Reply to Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The author is a former pollster for Bill Clinton who is now on the outside looking in. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Bernie can narrowly win California and the state's delegate split would still be about even. He's not going to win NJ, or PR or USVI this weekend, or DC. Superdelegates are breaking for HRC at this point, not the other way around. [/quote]
But if they actually followed the will of the voters not near as many would be pledged for Clinton.  Clinton currently only has about 54% of pledged delegates that have already been voted for.  Yet she has 92% of the superdelegates.[/quote]
I'm not going to argue with you, or even point out that superdelegates are not required to follow the voters' will -- and in fact, Sanders is now arguing that they should NOT do that. He wants the superdelegates to do the opposite. I will just refer you to extensive analyses by FiveThirtyEight:

[url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/[/url][/quote]
Exactly, superdelegates do not follow the will of the voters.  So there is no logical reason to not expect Sanders or any primary candidate not to try to win them over.  There's also no logical reason to claim it's unreasonable for any primary candidate not to do so.  So any HRC supporter claiming otherwise is speaking with a forked tongue.[/quote]

I don't know any Clinton supporters speaking in the abstract about Sanders's claim that he wants to flip superdelegates.  When Sanders was doing well earlier in the primaries, he himself claimed that the superdelegates mean the system is rigged and they should vote in accordance with the primary/caucus outcome in their state.  At this point, that won't be sufficient to win him the nomination, so at least some superdelegates will have to vote against the winner of their state to make Sanders the nominee.  That is why the superdelegates exist, so in a vacuum it's a reasonable thing to say.  The hypocrisy is that until recently Sanders claimed that superdelegates should not be allowed to overturn the will of the voters.[/quote]

Agreed.  One other thing to add to this: Why is there an assumption that superdelegates should be awarded state by state on a winner-take-all basis when pledged delegates are awarded proportionally?  That doesn't make sense.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics