason they are called "pledged" is because they are. They are required to vote for the candidate they were voted to go to the convention to vote for. Supers are not. And despite a few who seem to think supers voted at a convention they did not. Whether or not their votes were ADDED after the nomination was decided as window dressing, maybe but I dont consider that a vote. A vote is when votes are cast during a roll call state by state.

Henry Wyman said...

Who ever wrote that the Super delegates are for Hilary is a fraud, and the supper delegates, are neutral.

About the supper delegates? listen to Debbie Wasserman's explanation on a TV, asked to explain the purpose: (she says nothing about DNC rules), she explains - plainly: The Supper Delegates are there to protect the Party and DNC from GRASSROOT ACTIVISTS.

Thank U very much.

Mike Magoo said...

The world's first "progressive" neo-con, with a cabinet guaranteed to include execs from Goldman and Lehman. No thanks.

Mike Magoo said...

It's actually jackass.

Anonymous said...

Clinton propaganda? Isn't campaigning little more than candidate propaganda? The facts are that Hillary has a commanding lead. She loses caucuses not primaries. She hasn't lost one primary that was closed. She carries by huge margins Democratic voters.

Coming up she will add to her lead with the 5 state primaries to come this week. Bernie is carrying the water for the ReThugliTARDS by giving them fodder to use in their ads against Hillary. Have already heard t-RUMP using a Bernie line/lie to attack Hillary.

It's time for this fool to head back to Vermont. He is staying way to long at the dance.

1stfirstgentleman com said...

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, there will be 2 President Clintons in the United States. Bill Clinton has joked about being called the "1st First Gentleman" http://1stfirstgentleman.com/

Rose Maria said...

In one word, describe Hillary Clinton.?
Trump Wife

Sandra C. said...

I will NEVER vote for a lying, cheating, power hungry, war mongering, racist Clinton, who thinks we are all so stupid that we do not see the corruption in her politics. I have watched the voter fraud happening in state after state since Iowa. No one in authority is willing to do anything about it when presented with evidence. We no longer have a democracy, something I believed would never happened. I am at my breaking point. I am ready to vote for Trump to make sure she doesn't get the elected!

Marc Rubin said...

" I am ready to vote for Trump to make sure she doesn't get the elected!"

You and I think about 10 million other Sanders voters and Democrats have only themselves to blame. Its the best way to clean house and rid the Democrats of the political corruption that is what they have become. And defeat the super delegates with primary challenges so in two years Sanders Democrats are running for congress and getting elected. Two years after that a Sanders Democrat can run for president and win.

Pat said...

These 2016 problems for Trump & Sanders in running candidates who are not really members of the parties they state they represent.

A live warm body Orator is not enough qualification to become President.

We need to end parties, or have rules for parties so that "not everything goes" in elections.

It's a terrible way to run a country, having quasi-leadership in such esteemed positions of government. The parties have done this to themselves.

We need third party for oddballs who can gather movements to keep the two parties on the right track & going into ditches.