Top 10 Reasons SuperDs Won’t Switch to Bernie
I apologize for the length of this post. I actually wrote it two weeks ago, after New York. At that time, Hillary Clinton had 502 superdelegates promising to support her, while Bernie Sanders had 38. At that time, Bernie’s alter ego and campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, aggressively laid out the superdelegate strategy for winning the nomination even if the popular vote and the pledged delegate count were both against him.
So I wrote this at that time and then, uncharacteristically, put it into a drawer. I wanted to give Bernie a chance to articulate his vision for the end of the race, and to let emotions drain out of the decision-making process, before forcing a 1000-word essay on y’all.
At first, Bernie seemed apt to wind down his rhetoric and accept the hand Fate had dealt him. But Weaver and Bernie’s wife, Jane, still seemed ready to fight. A week or so of mixed messages while they sorted out this intra-familial squabble has brought us here, where Bernie is chewing iron and spitting nails, and insisting that polls where Hillary leads Trump by fewer points than Bernie leads Trump mean that now 520 superdelegaters are all wet, and that the 17-point pasting he’s received thus far in the popular vote means NOTHING.
And so, without further ado, here are the Top Ten Reasons the Superdelegates Won’t Switch to Bernie.
Number 10: Superdelegates are people, too – And people generally don’t like to look silly in public. Even if they believed that Bernie was a better choice, so long as Bernie is not the ONLY choice, they won’t want to look stupid switching horses midstream. And staying with Hillary RIGHT UP until the time she’s boxed Bernie out wouldn’t just look stupid, it would look nuts.
Number 9: Superdelegates are DEM-O-CRATS – The Democratic Party is a private club, with very lax membership requirements. Essentially, all you have to do to BECOME a Democrat is to claim to be one, even if you were something else. Four of the five Democrats in the first debate have traveled that route, including former Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton. But her declaration came decades ago, not seven months ago. Democratic superdelegates will stay with someone who has been a Democratic standard bearer for the past 25 years.
Number 8: Superdelegates are appreciative – Most of the superdelegates are office holders, looking to remain so. Hillary Clinton has committed to helping them do so, not with a nebulous army of revolutionaries who may or may not find a superdelegate running in a down-ticket race sufficiently pure so as to earn their vote, but with a turnout machine, personal visits by Hillary and money, all of which she has wielded on their behalf in the past and will continue to do so. “Bernie, what have you done for me lately?” has no answer.
Number 7: Superdelegates are risk-averse – Never mind the hundreds of superdelegates Bernie needs who aren’t going to switch to him, think about being among the first. To great fanfare, in contravention of the wishes of the majority of the Democratic voters, you decide to screw Hillary and switch to Bernie. But the cascade of late-adopters never comes, and you’ve just walked out onto a limb and President Hillary Clinton has the chain saw: your future in the Democratic Party will be a sharp drop and a sudden stop, assuming she uses it on the branch and not on you, directly. You may as well turn Socialist.
Number 6: Superdelegates are professional politicians – Speaking as a retired pro, we know that head-to-head polls between potential November candidates are meaningless, until both conventions are over. Until then, polls are soap bubbles and smoke. We also know that not one serious piece of opposition research has been dropped onto Bernie – he’s a paper messiah only until he’s withstood some of what Hillary has faced. She’s handled him with kid gloves, except for the occasional elbow. Everything in our gut says Hillary is the right move, and 500+ professional politicians can’t all be wrong.
Number 5: Superdelegates are proud – Bernie and his people have been running them down as the antithesis of democracy from day one, not just as a perversion of the democratic primary process, but also as “corporate whores” right alongside Hillary. Now he’s begging for their help, and appealing to the better angels of their “corrupt” natures? As a superdelegate, my answer to that would be two words, and they wouldn’t be “Happy Birthday.”
Number 4: Superdelegates aren’t dumb – Women and minorities ARE the Democratic margin of victory, especially women. Women and minorities support Hillary, who is a woman. How far do superdelegates think they will get in Democratic politics without women and minorities? How far do they think the Party will get? How far do they think the country will get?
Number 3: Superdelegates are fair-minded – Hillary took a bad beat in 2008 like a champ. She waited her turn, supported Obama, built up her relationships and her resume, won the 2016 primaries and basically did everything we’ve ever asked a candidate to do.
Number 2: Superdelegates are practical – Someone took umbrage when I called Bernie “underfunded” the other day. But a large amount of his working capital has gone towards ads rather than staff and infrastructure, which is why he spends more than Hillary in every state, and yet loses more than half of them. Comparing apples to apples, he has kept close, yet he has millions less cash on hand to finish the primaries with. Hillary, on the other hand, has spent less, and won more. But it‘s in comparing oranges to oranges that we really see the difference. Bernie has very few oranges – SuperPACs – compared to Clinton. He has a SuperPAC of some nurses spending on his behalf, and very little else. The challenge for SuperPACs supporting Hillary, however, was to decide the smallest amount of money to spend on ads for the primary, while hoarding their hordes of ducats for the general. Bernie hasn’t managed the practicalities of funding and building a winning campaign yet, and he would be destroyed by SuperPACs and irony in the summer and fall.
And Number 1: Superdelegates have their eye on history – To wit: Hillary Clinton, the first woman to become President of the United States. Another old white guy isn’t going to get in the way of that.
Nicely laid out. Thanks Primo!
1As a proud liberal, I sometimes feel President Obama and HRC are too centrist. I’d love to see Bernie push her a bit to the left, push the whole party to the left.
But then, my idea of how government works is that you have people to the right, people to the left and you end up with a compromise somewhere in the middle. It worries me when we start in the middle. Of course if the right (or left) says my way or nothing, then you have nothing. As the President discovered, there is no working with these people.
2Ten excellent reasons, Primo. And, I couldn’t agree more but to add that Jeff Weaver has it ALL wrong. The issue isn’t delegates or super delegates. This is all about keeping the White House, Senate and possibly the House Democratic.
Thus, my focus would be on the Electoral College. There the argument can be made that Bernie could net in excess of 290 electoral votes, whereas Hillary’s numbers of popular votes and delegates from the red states leave her shy of the necessary 270 with about 205 electoral votes. Check the win/loss states and tally the electoral votes.
Whether the delegates and super delegates will consider the electoral vote advantages and disadvantages, I defer to your expertise, Primo.
Another aside. I hope the Clinton supporters do not bait Bernie into running with the Green Party. Other than the fact that would only place him on the ballot in slightly more than half the states, he does not need to be the scapegoat if she loses. Either all in for the Electoral College, or let history run its course. But, don’t blame Bernie.
3Nailed It Primo!
boom!
4We don’t need another Nader. But a little more to the left of the GOP would be a good thing.
5In my experience, “Superdelegates are risk-averse” is higher than 7. Political risk averseness is more likely 0 or 1. But of course saying “risk averse” hasn’t the impact of saying “history” so, great call Primo.
6I voted for Bernie in NY’s primary. I want a Democrat in the WH, I want a Democratic-majority Senate, and I want inroads in taking back the House. Period.
7An excellent read, Primo and definitely not a word of it “forced” upon us who have read your essay!! If anyone feels something is “forced” upon them, then they probably don’t belong at the beauty salon! Just sayin’ …
8Damn good stuff!
9PKM, excellent points, but I don’t off the top of my head see the electoral math the same way. I don’t want to make firm predictions on numbers until I’ve seen a lot more polling, and the Veep noms, but I can tell you that 2016 is all about women. Has been from the start; Bernie never stood a chance. The GOP candidate being Trump – Trump! Against a woman! – puts all 50 states in play for HRC.
Honest to the deity or life force of your choice: 270 is just the base. We are looking at a landslide of epic proportions. 1964, 1972, 1984…2016? The stars are aligned. A lot can go wrong, but this has the makings of the perfect storm.
I will be returning to this idea, and your question about Senate races is very wrapped up in that, in a future column.
10You forgot the biggest reason, “It’s her TIME”, time in grade has always meant a lot to these folks!
11About number 8: The implication is that she is helping fund down ballot efforts in the states. Except for eight November battleground states, she is not. The funds sent to the other states, including Texas, wind up in a DNC account for pushing the national ticket. I’m a Hillary supporter & voter, but I won’t use misleading talking points to support her. A Politico post yesterday gives details of the dodge used to get these funds to the DNC.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
Michael Li, who does such good work for the party in voting rights and redistricting, commented on this.
Comments from Michael Li –
When George Clooney had the $353K a person fundraiser at his house, there was much talk about how the money would go to state parties. Well, not really.
Through March 31, the Texas Democratic Party received a total of $144,100 from the Hillary Victory Fund and, on the same day as each transfer, wired the exact amount to the DNC’s bank in NYC.
This happened in all but eight presidential battleground states, and the effect is that donors were able to evade the cap on how much they can give to the DNC for its battleground efforts. Not illegal, mind you – and I’m all for Democratic presidential candidate winning this November. But if you think we should be strengthening parties, giving rich people more power to give via CROMNIBUS is not how to do it.
12Primo, there’s evidence in Arizona that supports your thesis. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick is already tied with McCain and positioned for what could be a historic win there. If Catherine Cortez Masto wins retiring Reid’s NV Senate seat, that would be an awesome Senate. Pictures! I want pictures of the ladies helping move old Mitch out of his office. Elizabeth Warren for Senate Majority Leader!
Must admit, Hillary is “starting to grow on me.” 😉 Chuck Schumer, not so much and Debbie WTF can just fuhgeddaboudit.
13Good piece, Primo, and not too long, either.
(Literary critique moment: I admit to being a reader who sometimes drifts off during your longer posts, regardless of merit – perhaps because I’m used to JJ’s snappy short pieces? However, this one kept my attention right to the end – probably because it’s laid out in nice concise point-by-point chunks? Also, great content!)
Anyway, will be sharing with many, and of course expect my Bernie-obsessed pals to see red, but then that’s expected these days. Those who are more tempered in their politics, while still feelin’ the Bern, will benefit from it.
14Great work, Primo! I wish Bernie, whom I like very much, had stuck to his original words promising not to be a spoiler. He’s starting to sound like a zealot.
15Suzy Allison, point taken. Having read a few articles on the subject of the Victory Fund, I’d almost credit Slick Willie for that brilliant plan. However, I’ve always suspected Hilz was the genius behind the man.
Please don’t think I’m burning my ethics or burying my naivety, because I crossed that bridge during the Obama runs. Sure, we’d like to believe our guys & gals are purer. But until the Koch money and Citizens United disappear, that’s a future luxury. Call it fight fire with fire, if you want. Fact is, I’d rather burn down the White House than ever see another Republican defile it.
16Just saw a Trump bumper sticker for sale online which says:
17TRUMP THE BITCH
That says it all. It’s time, my friends for all good men and women to stand up for what’s right. I echo PKM’s righteous anger regarding the defiling of our presidency by electing, not just Trump, but any member of the RKlan. Bernie’s right about the revolution, but it’s far greater than funding and influence. It’s a fundamental need for decency, fairness and true equality.
We have to stand united against the forces of darkness. That is no exaggeration. Have you had enough?
maryelle, surely you misunderstood Donnie Drumpf. He was ‘speaking’ of Loathsome Teddie, riiiiiiight?
It’s all about the 14th Amendment going forward.
18The issue with super delegates is that if they declare early they can vreate a “bandwagon” effect even before a single vote is cast.
19An alternative.
No SuperDelegate can endorse or support in any way, manner or means, including the popular wink and a nod, until after the state they are from has either had its caucaus and/or primary.
If they do so they lose their delegate status and are barred from the convention and the state they are from lose that vote.
If a person who qualifies as a Super delegate wants to endorse early they must refuse that status at least a month before endorsing.
If this results in fewer pooh bahs going to the convention so be it. They can always get a job as a “color” (think sports) commentator for the media.
Can’t argue with your layout of the way things currently run. Let me ask you this, Primo:
20What would the results be if the playing field were level; ie, minus the dem elites, dnc, media, skewing the rules against Bernie (assuming what I’ve read during the campaign is true);
Do you think the goldman speeches would damage her chances if they were made public before the convention;
I assume you get emails from Bernie campaign; today, referencing your #8, from Bernie’s manager comes a supposed disclosure from Politico “that less than 1% of $61 mil raised for her Victory Fund stayed in state party coffers; that some state party fundraisers believe they are basically acting as “money laundering conduits”” and then goes on to explain how this is done. If this is essentially true, factual, how does this in principle make the dem party and their supporters, regardless of how long they have been members, of this chicanery any different than the repubs?
As per a previous question I’ve asked as to why Obama abandoned the 50-state Dean small donor organization after he got elected and went with the big money strategy disappointing many of us waiting for him to play his 3-D chess that never came, this is the deja-vu circus all over again except skipping the foreplay. Therefore, do you think things are really going to change much systemically for better or worse over her time in office?
Again, this ain’t about me whining ‘cause my guy is losing or being a sexist. It has a lot to do,imo, with why Bernie and trump are doing well against the political norm.
Big money will win again. I’m shocked, shocked!
21Thanks for this, Primo. One of the big rallying cries at our LD Caucus Sunday (where 56 Bernie delegates and 11 Hillary delegates were winnowed down to 3 +2 alternates for Bernie and 1 for Hillary for the CD caucus and WA State Convention) was the Superdelegate Hit List, pressure our electeds, tell Patty Murray we will not vote for her reelection (WTF?), etc etc. It was not worth using perfectly good breath trying to rebut them. So I will be sending this along to a few special people. Maybe they’ll even read it and try to understand. Probably not, though. Keep up the great work!
22I support Clinton for many reasons, but I have also been fearful of a Sanders candidacy. I’ve watched what the right wing has done to Clinton for decades and the skill and grace with which she’s triumphed over it. I was fearful that Sanders would deal less well with attacks. Slate just published an article that gives a taste of what the Repub approach would have been. The article is one-sided and cherry picks and cites ancient history, but that is exactly what the Repubs would have done. It’s interesting, in the Chinese curse sense: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html
23Fran, if they don’t grok the underlying message, perhaps they will at least understand the superdelegates’ motivations a little better and treat them more respectfully as a result.
24Fenway Fran, WTF indeed! Patty Murray? If not for Senator Murray, we’d still be waiting for the non-existent Lyin’ Ryan budget. On veterans’ issues, I cannot think of a finer Senator.
People have good reason to be angry at politicians, but that variety of misdirected anger can only be described as “throw out the baby with the bath water.” Or, come on with it with more of the obstructionist Tea Bagger do nothing while costing us $billions Crooze and Traitor Tom types. A desire for a more responsive government does not begin with morons who strive to strangle democracy. The rest of the “Freedom” Caucus should have been tossed the way of Eric Cantor; not replaced by a further right lunatics.
25I’m pretty damned tired of the drama over B vs H. It’s time to tell those Bernie Bros to hit the showers, and go buy ice cream cones for the rest of the neighborhood kids.
Bernie had a great run, but if we want to keep the White House and retake the Senate we need to focus on unity and not delegates.
26@ That Other Jean:
My point, exactly. If the Florida primary hadn’t already been voted and tucked into bed, I would be voting for Hilary now rather than casting the vote for Bernie that I did. His recent tantruming has left me cold. And scared.
Per my understanding, Bernie CHANGED PARTIES AND RAN AS A DEMOCRAT in order not to split the vote. He HAS to know about the Bernie Bros and Bernie-or-Bust crowds — and he just keeps egging them on? Who is that going to help? Not Bernie. Not Hilary. Trump — that’s who.
When Hilary lost to Obama, she stepped aside gracefully and threw her support behind him. Prior to that move, there were plenty of Obama supporters who were saying they would never vote for her and plenty of her supporters who said they wouldn’t be caught dead voting for him. She delivered the majority [not all, I’ll be bound, but most] of her voters to Barack in November. And now Bernie is threatening to split the party even worse than it would have been in 2008 if she had pulled the stunt he’s pulling now? Seriously? That’s not the Bernie Sanders I voted for.
27Agreed two crows. I was torn between the two, leaning Bernie, but switched to Hillary because she’s so damn smart and tough. Also, I’m not swayed by 25 years of snacilbupeR lies and distortions about her. I’m becoming more disappointed with Bernie as the race winds down.
BE a Real Democrat Bernie!
28I was torn between the two through January. Then, when I expected Sanders to start giving us real substance about his plans, he didn’t (and Clinton did, and had been) and his followers got more strident and less reasonable. I was all for “more left than central” and still think his arguments about what’s wrong were sound…but a President has to do more than keep saying what’s wrong–has to have a workable plan in mind to fix those things. Not a pie in the sky plan, but a functional plan. I just was not seeing that with Sanders, and I listened carefully for the rest of the month, and mailed in my ballot marked for Clinton. (Good thing, too–I was sick on the actual day.)
Since then I’ve been more convinced that was right, because Sanders started sticking his lips out like Trump and sounding more belligerent and instransigent than reasonable and idealistic. His followers even more so. He’s not a team player (as an independent he never was, of course) and he’s apparently not willing to do anything for the team whose train he wanted to ride to the White House on.
Clinton’s got the experience, the self-control, the common sense, the ability to make hard decisions. Like Primo said, another old white man ranting ain’t gonna take home the prize.
29There’s also the money. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35606-dark-money-and-lobbyists-serving-as-superdelegates-could-decide-the-2016-race
30Many have forgotten that the super delegates came about as a results of the 1972 disaster at the Democrats convention. The McGovern rules, required delegates had to match the social and economic make up of that state. This resulted in a delegation to the 1972 convention that excluded many party regulars, often elected officials, from being delegates. The delegation nominated McGovern and he lost all states but one–Mass. as I remember. Nixon’s land slide was for not since he was effectively impeached two years later.
31To avoid another disaster the Democrats created the super delegates.
Good call out, Gary, I just want to clarify timing. The SuperDs came about after the 1980 debacle between Ted Kennedy and Pres. Carter. The roots of all this did begin in 1972, you are correct about that, with some ’68 thrown in. Being Democrats, it just took us a good 10 years to get our act together.
32