This afternoon, I went to the local stationery store to get a document notarized and faxed. My local stationery store happens to be run by Hasidism, members of an orthodox Jewish sect. I asked Moishe, “How do you feel knowing that a Brooklyn Jew is running for president?” He responded that Bernie can’t win because of the super-delegates. He informed me that Hillary won more delegates in New Hampshire than Bernie, even though Bernie won the popular vote by a wide margin.
How could this be? I went home, and googled the “super delegates Democratic party.” I came across this article which explains why the Democratic party has super delegates, who the super delegates are (members of Congress and bigwigs in the party), and how they tilt the field towards the establishment candidate. Moishe was right that Hillary won more delegates in New Hampshire than Bernie. She won 15 delegates in New Hampshire and Bernie won 13.
The author, Shane Ryan, writes that there will be 4,763 delegates in total at the Democratic convention. Of that number, 712 are “super delegates,” about 15 percent of the total. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,382 delegates.
Right now, Hillary has 394 delegates, and Bernie has 42.
Who are the super delegates?
Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates—an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.
Shane says that a candidate–be it Hillary or anyone else–could theoretically lose the popular vote yet have the most delegates. Yet, he believes—and this is what I told Moishe, that no candidate can win the general election unless they are clearly the choice of the party.
Which is why the super delegates will not determine the party’s candidate for the general election. The voters will decide.
In case you are wondering, I do not favor either candidate. I believe that either Democrat would be far preferable to those running for the GOP nomination. Sitting at home is not an option. This election is far too important to sit home.
Vote in the primary, vote in the general.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, I urge you to distinguish between the Democratic candidates and develop an opinion. Hillary and Bernie may both be preferable to any of the GOP candidates, but they would spur very different paths for our nation. This includes the fate of the public schools, the middle class, and all those students in poverty.
I and many others on this blog believe there is a clear better choice. You wisely tell us that you are not neutral in educational matters — you are on the side of truth and justice. This is the same idea. Despite Hillary’s long creep toward Bernie’s platform, Sanders and Clinton still have different motives, different methods, relatively different philosophies, and ultimately, different positions. I hope you do not stay neutral on this one.
LikeLike
As for superdelegates, this is the best article I have found: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html
LikeLike
Ed, I just posted that article.
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Diane -it’s reported that 40% of the votes in the Dem primary were independents.. It’s an open primary.
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
Ms. Weingarten knows all about delegates and how the Unity Caucus controls the majority of votes in the AFT and UFT.
Certainly, she is a fan of the delegate system. She benefits widely from it.
LikeLike
Robert Rendo, you nailed it!
LikeLike
Corporate Hillary isn’t going to improve education, make changes maybe but just enough for show not because she has our backs. You the leadership in Unions and PUBLIC EDUCATION know this and you too Diane. If you can’t come out as a leader in this area then you will begin to see what you have created crumble and that would be a shame. We need real leadership to turn this ship around, not more of the same. ALL of you intelligent people know what little me is saying. YOU KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT!
LikeLike
Not with you as a Superdelegate. Appalling!
LikeLike
A political party has a right to choose its nominee. Bernie knew about superdelegates when he signed on to run as a Democrat.
LikeLike
What you just said is that a few hundred elites should choose who can run for president, not the American people. You also implied that it was perfectly fair, which borders on the just-world fallacy.
LikeLike
Diane, your comment about tilting the field “towards the establishment candidate” made me think of this piece in HuffPost by Daniel Kushner, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Brown University, which addresses just that issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kushner/the-fetishization-of-not-knowing-bernie-sanders_b_9195124.html
LikeLike
This article is pure propaganda, the biggest piece of trash I’ve read in a while. Look no further than the title. The claim the Bernie “just doesn’t know” (and neither do his supporters) is pure desperation.
LikeLike
the claim that*
LikeLike
Ed, you didn’t refute anything in it. I think it’s really telling that Bernie has little support among those who have worked very closely with him.
And, by the way, I’m a Bernie fan and have been for years, having listened to him week after week on Thom Hartmann. I love him, but I don’t feel he’s the most qualified candidate for ALL aspects of the job. I get sort of a Jimmy Carter vibe from him (and I love Jimmy Carter and have actually seen him speak in person, but, you know).
I’m terrified Trump will win by appealing to rah-rah capitalism and low taxes. The Republican ads write themselves.
LikeLike
Mom2Twins, I generally don’t waste my time refuting ridiculous one-off articles. Many others have already done so — read the comment section, for example — or as I said, look at the premise, which is the final fallback of the people trying so desperately to discredit Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I have a hard time believing an informed Bernie supporter would post that article, or would say something like: “Bernie has little support among those who have worked very closely with him.” What kind of argument is that? That goes beyond spin and is just a lie.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m missing your initial point but that’s my strong reaction to the article you posted.
And I will take back part of what I said. It is deceptive, but not all a lie. It is true that Bernie has been working against the establishment, and lots of people in a corrupt political system are not going to like him. That doesn’t make him wrong, or a bad person to work closely with.
LikeLike
Now if we’re not just talking about members of congress, I wonder if Jeff Weaver and the rest of Bernie’s campaign staffers, past and present, have “little support” for Bernie (whom they have worked closely with.)
LikeLike
Obviously I was talking about the people mentioned in the article.
I’ll tell you another thing that makes me uncomfortable about Bernie’s candidacy. His supporters keep posting the same right-wing crap about Hillary that’s been refuted time and time again. Bernie’s bringing new voters to the Democratic party, but they’re going to end up tearing it apart. Their constant smearing and belittling of Hillary and her supporters is only going to hurt the party and elect Trump.
I’m not responding to anything you specifically said, Ed. It’s just something I’ve noticed.
LikeLike
You posted that story and have strutted the line of endorsing it, which is why I was a bit defensive.
Any candidate will have respectful supporters and disrespectful supporters. At least Sanders is leading by example, and the movement I’ve seen has been generally more respectful than you’d expect from a political movement.
LikeLike
I have been a Democrat all my life. Super-delegates are by definition anti-democratic. If you think that Ms. Clinton won’t use them to steal the election from the people, you are naive. The former first lady and her minions have proven that they will lie, cheat, and steal to win. The corrupt behavior of the DNC and unethical behavior in Iowa provide examples, if you look past what our corrupt mainstream media will tell us. Bernie Sanders’ campaign (of the people not the corporations) must win every primary by a healthy margin to overcome and defeat our corporate masters and their tools.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/volunteer-for-bernie
LikeLike
And no one has yet mentioned the problem, particularly in the South, with electronic voting and rigged machines.
LikeLike
Sorry, Diane, But this is THE ONLY TIME I do not subscribe to what you put out.
You know I am an ardent supporter of yours, and I will continue to be a big supporter. When speaking to others in my field, I describe myself as a “disciple of Diane Ravitch”.
But I do not believe for one second that you are neutral on this one.
But it’s okay, Diane, if you do not feel comfortable with siding with either one, even though you support one over the other.
You REALLY analytically and viscerally believe Hillary is pro-public education? That she is just as good as Sanders?
I understand if you and the NPE Board want to play this politically and strategically; you do have quite some experience up on Capitol Hill and have witnessed how the game gets played; but everyone has some orientation toward one candidate more than the other. Bernie ain’t Hillary, and Hillary ain’t Bernie.
They really are different, you know.
Hillary will maintain the status quo and perhaps will contain it. That certainly is a lesser of two evils compared to the GOP.
Bernie will attempt to obliterate the establishment and rebuild it. But he can only do it, as he says, if PEOPLE get involved and take a stand in politics.
You? Neutral?
I think you are far better than that . . . .
But it does not matter. It’s the masses of populist anger out there that count far more than one one person or group of people. And when those masses come to consensus and band together and get involved with poltiics, then “Uh-oh” is all I can say.
The fight is far from over. Now we have to deal with this corrupt system of super delegates and delegates. We are still very much a democracy in transition, in evolution, and in turmoil. We are a grand experiment.
LikeLike
Hey Robert, check out this article and pass it on: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html
There is a strong argument that superdelegates will not decide the election. It’s too risky for the DNC.
LikeLike
I should really use the proper terms. Will not decide the nomination.
LikeLike
Robert,
I won’t go into all my reasons for staying out of the primary. None is political. I am terrified of a Republican victory. Imagine a Supreme Court nominee by Trump or Cruz or any of them. I will do nothing to split the Dem party Or to raise antagonism toward either candidate. At some point when there is a nominee, we must unite to defeat the extremists.
LikeLike
Okay, Diane. I understand. I see.
LikeLike
Thank you, Ed Detective. The Paste article explains superdelegates very clearly.
LikeLike
Diane said: “I will do nothing to split the Dem party or to raise antagonism toward either candidate.”
That’s understandable, and what Bernie himself has said.
At the same time, Bernie has aimed to distinguish himself more and more from Hillary, respectfully pointing out her many flaws in the process. Hillary has been much more negative and dishonest in calling out Bernie.
They are not fighting the GOP right now. They are fighting each other. A lot is at stake in that fight. It’s a gambit that I personally accept.
LikeLike
The data shows that in NH, Clinton and Sanders split the Democrat vote. It was the Independents who pushed Sanders into the win column. Clinton has and is supporting the Democratic Party as a whole, working to fundraise and otherwise help Democrats on the down ballots. Sanders is not. In NH, he could have built relationships with the superdelegates as Clinton did, but it would seem he didn’t. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/among-registered-democrats-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-finished-tied-in-new-hampshire/23800/
LikeLike
After the 1968 democratic nominating convention, the debacle, the party made sweeping chances in the nomination system. Candidate slates of delegates must meet a range of diversity requirements for delegates, race, gender, etc. New Hampshire is an open primary state, everyone votes regardless of party. New York State is a closed primary state, you can only vote in the party primary in which you are registered. If you did not choose a party when you registered you cannot vote in the primary. And, of course, the candidate with the largest number of votes in the November general is not the winner – you need 270 electoral votes – we are a strange country indeed.
LikeLike
Do not underestimate the power of the people. Bernie can get 270 delegates.
That said, I did watch something on CNN and if you put the pundits to one side and guess the race as you would the Super Bowl, Hillary is the declared winner. Then it’s time for me to move out of this country.
LikeLike
Opt out and refuse to vote for Hillary. Anything else is a vote for the status quo. Hope this helps!
LikeLike
Hail, President Trump!
Because that’s what we’ll get.
LikeLike
Personally, I like that Hillary is savvy enough to work within the system, rigged as it is. That will get her more backup for the changes that need to be made.
Bernie will have no coattails and will accomplish very little — if he even manages to get past Trump. Those “independent” voters (the ones that took him over the top in New Hampshire) can be very fickle. According to exit polls, a huge chunk (68%) of the NH Bernie supporters are gun owners, so how much can Bernie really do if he has to keep them happy?
LikeLike
Here, here!
LikeLike
Mom2Twins, A corporate Democrat is the worst possible outcome because it clears away resistance from pro public education allies in the legislature. We have had one party rule from corporate Democrats in Oregon for decades. The result? Teachers hired in the 1990s have lost 40% or more of the their pensions.
LikeLike
“Personally, I like that Hillary is savvy enough to work within the system, rigged as it is.”
If by “savvy enough” you mean “unimaginative and lacking courage” — and by “work within” you mean “beholden to.”
“That will get her more backup for the changes that need to be made. Bernie will have no coattails and will accomplish very little”
Bernie is bringing out new voters and a renewed interest in politics. Bernie has, by far, greater grassroots support. Republicans will work with Hillary no more than they will work with Bernie — arguably less, actually.
“…if he even manages to get past Trump”
For some of the reasons I just stated — and look at general election polls — our best chance at beating Trump is Sanders, not Clinton. Scared of Trump? Vote Sanders. He’s our best shot at winning the general, and then winning congressional and local re-elections going forward.
“bernie guns”
Bernie is no worse than Clinton on guns. That is more fearmongering. He has a D- from the NRA and his policies to close gun loopholes and increase background checks is supported by the majority.
My suggestion is to stop playing into the corrupt mainstream narrative, and vote for the candidate who has better ideas, better history, and is more likely to revitalize democracy.
LikeLike
Ed, just because someone works within the system to get to the top doesn’t mean she won’t try to change the system once she makes it. Hillary has said she wants to get rid of Citizens United, just as Bernie has. Using the existing system to one’s own advantage isn’t corrupt, it’s necessary! She’s doing what she needs to do to get in a position where she can effect change. She’s not beholden to anyone.
The Republicans will try to obstruct regardless. That’s a given. But it’s the Democrats in Congress who all must fall in line if a Dem president is to get anything done. Clearly Hillary has their backing, and Bernie does not. No red-state (or even purple-state) Democrat is going to risk his own hide by backing an avowed socialist. Sad but true. It doesn’t matter how many young voters Bernie brings into the system. They aren’t the ones sitting in Congress. And they don’t vote in the off years to get Dem presidents the Congressional support they need!
Current polls show Bernie beating Trump by more than Hillary beats Trump, but don’t believe it. The Republicans have thrown everything they can at Hillary for decades, and she’s still standing. They haven’t begun to set their sights on Bernie yet. He’s vulnerable on many levels. Just you wait.
My point on guns is that the gun people are going to figure out at some point that Bernie is “no worse than Clinton on guns,” and they will abandon him for the Republican in the general. That is my prediction.
Hillary is a tough, tested pragmatist, and that’s what I like about her. I’ve been saying this for years. I supported her in the caucuses in 2008 for that very reason. (And Obama in the general, of course.) If Bernie is the nominee, I’ll vote for him, but I don’t feel he’s in a position to accomplish the most. I do appreciate that he’s moved the conversation leftward, though.
LikeLike
“Ed, just because someone works within the system to get to the top doesn’t mean she won’t try to change the system once she makes it. ”
It’s not an absolute truth that policy follows from campaign donor’s interests, but it is highly likely — and don’t act like it has never affected politicians, including Clinton. She is one of the greatest recipients of big money in politics, while the biggest problem in politics is… BIG MONEY IN POLITICS. You really think tens of millions of dollars has no strings attached? That would be so naive. [one of many examples directly involving Hillary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/%5D Hillary Clinton is trying desperately to convince everyone that it’s OK where she got her money from, and how she got that money. That’s because it’s the only thing she can do when faced with the purity of Bernie Sanders and his political message. And also ask why she is refusing to release the transcripts from these mega-funded speeches to wall street and corporate executives? WHY has big pharma and the fossil fuel industry dumped so much money into Hillary as well? As Bernie says: don’t insult the American people. We aren’t dumb. We know EXACTLY why they make these huge donations, and we know there are unwritten (and possibly written) rules upon accepting these funds.
“Hillary has said she wants to get rid of Citizens United, just as Bernie has.”
Hillary has said A LOT OF THINGS that Bernie has said. You know why she’s saying those things now? Because Bernie has forced her hand. SAY does not equal DO, and co-opting another candidate’s platform out of necessity is a STRONG indication that the other candidate had the better message.
“Using the existing system to one’s own advantage isn’t corrupt, it’s necessary!”
Again, that is exactly what Hillary wants people to think, and you have bought it. But this is purely WRONG, as Bernie Sanders is showing us. The idea that you must defeat corruption by first being corrupt is the wrong idea. It will perpetuate corrupt politics, not fix it.
“She’s doing what she needs to do to get in a position where she can effect change. She’s not beholden to anyone.”
See previous responses. And yes, she is more or less beholden to those who have helped her to get this far. This is the very problem with big money in politics. The biggest favors tend to get the biggest favors in return. That is literally why the favors are offered! Hillary Clinton is setting herself up so that she would have to be the most pure politician ever to have the courage to turn down her donors when they come calling. Highly unlikely for that to completely happen. Even if she does fight down some of the people she owes, she will not do it to all of them. She points to Obama, but Obama is pretty much a neo-liberal and DID NOT REGULATE WALL STREET, the very people who helped him get into his spot.
“The Republicans will try to obstruct regardless. That’s a given. But it’s the Democrats in Congress who all must fall in line if a Dem president is to get anything done.”
If the Republicans obstruct Congress, it doesn’t really matter what the Dems do. Nor is it inevitable that the Dems will work with Hillary more than Bernie.
“Clearly Hillary has their backing, and Bernie does not. No red-state (or even purple-state) Democrat is going to risk his own hide by backing an avowed socialist. Sad but true. It doesn’t matter how many young voters Bernie brings into the system. They aren’t the ones sitting in Congress. And they don’t vote in the off years to get Dem presidents the Congressional support they need!”
It completely matters how many people become engaged in the political process, and why they do so. Bernie’s “political revolution” is the way to beat obstruction and corruption. “We make them an offer they can’t refuse — if they don’t do what the American people want, they’ll be looking for another job.” Hillary, to my knowledge, has never said or meant such a thing. Like Obama, she will try to fight them herself, and fail.
“Current polls show Bernie beating Trump by more than Hillary beats Trump, but don’t believe it.”
I don’t “believe” it, but it is one more piece of evidence showing that the “electability” argument is bunk. Now, to deny the poll data completely raises suspicion. The GE polls are not the absolute truth, but anyone who says they are worth nothing is saying that only because it doesn’t suit their agenda. There is some truth in those polls, and assuming Clinton will gain numbers and Sanders will lose numbers is… pretty much a blind assumption, and also goes against the trending of the primary polls.
“The Republicans have thrown everything they can at Hillary for decades, and she’s still standing. They haven’t begun to set their sights on Bernie yet. He’s vulnerable on many levels. Just you wait.”
You have it completely backwards. Hillary is still standing, but she is standing on quicksand. There are an endless amount of avenues for the Republicans, and everyone else, to attack her. On the contrary, all attacks on Bernie have failed, and will continue to fail. Why? Because his history is pure and progressive, his message is completely honest and resonates with the American people. The biggest and possibly only real “attack” the Republicans will have on him is “the s word” — which, because of Sanders, was the most searched dictionary word in 2015 [http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/16/socialism-most-looked-up-word-2015-merriam-webster-bernie-sanders]. Sanders will continue to deflect and deflate that hollow attack, while educating the people. He will gain more support, not less, as people discover what he stands for — that is exactly what has been happening and what will continue to happen. Finally, your argument is once again based on fear of something that may or may not happen, as opposed to supporting whoever might be the better candidate.
“My point on guns is that the gun people are going to figure out at some point that Bernie is “no worse than Clinton on guns,” and they will abandon him for the Republican in the general.”
I don’t see how that makes sense. Bernie has sensible gun policies and will lose very few supporters based on them. This is another hollow argument coming from the media outlets, they really want you to believe it.
“Hillary is a tough, tested pragmatist, and that’s what I like about her. ”
That’s the narrative that was pushed about Rahm Emanuel in the race vs Chuy Garcia for mayor of Chicago. Choose the “idealist,” and the city will collapse. “Tough, tested pragmatist” on its own means nothing, and could simply be bad news.
“I’ve been saying this for years.”
You clearly want Hillary to win, but not necessarily because she is the best candidate.
“I do appreciate that he’s moved the conversation leftward, though.”
If Bernie didn’t enter the race, Hillary would be a completely different candidate. Does that implication not bother you in terms of her integrity? It should. As MLK JR said: a true leader is a molder of consensus, not a follower of it. We now have a chance to elect a true leader. We can’t blow it by buying into this “pragmatism” nonsense that has been perpetuated by the corporate media, who has so much power to lose (and the people, so much power to gain).
LikeLike
My link with elizabeth warren was broken. remove the %5D at the end and it works https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/
LikeLike
I’m with you Yertle!
LikeLike
RAHM EMANUEL is a super-delegate.
As the slaughter of blacks continues, the torture/interrogation location remains in business, schools and teachers are being threatened with closings and firings, etc., Hillary openly states that Rahm is doing a great job and is a benefit to Chicago.
Hillary hasn’t figured out that openly blessing Rahm may save one super-delegate vote and cost her Illinois.
Before anyone can claim that that is impossible, remember that Illinois has a supermajority Democratic Senate and House yet Bruce Rauner (R) was elected governor rather than Pat Quinn (D) and his running mate Paul Vallas (D).
LikeLike
“Hillary openly states that Rahm is doing a great job and is a benefit to Chicago.”
And Sanders has spoken out against Rahm.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/04/sanders-no-elected-official-should-be-shielded-in-wake-of-chicago-shooting/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/23/bernie-sanders-says-he-doesnt-want-rahm-emanuels-help-in-the-presidential-race/
LikeLike
Ken…thanks for the reminder that Rahm is a Super Delegate, and so are others who also verge on calls for impeachment, and even calls for indictment. And don’t forget all those Pritzker buddies and relatives and their like who fall into this privileged category.
Super Delegates show why the whole system is broken.
We do not need an Electoral College in 2016. We need a complete revision of how we vote in an America that is now totally connected by computer and phone, and is not waiting for the Pony Express.
Let’s all shout out for a popular vote so we have a shot at having elections reflect We, the People, and not have them bought by those who pay the Super Delegates.
LikeLike
Diane, I find this little vignette of life in Brooklyn to be very illustrative of your passionate advocacy for community schools. Those who have never lived in the Big Apple imagine it as an impersonal megalopolis, but what it can feel like is a collection of villages. The urge to make connections to others and to be known ourselves is the essence of what life is for.
In good schools, we try to create opportunities for children to be known and valued for who they are right in the moment, not for what they will produce or what they will become after their schooling has ended. We see them as unique and lovely human beings just because they are. It’s why we get so irritated with the nonsense of constantly measuring to see how they stack up and to hurry them along to be “college and career ready”. Creating and sustaining a supportive community of learners is a far more humanizing task than most. And you do that on this blog over and over again every day. Thank you!
LikeLike
I would not say she WON more, but that she has more. That is because superdelegates are persuaded, but not bound and can change their minds. Going back to 8 years ago, there were a number of superdelegates who started out supporting Clinton but who changed to Obama, notably Africa-American elected officials such as Congressman John Lewis of Georgia and Delegate Jennifer McClellan of Virginia.
That is less likely to happen this cycle. I note that the Congressional Black Caucus is endorsing Clinton today, Jim Clyburn and I think 2 others staying neutral – for now. But Clyburn is already under pressure from both his wife and one daughter to support Clinton. While Sanders has about 8 supporters from the House, including the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus (where he remains a member even in the Senate), the other Progressive Caucus members who have endorsed support Clinton. Of greater note, of the Democrats in the Senate, who know both Clinton and Sanders, 39 have endorsed her, none have endorsed him. And the Governor, other Senator and House member from Vermont have endorsed Clinton.
I heard Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia say last night that he loves BVernie, serving with him on one committee, but explained the strong support he and other Senators are giving Clinton on the basis of her long commitment and passion on issues and her effectiveness.
Make of it what you will.
While Sanders is now doing real outreach to minority communities, and has some significant endorsers (Nina Turner in OH, Killer Mike, former NAACP head Ben Jealous), Clinton is now touring with three mothers of young black men killed by police, and the CB members are going out on the campaign trail for her.
It is still not clear that Sanders can substantially cut into her minority supporter, without which he will get overwhelmed in the delegate race, which is still hers to lose.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the solid thinker and highly respected Professor Cornel West is supporting Bernie Sanders.
Interesting that political flacks of various colors support the Cllntons based too often on who benefited from their largesse over the last 30 years (as with ‘quid pro quo’) and remembering that Bill chose Harlem for his offices when they carpet-bagged to NY from Arkansas so Hillary could run for the Senate. These two are long term planners. Hillary showed the world this foresight when she chose to be the little forgiving wife during Bill’s philandering. And remember, she blamed all the women who came forward, but not her ticket to the WH, her lying husband Billy. Some pathetic feminist she is…..
How can any self respecting, hard working, educated woman vote for such a renowned self serving woman as Hillary?
LikeLike
Cornel West will be a detriment in Sanders’ efforts to reach out to African American voters because he has been so critical of Obama. That is political reality, and if they even allow West to show up in SC between now and the primary that would be political malpractice.
LikeLike
You’re right, but what a shame that you are, Ken. Obama deserves the criticism.
LikeLike
Teacher Ken, the same for Al Sharpton
LikeLike
Call me confused and I need to revisit my understanding of the election process but… I read this:
“Shane says that a candidate–be it Hillary or anyone else–could theoretically lose the popular vote yet have the most delegates. Yet, he believes—and this is what I told Moishe, that no candidate can win the general election unless they are clearly the choice of the party…”
But if candidate “X” and candidate “Y” want the nomination and candidate “X” is supported by the super delegates, by the info in the article and the quote above, candidate “Y” has no chance of being nominated (even by popular vote) because the super delegates are numerous enough to determine who is the party nominee. So candidate “Y” even if they keep winning the popular vote (as Sanders did in NH) has no chance of being the party nominee if the DNC controls who are super delegates. This is most disheartening!! Or perhaps explain how it would be possible for Bernie Sanders to win the nomination if the DNC- appointed super delegates (and DNC supports one candidate over another without needing the Will of the People) supports Clinton! Why have super delegates other than to control the results of an election and place it out of “the vote of The People”?
Call me confused! Could you clarify this?
What are the originals of super delegates anyhow? When did this enter into the election process? Seems like this scale-weighting should be abolished.
LikeLike
Yes. And New Hampshire is not representative of the population of the Democratic party. When minorities start coming to the polls in other states, Hillary’s non-superdelegate totals will rise and potentially propel her to victory.
I’ve heard many Hillary supporters vow to support the eventual Democratic nominee, regardless of who that is, but the Bernie supporters seem to have convinced themselves that Hillary doesn’t pass their purity test and isn’t worthy of their support in the general. Hello, President Trump!
If nothing else, remember that the next president will put 3-4 people on the Supreme Court!
LikeLike
Oops, meant to post that under teacherken’s comment about superdelegates and the Congressional Black Caucus.
LikeLike
So. Mom…what makes you think that Hillary of Wall Street and of Mideast Dictator money-grabbing fame, and a Dem in name only, who changes her positions on the basis of today’s polling, would appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the SCOTUS instead of another Alito or Thomas or Scalia? What makes you think she might not appoint Rahm Emanuel who served her purposes so well? Rumblings are that Obama will get an appointment…and after we have all seen who and how he has ruled (with education, and with Goldman Sachs-Citigroup cronies/advisors) are these the people who you want sitting on this bench for the next 40 years?
Do you want your twins to be called for active duty to fight in the Middle East when Hillary pushes for war in Iraq, or Syria, or Libya, or in Africa. Look at her actual history…but turn off the sound so you are not influenced by her sliding scale of veracity.
LikeLike
Darn that autocorrect! “origins of the super delegates”
LikeLike
If you ask me, that sounds crazy and very unfair and undemocratic. In other words, the party stacks the cake with its super delegate status bestowed on favorites. Not right, not fair. Truly disappointed.
LikeLike
I don’t know if he’ll win, but Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat talking about corruption and capture in government and if they think they are going to dodge this debate they are nuts.
We all know it isn’t blatant- we know they aren’t exchanging bags of cash for votes and framing it in this legalistic and narrow way ignores the real issue.
The issue is who gets access and influence, and why.
No is accusing them of blatant illegality and self-enrichment. That’s a narrow definition of “corrupt”. I know they aren’t breaking the laws they wrote. That isn’t the question so putting that forth as the answer is a dodge.
LikeLike
“Shane says that a candidate–be it Hillary or anyone else–could theoretically lose the popular vote yet have the most delegates. Yet, he believes—and this is what I told Moishe, that no candidate can win the general election unless they are clearly the choice of the party.
Which is why the super delegates will not determine the party’s candidate for the general election. The voters will decide.”
I think I’m missing something here, Diane. As I read it, the first paragraph says that the candidates need the votes from the delegates while the second then seems to use that first paragraph as proof that it’s NOT the delegates, but the people who will decide.
Am I missing something…?
LikeLike
That Billary won more delegates in New Hampshire is your biggest fail ever, Democracy. Spread the news, fellow outsiders, for the voting public will turn out in droves to overcome so painfully obvious an injustice.
LikeLike
There’s a Move-On petition circulating that asks super delegates to let the people’s vote decide.
LikeLike
Glad to hear. We should demand it. Not ask. The system is rigged and those who are responsible should be held accountable.
LikeLike
Remember that Hillary had more votes last time, but Obama had the super delegates. This time Hillary is a far superior candidate for sure—well rounded and knowledgeable, so please don’t vote ethnicity or religion.
I have only disdain for the Hassidics who are coming to my Lakewood, NJ, area in droves and with complete disregard for the seniors, who, like myself, have been living here for decades. They vote in blocs and have gotten control of local government, although we seniors are learning to work together. Regarding ethnicity or race, I hope you heard this morning the full-throated endorsement from the Black Caucus. Bernie is not and has never been a Democrat until he wanted the line to run for the Presidency. He has always registered as a socialist or an independent and has even run against Democrats. He is inauthentic! Please don’t vote for him.
LikeLike
It is not the Black Caucus it is the Congressional Black Caucus PAC that is supporting Hillary. The progressive wing of the Caucus is NOT endorsing Hillary. This group not endorsing Hillary has stated vehemently that this was a unilateral decision made without their input, and does not represent their choice. Sounds much like the AFT endorsement of Hillary, made by Randi Weingarten, a Superdelegate committed to Hillary.
Note this Weingarten, choices such as these are made on the backs of our union dues, and your salary.
LikeLike
The only change we want is real change not more of the same and there is only one candidate doing that.
LikeLike
Comedy Central’s Larry Wilmore (the Nightly Show) did an excellent bit about this last night. Here’s the link.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/larry-wilmore-mocks-new-hampshire-for-its-merica-math-super-delegate-system/
The biggest hurdle for Bernie Sanders to leap over is the traps, blocks and pitfalls put in place by the institutional Democratic Party. Bernie threatens their supply lines to rich donors, Wall Street and lobbies.
LikeLike
You have it 100% correct Radhika…Bernie is more in danger from the Dems who are on the take, than from the Repubs…at least right now.
LikeLike
Radhika, superdelegates are free to switch if it’s clear that Bernie can get enough votes in the general. It’s not all said and done today. There are many more primaries and caucuses, and they’re certainly not all the same demographic makeup that New Hampshire is, so Bernie supporters should brace themselves for a Hillary comeback.
To those who seem to be new to all of this, the superdelegate system is not new. And there is a purpose behind it, as stated in the article Diane linked to. Bernie agreed to the rules of the Democratic Party when he decided to run as a Democrat.
If, within those rules, Hillary is able to garner a lot more support than Bernie, then I think that tells us a lot about how effective each would be at creating effective coalitions as president. I’m voting for Hillary.
LikeLike
This makes me sad.
From all I’ve read, seen, and heard, Hillary will continue the Bush/Obama push to privatize education and will cave on the Trans Pacific Partnership. She’s “changed” her positions, but only since the run for the presidency came into question. More jobs in the USA will be lost and more of our rights will be muddled in the New World Order/World Economy.
We hear all these horrible things about Sanders. But I honestly don’t know what to believe. After two decades plus of reading propaganda and blatant lies from the media, I have very little faith in what comes from that direction.
Personal experience is a valuable ally. I was at a small gathering on a Vermont farmer’s front lawn one summer, years ago. Bernie Sanders was there, talking to his constituents about the little support he was receiving from his congressional colleagues, regarding the forced take over of small dairy farms by agribusiness. He was warning the farmers, that day, of the possible/probable outcomes and saying how very sorry he was that he couldn’t help more. He brought up the idea of forming cooperatives as a way of staying afloat. This was an idea which caught root and has helped sustain some of the small dairy farmers in the state to this day.
You can say what you will…but this is a sincere human being who wants to do all he can to bring the power back to the people. To make things smaller, again. More local. Someone who wants to actually enforce the law which governs all. Rich and poor. I don’t see this with Hillary. If “staying the course” is “realistic”…then I want no part in that reality.
LikeLike
More comedy and more tragedy….from a not so neutral FeedBlitzer….cartoons did not copy…but he did quote Rob Rendo.
“Randi and Lily Are Democratic Party Super Delegates
While much of the Democratic Party has savaged teachers and their unions on ed deform, the leadership of this unions is part of the structure of the party. We know where they stand on Hillary/Bernie and since a good chunk of the members are anti-Hillary from the right and the left, their stand is very divisive and diverts us from the major battle. Randi was traipsing around Iowa and New Hampshire and giving credence to Teach for America by showing up to speak at their conference last weekend.
Diane Ravitch is taking a neutral stance on Hillary/Bernie and explains why in a reply to a comment on her post Hillary Won More Delegates in New Hampshire than Bernie.
Now I find this an interesting post in that while talking about the super delegates she never mentions that the presidents of the 2 teacher unions with almost 4 million members are out and out Hillary supporters who will be overriding the popular vote if they can. Randi has been tweeting that Bernie and Hillary basically tied in New Hampshire among Democrats and it was the independent vote that gave him such a big margin. I guess independents who reject Hillary don’t count in the general election. It is the typical stance that the Republican choice will be so awful, everyone will hold their noses and vote for Hillary anyway. Listen, I would probably do so myself.
Rob Rendo is disturbed enough to offer the following:
How rigged the system is:
Please review the following list for names that you recognize among the superdelegates.
You will see Lily Eskelsen Garcia and Randi Weingarten right there, undermining the one man one vote fundamental to our democracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
Will you sign the petition to let voters decide?
http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=s.fwd&r_by=4412807
Will you sign this petition to the DNC to end voter manipulation?
https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-dnc-destroy-and-dismantle-the-superdelegacy-end-election-manipulation
Please forward widely
Thank you
Randi undermining democracy? I’m shocked, just shocked. Any photoshoppers out there to take these cartoons and put Randi in them? “
LikeLike
Hello Ellen Lubic . . .
I am against the delegate system. Randi and Lily are one of the superdelegates. Rahm Emanuel is a delegate. So are Andrew Cuomo and his sister.
Who is feedblitz? I am not so savvy in IT.
The DNC is rigged.
I am counting on the youth movement, in part, to recognize what the DNC delegate system is all about, and a peaceful rebellion to follow.
Banana republics are fine for those who dine on nothing but banana bread, pudding, and cream pie . . . .
As for Hil-arious Hil-liar-y, all the yellow pant suits in the world will not brighten her need to illuminate the truth and her voting records. You take money from institutions that behave too any times like the devil, then you are obligated to sleep with the devil.
Hillary, go to sleep! . . .
LikeLike
Hey Robert, can you email me at eddetective (at gmail)
Want to talk about a few things, including this topic.
LikeLike
I will try to, Ed Detective.
LikeLike
I’d be interested in how many people would vote for Sanders if they thought he was as “safe” a bet vs the Republican challenger as Hillary supposedly is.
We’re all petrified of Trump. The others aren’t a picnic either. Especially with the seats that will need filling in the Supreme Court.
I ask this because I don’t see Hillary exactly as a “shoo-in”, either. REGARDLESS OF MERIT, the recent subpoena of the family foundation and the separate FBI and State Dept investigations regarding her private email server are going to supply plenty of cannon fodder for the debates, should she become the Democratic nominee. They’ll also target the Libyan crisis.
Again: regardless of merit, there’s so much room for propaganda here. Fox 5 was laughing today about how Sanders didn’t even bring up the email servers and how Hillary must have been so relieved. They said that she’ll never get a free pass on that vs any of the Republicans in a televised debate.
Would you vote for Sanders if he was as electable as Hillary? There’s a reason why his message is resonating with so many people. And the main thing I hear against him from the right wingers around here is that the rich folk will “just move” if he raises their taxes. Have we ever heard that refrain, before? If you’re from NYC, you sure have. Or California.
LikeLike
The rich won’t even be taxed that much more. I don’t think Sanders’s plan will get many people picking up and moving to another country. From [ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ ]:
“This plan would replace the top three income tax rates (33%, 35%, and 39.6%) with more progressive rates:
37% on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43% on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48% on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, just 0.08 percent of all taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52% on income of $10 million and above. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)”
In my opinion, if someone doesn’t want to pay this modestly progressive tax, we shouldn’t be sad to see them go. I’ll speak for myself and say this mindset is a sign of greed, lack of foresight, and lack of empathy.
I don’t think many of them will leave, though. Where would they go? To another more “socialistic” capitalist country (with a higher tax rate…?)
More baloney, based on fearmongering.
LikeLike
Superdelegates, “an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs, and vice chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries”
Hmmm, other dignitaries such as Kenneth Cole’s wife, Maria Cuomo Cole? How is it that she is included in the illustrious list hand picked by the Democratic National Committee?
I guess all it takes is a desire to keep the corrupt status quo.
One man, one vote, out the window.
LikeLike