Maybe I'm misunderstanding - you seem to be advocating (or at least hinting around) the idea that Superdelegates should "defect" en masse to vote for Saders at the convention? I'm just confused because that would seem to be the exact subversion of the will of the people that you say Supers represent - handing a nomination to the candidate who trailed in delegates and the popular vote.
Which granted, is the function of supers - to try to stabilize the nominating process to help ensure the candidate who is (ideally) most aligned to party politics while being generally electable. But it just seems like trying too much to have it both ways?
Let me elaborate on what I mean.
The person who is presented as the candidate for the general election should be the person who carries the popular vote. Full stop. Who a given party's candidate is should be dictated by the people who vote - one person, one vote (which is the thing that makes elitists mad, because that means Billy Bob Colon Blow McJunior III, living in backwoods Mississippi, registered KKK member and owner of the most assault rifles in the county, is just as important to the election process as them). There is absolutely no reason for superdelegates to exist other than for party insiders to control the process and ensure that insurgent candidates like Sanders, or Hart, or McGovern, face an uphill battle against the establishment.
To use this election as an illustration.
Let's say we come to the end of the primaries, and Hillary has carried 68% of the popular vote, compared to Bernie's 32%. Then, yes, Hillary is the nominee, she was more popular, that's legit.
Flip the scenario, though. Let's say Bernie wins with 56% of the popular vote to Hillary's 44%...but the superdelegates all vote for Hillary, which gives her control of 64% of the electorate - Hillary lost the popular vote, but still won the nomination because the superdelegates lined up behind her. That's a subversion of the democratic process, which said - by popular vote - that Bernie should be the nominee.
And yes, I technically am
advocating for the idea that the superdelegates should defect to Bernie at the convention, in violation of the stand of the popular vote (as of current). However, I am really only doing this for two reasons.
A: A lot of the polls out there - as much as they can be trusted - show that Trump is either within the margin of error of Hillary, or slowly starting to pull ahead. Whereas Bernie is still beating Trump by double digits. I am saying that if the Democratic Party
wants to win, they need to switch candidates and start backing Bernie, because - while Beguile is correct and this election isn't like anything we've ever seen before - historically, Hillary has not proven she has real comeback power. Once she starts losing, she keeps
B: Because it is possible. I want to state this, with all the clarity I can - if superdelegates did not exist, and Hillary won the nomination (which she wouldn't have yet, since if all the supers were just regular delegates, some of those would have gone to Bernie) via the popular vote, then I would have no ability to advocate for this strategy, because it would not be possible.
The problem with superdelegates is that it magnifies the role of party officials, and lets them wield influence disproportionate to their numbers. The nominee should be the one who gets the most votes
. Not the one with the proven track record of standing with the party line. Not the person who can fundraise the most money. The one who is more popular
. If that's Hillary, when all is said and done, then it's Hillary.
Does that help to clear things up a bit?
You actually touched on something here that I think is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how the delegate math stacks up today; if Sanders wins every single primary today, will be have more pledged delegates than Hillary?
If he does, then what you said becomes null and void - he wins the popular vote, superdelegates will be acting against the people if they put Hillary over.
That, I can't say. I pay attention to the math, but not that
much attention. I do know that California - which VOTES TODAY, so if you live in California and can go vote, GO VOTE
- has over 500 delegates up for grabs, and that over 75% of those are non-superdelegates. That does mean, if Bernie wins big there, he can close the regular delegate gap by quite a bit. It would have to be a double-digit win for him, though.
But that's beside the point because realistically, it's not likely Sanders will secure more pledged delegates than Hillary by the time the polls close today. And that brings up another issue.
That's why the long-term strategy for the Sanders camp has been to attack the superdelegates, since they can - for good or ill - subvert the democratic process, and highlight that Bernie beats Trump hands-down. If superdelegates did not exist, as I stated earlier, it wouldn't be a possible strategy and we would be almost surely seeing a Clinton v Trump race.
In short, superdelegates may exist to turn the tide in favor of the party favorite.
But this time? They just might be the thing that manages a Democratic victory. If
the DNC is smart about it.
Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary, by popular votes cast. Democratic voters up and down the United States picked the foreign policy hawk with Wall Street ties over the social democratic dove.
What that implies, by any political yardstick, is that the Democratic Party is a right-wing party by default. And that's fine - a right-wing party should certainly have a right-wing candidate.
Hillary has never really been left-wing. She's just been more to the left than her opponents historically, and uses the Democrat party lines because...well, frankly, if you're a woman and you state you're a Republican? How well has that
worked out in the past? Hillary campaigned for Barry Goldwater in '64, she voted for Iraq & Afghanistan, she was in the White House (as First Lady, but a lot of information available suggests that she was involved in the process, too) when they deregulated the financial industry (which caused 2008) and...there's a long laundry list of things I could say, but the bottom line is that she's not really liberal, just more
The problem we have today is that the political establishment is drifting towards the right while the voters are moving to the left. People are tired of spending money and human lives on interventionism in countries nobody cares about when there are real problems at home.
Problems like working families now needing two incomes in order to be able to afford a middle-class lifestyle and to send their kids to college.
Problems like kids coming out of college with massive debt and not being able to find a job. (I read in a recent article that 40% of people ages 18-34 still live with their parents.)
Problems like our failing schools, which is resulting in an ever-dumber populace. (It's kind of hard to care what happens in a country if you don't even know where it is!)
Problems like the ever-rising costs of healthcare, which causes more personal bankruptcies now than every other type combined.
Problems why America feels less like America
and more like a bunch of people who hate each other all occupying the same space. (Thanksgiving is fine for one day of the year. 365? Bit much.)
But it does mean that liberal Democrats need to make a move. America needs a left-wing and liberal third party to oppose the Democratic and Republican status quo. If Bernie's movement or revolution or whatever you want to call it is to mean anything at all, liberals need to leave the Democrats in droves following the Convention. Clearly, the Democratic Party has nothing to offer them.
I live in New England, which is historically a blue region of the country. So I know a lot of registered Democrats (I don't identify as either, for reasons I can elaborate in a PM), and the more I've talked to them over the years, the more they're becoming dissatisfied with the policies of the party. I have seen - in slow real-time - in action the phrase "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." A lot of those disillusioned Democrats were really excited when Bernie announced his campaign, because Bernie was left-wing, he was new blood (idea-wise) in the party, and more importantly, they saw the youth movement growing behind him.
One of those Democrats - a really good friend, and my table GM - has stated for years
he's hated how the Democrats have changed, and always identified more strongly with Jill Stein and the Green Party. Problem is, third parties - like Stein's Greens, or Gary Johnson and the Libertarians - have almost no traction whatsoever in elections because of the two-party system that's come to dominate the American politiscape.
I've stated previously that the number one thing I want from this election - more than one specific candidate - is for the power of the political establishment, and the media, to be utterly destroyed beyond restoration. That includes the existence of political parties. When I read some article or someone worries to me that "Trump will destroy the Republican Party," my answer to that is "Good! About damn time." For all their squawking about 'what the Founding Fathers would have wanted,' the Republicans seem to ignore things like the fact that they detested
political parties - James Madison even said that they were factions dangerous to the public interest.
If we're going to do this democracy thing, or this republic thing, then you can't just have a few really big parties. Coalition government is the way to go.