Thursday, March 31, 2016

Bernie Sanders could still win the nomination

If we chose party candidates democratically, where we all had an opportunity to vote for them, Bernie Sanders would win easily (see here).  But the party system doesn't work that way, especially for the Democrats.  From the article:  Sanders just swept through the West, winning five of six contests by
stunning margins. In addition, he isn’t just a candidate — he’s a cause.
Sanders seeks to build a movement that can make the political
revolution needed to transform the country, not simply win the White
He’s already won 15 primaries and caucuses, and lost four more by the barest whisker. And he keeps rising.For the first time, the most recent Bloomberg poll shows him edging ahead of Clinton
among registered Democratic voters. Other national polls consistently
show her once forbidding lead continuing to narrow. Sanders draws large
and mostly enthusiastic crowds and continues to rouse young people
across the country. His supporters are eager to fuel his campaign. He outraised Clinton dramatically
in February — $43 million to $30 million, as his 2 million small donors
contributed more than her deep-pocket investors. In fact, more than 70
percent of Clinton’s donations have come from large donors, who are maxing out in increasing numbers.

Why won't he win handily?  All of the "superdelegates" are pledged to Clinton.  What are super delegates?  Delegates who aren't awarded by primaries. (see here)  But he, along with Trump for the Republicans, is showing that big money doesn't have to drive every political outcome.


  1. It seems like there were multiple reasons why super delegates came to being. I am not sure if they actually make the process more "democratic". If anyone else has any comments on this article, it would be interesting to hear your opinion.

    In summary, it states that they are a defense against voter fraud, defense against scandal, and defense against radical candidates.


    1. Hey Kenny, just took a look at the article, it was pretty interesting. I haven't paid enough attention to the election process, so my guess at the word 'superdelegate' was basically a delegate whose commitment was worth more than a regular delegate's (I know, it sounds pretty stupid). After reading these articles, I was thinking about the issues involved with this process, and just like any good college student would do, I turned to google, and searched "problems with superdelegates". This ( link from the Huffington Post brought up a good issue corresponding to democratic superdelegates; that individuals who are not in the Democratic Party but caucus with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) are at a strict disadvantage. The vast majority, if not all of superdelegates are Democratic Party members, so it would be difficult to convince many to make commitments outside of their party. Maybe this is why Kim Metcalfe from the article above refuses to 'feel the bern'. It seems to me that the superdelegate concept might work in theory, but not in practice.

    2. I mostly agree with what you're saying Mario, but I would almost argue that the super delegates don't work in theory either. The leadership in the democratic parties that have the super delegate voting privilege are citizens and shouldn't have more power than the average American. "The answer is: what you’re doing is creating two classes of delegates, people with the vote and people without the vote. Clearly, the people at the grassroots level should be the predominant voice. But if you don’t give elected officials a real voice, they are basically second-class citizens.” So does this process actually encourage democracy? Or is it an option for the establishment to decide who is best for the party? The election process in this country seems to have very serious issues.

  2. It seems to me that superdelegates don't serve much of a purpose. Like Mario points out, it might be nice in theory (for the reasons Kenny's article discusses) but Mario's article points out that most superdelegates don't even use their voting power, since it would look bad if a group of affluent party elites were the deciding factor in the nomination. The article even states

    "the ideal situation for many superdelegates is for them to merely use their vote as a ceremonial affirmation of the voters’ consensus. That’s why hundreds of them are currently biding their time, not picking anyone. Many superdelegates are in it for the perks — a hotel room at the convention, a place amid the pageantry on the floor — and would rather not see their potentially decisive power being used to decide a nominee."

  3. I really like Mario's comments on the super delegate issue. A lot of things sound good in theory but put them in practice and wow. From today's New York Times,