Quote:
Originally posted by TroubleSwift
So let's say by some chance Bernie ends up having more pledged delegates after the end of today? Then you guys still think Hillary should be the nominee?
Basically the argument on the Sanders side is by showing the number including the superdelegates, they are painting a much bigger lead for Clinton this whole cycle, thus discouraging people from going out and voting.
I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'm not going to lie Clinton has a significant lead. The only thing I would complain about is that the news should be showing the pledged delegate numbers only until everyone vote. Even DWS has said that, but the news hasn't listened.
Finally, I believe that the superdelegates should vote with the will of the people. So the states Sanders has won, he should get the Superdelegates, and Clinton should get her's. So she would still most likely win, but it's not fair to say she is already the nominee when she hasn't reached the number of pledged delegates she needs. They should have waited until she reached the number of pledged.
|
It is normal for the media to call a winner and announce someone a presumptive nominee when they get the majority needed including super-delegates. They did it for Obama. Hillary was declared the loser 8 years ago this week in exactly the same way, the media called it for Obama because including pledged super-delegates he had enough to win.
Yes, the DWS has said they would prefer the media waited and not include the super-delegates, but they don't control the media. The US 1St Amendment ensures the Freedom of the Press from political/governmental control. You could argue that both the Democratic Party and the GOP are the Government, considering one controls the House and the other the White House. So they simply are not allowed to dictate the actions of the US media. They can complain about how the media frames stories, but they cannot do more than that.
The whole point of super-delegates sounds somewhat sketchy, but they have been in place for almost 40 years now. I know that some might fear they are undemocratic because they could overrule the will of the people as expressed by the votes, however they never done this to date. If you demand they simply vote the same way as their States delegates, then they are just more delegates, in which case why even have them? The super-delegates themselves are mostly elected officials, so they do hold office as a reflection of the will of the people via the ballot box.
Indeed Sanders has been stating recently that he intends to try and persuade the super-delegates to switch to him at the DNC. I am not sure whether he is serious with this, because it seems almost impossible for him to enter the DNC with more votes and delegates than Clinton, so his intent to get the supers to switch despite having less votes and delegates, would seem to be a request by Sanders, where he will be asking the supers to defy the will of the people as already expressed by the ballot box.
