Input is VERY welcome.
HOW TO SWITCH SUPER DELEGATES FROM HILLARY CLINTON TO BERNIE SANDERS
- Methodically convince each Super Delegate that it would be beneficial to them PERSONALLY and POLITICALLY to switch their support to Sanders
- Convince each Super D that their constituents, party, and country will all benefit from a switch to Sanders
- Educate them that
-this is a defining moment for them to go on the record with where they stand
-we understand that their original support of HRC had to do with there appearing to be no viable candidate opposing her, and she has been and promises to be a strong source of campaign funds
-this convention vote is one last chance to exercise their political will and judgement for the greater good, and for their own good under this new political reality, where HRC is a huge liability, and Bernie’s wing of the party clearly represents the future of the party
Ok, but how do we convince them? Thoughtfully, logically, respectfully. Appeal, to head, heart, and especially fear. Fear of losing political support, fear of a weakened party, fear of losing to Trump, fear of acrimonious violent protest clashes.
We need to have organized talking points. We need to get meetings with super delegates to present our case. We need to educate our friends, neighbors, and family. And we need to whip phone calls and hand written cards to these Super Ds using the same message: at once optimistic and welcoming, and also foreboding and threatening. These are the times we live in.
It is most important to show Super Ds how it helps them PERSONALLY AND POLITICALLY to switch to Bernie Sanders. But I am starting with the more general arguments, and finishing with the personal.
HERE ARE MY TALKING POINTS FOR CONVINCING SUPER Ds
1. How will it benefit the country?
1a) It will prevent a Trump presidency and GOP supreme court-the GOP already has so much of the government we absolutely cannot risk this–true, on TV the Super Ds dismiss this prospect, but we must get them to address it seriously and logically in person
Evidence:
-National polls, state polls, favorability polls
-Sanders has won the recent primaries, the primaries in states Democrats win in the fall, and anywhere indies have been allowed to vote.
-this is a poll based argument showing clearly that Sanders v Trump is a far more favorable matchup than HRC v Trump–this is an obvious argument, but it won’t be close to enough to persuade these people, because they don’t know what that looks like. We must show them state by state.
1b) It will benefit the USA spirit because of the tone of the election
Evidence:
-We have seen clearly that Trump draws protests at almost every stop. Clinton’s recent visit to West Virginia shows that she will also draw protests at many locations. Unfortunately, HRC becoming the nominee will help drive this. Many young activists supporting Bernie will be driven to protest Trump even more stridently, and even protest against HRC herself. By losing the one candidate they support at all, and having their voices stifled by the party and primary rules, the youth will be left with the streets to make their voice heard. Such an election, with two candidates so unpopular driving hateful feelings amongst multiple subgroups, is flat out BAD for AMERICA. A Sanders v Trump match-up will keep the youth engaged on a POLITICAL level working for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
2. How will it benefit the party?
2a) The grass roots, youth, independents, and POTENTIAL future of the party support Bernie Sanders
Evidence:
-Youth vote and indie vote in primaries are clear-the creative energy, the volunteer army, grass roots labor support, and huge rally energy are all with Bernie–Obviously, the youth is the future. Therefore, if we want a strong broad coalition to make up the Dem party, it must include the future energy, indie interest, and grass roots labor energy.
2b) For a strong future, the Dem party must embrace the Bernie Sanders coalition policies
-First of all, the policies regarding fairness, and getting money out of politics, are very strong and widely popular. The Bernie Sanders wing of the party CLEARLY represents this principle. Sanders has actually been accused of negative campaigning by HRC simply for questioning a system that is awash in money on both sides of the isle. By embracing the Sanders wing, and embracing these policy principles, the Democratic party becomes identified with clean politics. It is obvious that outside of HRC’s very own primary voters, NOBODY identifies her with clean politics. This is a fact. It is also a fact that the Democratic Party must own this issue to succeed.
2c) – For a strong future, we need the young voters and the indie voters-the youth are obviously the future, and the indies are too because party ID is going down-if HRC is the nominee it will go down even more–the Dem party MUST be the preferred party of indies to compete strong in the future.
Nominating HRC risks losing not just this election, but the future support of the party amongst youth, indies, and those that vote on clean government. We need a party that has the youth energy engaged FOR the party, not against the party, as it is now heading. We cannot lose these Millennials for the future just to elect HRC now. We need them badly for us and not against us.
2d) DNC, MSM, HRC and Super Ds have been mostly silent on the shady nature of the primary process. Especially the mystery party switching, voter purging, and exit poll discrepancies. Sanders supporters are not conspiracy theorists. To treat them that way is to irresponsible, and shameful after all the Dems have been put through by the GOP when it comes to fair votes. Whether suspicions are true or not, the silence about these problems by the self-satisfied winners in this primary (HRC-DNC) is UNACCEPTABLE to the wing of the party that has been victimized by unfair elections in this cycle or any other. We demand not only an interest in fair elections but an embracing of them a s a BEDROCK principle. By switching your vote to Bernie, you can reason that if NY had a fair party sign up date, or if exit poll discrepancies not been prevalent, it would have been more difficult. But the results can be called into question, and voting for HRC on those contests alone is an ENDORSEMENT of the fairness of the process. And that’s not good enough.
So an HRC nomination splits the party, prevents the Dem party from being the clean politics party, the party of indies, or the party of the youth, and is an implicit endorsement of shady elections. Wow.
3. How will it benefit the Super Delegates personally and politically?
3a) By using this “defining moment” to show savvy, flexibility, and loyalty to principles like clean government and fair economics, you will gain a loyal new following of supporters who will volunteer and donate to your campaign
3b) If you fail this test you will be permanently shunned by the same group, who will pledge to never support you again and also form a 3rd party to overtake the Democratic party.
3c) If you pass this test, you will no longer have to rely on sugar daddies for $$ – you will be flooded with small donations.
3d) If you switch to Sanders, the Clintons will not be in a position to issue payback. Clinton’s career will be over, and you will have a new small donor fundraising stream, WITHOUT having to cast pro-business votes.
3e) If you fail to step up, you will have a permanent campaign against you by people who do not appreciate you exposing them to GOP dominance just out of fealty to HRC and her closed primary system, that shut out the true will of the American people, and the indie voices out there for Bernie.
By supporting Sanders we can run a stronger more popular general election candidate, keep the party unified behind clean government principles that strongly contrast with the GOP, keep the energy and engagement of the youth for our party, and keep the support and engagement of the independent voices of this country. Sounds like a good deal to me.
We must act in unison, and with intelligence. We are so powerful when we do that, we can change the world.
This entirely new political realty (re media, Trump as GOP nominee, fundraising grass roots fundraising ability, new political fault lines in USA and in party) all gives license to a serious reconsideration of votes for Super Ds. It is completely legitimate for them to reconsider under new circumstances. The media and the DNC must get this message.
When early Super Ds start switching, we need to immediately money bomb them so the rest see the $$ benefits.
THANKS FOR READING
THANKS FOR INPUT
– Cross Posted at www.caucus99percent.com
Bernie’s win in Indiana tonight ( 5% ) supports your position that Bernie does very well with the youth and independent vote. Independents are a greater majority now than Democrats or Republicans and a greater percentage of Independents lean Democrat vs. Republican. Also, the majority of younger people today are Democrats and they are heavily supporting Senator Sanders. These groups will not come out for Clinton enthusiastically and likely not donate to her campaign. HRC represents big money donors and the little voter figures why donate? “Let the Fat Cats spend their $$. They have gobs of it and nobody listens to us anyway.”
Sanders has a much greater chance of beating Trump than does Clinton. I know of some Republicans that voted for Sanders because they didn’t like Trump; however, they told me they would never vote for Clinton. HRC has high unfavorable ratings and high untrustworthy ratings and that is a fact.
No, I don’t agree with the superdelegate strategy at all. If superdelegates are to have a vote, it should be only if no candidate gets 50%+1 from caucuses & primaries. If she won fair and square, then the nomination is hers. Of course I will change parties, but that’s neither here nor there.
Now, you can debate the “fair and square” part and that’s what past convention challenges have done. Arizona and New York should be completely thrown out IMHO as the electoral process was so compromised as to render the results meaningless. We won? The answer is “We don’t know”.
But asking the superdelegates to negate the voting? No way!
Correction:
WeWho won?I really love the edit capability at caucus99percent.
Not the caucuses, which Sanders mostly won? What is your reasoning behind that? Keep in mind that Washington, one of the largest caucus states only had around 5% turnout and New York and Arizona with all of their problems both had at least 15% turn out.
In fact two political scientists from BYU studied the Washington caucus and came to this conclusion
“Two political scientists from Brigham Young University studied these events, resulting in a paper called “Who Caucuses?” Mostly it’s “the wealthy, educated, white and interested.” This fits with The Seattle Times portrait of one caucus in the city’s most nonwhite neighborhood: “While the caucus was located in the racially diverse but gentrifying Rainier Valley, most of those who turned out were white.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/democrats-caucuses-arent-very-democratic/
You know why that is? The main reason is that caucuses disenfranchise people who can’t afford to take an afternoon off to vote. Not to mention those who have a disability.
My point is this – if you want election reform to have a more fair primary vote the first place to start is getting rid of the causes and then moving on from there.
Well, I agree with that. I just don’t agree with “Big daddy” superdelegates overturning the established process. Even the caucuses which I agree with you on. Why did those people spend all those hours? Just so “older and wiser” heads could overrule them?
OTOH, I remember the Mississippi Freedom Delegation challenging seating the official delegation because of overt racial bias in the process. That was sometime in the ’60s or early ’70s. That sort of thing is valid, but not “the voters made the wrong choice”.
The Supers have never turned over the pledged delegate result. They truly only exist for two reasons
Frankly the Sanders team over focus and ever changing stance on the Supers has seemed like a gambit to try to distract from the very real fact that he is handily losing the popular vote and pledged delegate race.
#1 is valid. #2 is in the eye of the beholder. Why have caucuses and primaries at all?
Thanks for commenting,
In my view, HRC’s lack of disclosure regarding her e-mail misdeeds, is cause enough for the Super Delegates to reconsider.
HRC has been running under false pretenses, that “she did nothing wrong.” Just a careless error of setting up an e-mail server in my house, when the blackberry set-up was already causing hassles with the cyber security people at the State Department.
Sadly for HRC, on this issue, the people’s judgement will be enough to sink her.
It is the job of the Super Delegates to protect the party from such a calamity. HRC should have dropped out when she realized that the FBI thing would be a cloud for the duration. But she is too selfish for that.
I respect that view, just don’t agree.
1. Have Bernie win the popular vote and pledged delegate battle and stop being a bunch of hypocrites.
Why should super-delegates switch to a person who is NOT A DEMOCRAT!!! Is this the only way Bernie can win, by blackmailing people?? Let’s call it what it is. You are looking at Democrats here, not independents. Bernie Sanders only joined the party to run for president. Switching from Hillary to Bernie would go against everything these supers want. Stop the insanity please!!
Then you should be OK with non-Democrat Bernie supporters switching to Trump.
Now you’re just messing with their well rehearsed HRC talking point.
Yes, I am.
He is not a Democrat by affiliation, only by policy. That is, the policies he prefers are the preferred policies of the party.
If this had been a fair election, and HRC had not bribed many credible Democrats to lie about Sanders on TV, maybe that would have been more reflected in the voting.
The Clinton system of Wall Street suck up-ism is a disease they started in the party, and Obama has helped to spread.
REAL lifetime Democrats who have their priorities straight, support Sanders because his vision for the party is our vision for the party.
The label means nothing. He was smart not to taint himself with the Clintonian stench that the Democratic Party has suffered from since Triangulation #1.
millions of people’s votes keep the party more unified? I think this boils down to Sanders and his supporters mistaken assumption that they are the base of the party and therefore they are owed this. Like it or not Sanders predominantly white, younger skewing voters are not the base of the D party. Maybe they will be someday but they aren’t now. The true base of the D party is African American women. For years they have been the bread and butter of this party. They have done more than their fair share of the heavy lifting. And like it or not they prefer Clinton.
The base of the party is AA women. That is the bedrock. But there is absolutely NOTHING in Sanders’ platform that this base should reject.
This vote was about the Clinton brand, familiarity, and the misleading statements made by their leaders like John Lewis.
It was a shameful display. I don’t begrudge their vote when it comes to being comfortable with the Clintons. But the AA politicians’ sliming of Sanders was disgusting.
In the long run, when the Berners run the Democratic Party, the AA women will still be the bedrock, and they will feel even better about it.
Intersectionality is absolutely something the base should reject. He tried to modify that some during the primary but it was always obvious to me and seemingly millions of other voters that he viewed almost every other issue through his economic worldview. That he is a true believer in a “rising tide lifts all boats.” He compared himself to FDR time and again and that certainly wasn’t true in FDR’s time. Ironically the one time in our history where a rising tide lifted all boats was during the Clinton presidency.
I see why you would be concerned by Sanders’ philosophy. However, I think we can all agree that his ears have been open and his mind has been expanded when it comes to these issues.
He very much has worked to understand and incorporate what he hears from the BLM movement and others.
Like I said, all the AA women voting for Clinton, especially early, makes perfect sense to me. I also happen to think that Bernie Sanders will look out for them more than HRC.
I also think Bill Clinton was lucky that his administration coincided with the internet bubble. In my mind, and I remember, what the AA voters appreciated most besides the economy was the symbolic honoring of the civil rights movement that (mostly) replaced the racial dogwhistles we heard for the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. That, along with making appointments more diverse than America had ever seen, and setting a welcome new standard in doing so.
HRC can’t add to any of that now.
All that much. At first I did but then his campaign started doing things like writing off the entire south as being too conservative and that is the reason they didn’t vote for him or implying that the people in the south who didn’t vote for him were ignorant because they didn’t have as much internet access. That is what convinced me that while his mind may have opened some, it didn’t open all that much. If it had he would have done some introspection on why he keeps losing black voters by such large margins and at least try to course correct.
As for Clinton I agree he was fortunate to be President when he was but I give him credit for getting out of the way of the growth that the internet led to.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on Bernie. Sure, some of the excuses coming out of Bernie world were lame, but they were often lashing out against a very stacked deck against them and a stream of misrepresentations by HRC surrogates.
I;m going to disagree. In part as a practical matter and in part to demonstrate that Bernie supporters aren’t powerless.
The SuperDelegates are really so far in the tank for HRC (for a variety of reasons), that reasoning with them prior to the convention on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two candidates in the general election is a waste of time.
Until the completion of the primary/caucuses, we won’t know what the pledged delegate count will be. If as expected, HRC has the majority and at the time of the convention there is no obvious impediment to her nomination, she will be the nominee. However, fairness and public disclosure are very important to Sanders supporters and if Democrats want their vote, the record should reflect the pledged delegate count only.
For the process of future Presidential elections, Sanders supporters ask that SuperDelegates be bound in the same proportion as their state pledged delegates. And non-state delegation SuperDelegates only gain the right to vote after some number of ballots have failed to select the nominee.
If there’s a good reason for the SuperDelegates, I haven’t heard it. Pledged delegates aren’t strictly bound to a candidate and wouldn’t be performing their assignment if they ignored something unexpected that occurred after completion of the primaries that doomed the primary winner (and by extension the party) in the general election.
There is a good reason for Super Delegates.
When the front runner has run all year under false pretenses, and is the subject of a criminal investigation, that person has a responsibility.
When HRC tells us and the media that this is a big nothingburger, we are expected to trust that she knows all the details and that there is nothing. But just during the course of the campaign, information has come to light about HRC’s behavior in the timeline that shows she had info hidden that she never thought would come to light.
She is compromised, and she has compromised MY Democratic party. The party I volunteered for in Orange County while Bill Clinton was fucking every Little Rock cocktail waitress he could et his hands on. This party is for me and my fellow Berners, not the Third Way triangulators. And not for East Coast moderates. Choose a side, dammit! People are dyin out here.
I feel your pain. (No! Not mocking you with that quote!)
But I’m not willing to ditch democracy. Should the Joint Chiefs remove a President they feel is unsuitable/dangerous?
Yes they should, if it is their best judgment and not a political choice.
In a way, HRC is like a madwoman with her finger on the button. The button doesn’t launch nukes, but it does split the Democratic Party and send it even further into the political wilderness than it already is.
Not mocking you with wilderness.
Her madness is thinking she can sweep the e-mail thing under the rug, and spreading enough Wall Street crumbs around the party for them to keep their mouths shut. But the Super Ds, or Joint Chiefs, can still exercise their best judgment to save the day.
They could just say they are speaking for the independents who were shut out of so many states, and whose preference is clear.
Just the fact that the well-known, experienced, connected, media-backed, party backed, Super Pac backed chosen candidate can BARELY win vs a 74 yo Jewish (i am) Dem Socialist shows that she is the wrong candidate and must be replaced.
primary to Sanders doesn’t split the party? Honestly that would split the party far worse than Secretary Clinton’s upsetting this cycle’s version of the PUMAs
As for the email investigation I am not relying on her word that it is nothing. I am relying on what I have read about it.
Well, the e-mail thing is something bad politically no matter what happens now. That is plain to see. The only thing left to see is how bad.
As for splitting the party, it won’t be a problem. For one, in 2008 we unified because Obama was the people’s candidate.
This year Sanders is the people’s candidate. That will make it go down easier. Also, if the Super Delegates do end up overthrowing the vote, it will only be because they see something so clearly dangerous to the party that the rest of the HRC voters will see it as well.
When HRC has the nomination taken away, it will be the obvious choice for everybody. The question is, who gets to replace her?
For almost anybody but Clinton, the disclosure that her e-mail communications flowed through her private server and that she deleted 30,000 e-mails before the State Dept learned of her server and demanded she turn over her work e-mails would have meant a campaign failure to launch.
I don’t consider this a trivial or technical matter. However, it’s just one more reason why I don’t find her suitable for public office. I’m only one vote and the majority rarely agrees with me. They re-elected GWB after if was evident that he’d lied the country into a war which was more egregious than HRC’s secret e-mail server.
Popular vote by millions on what basis can you claim he is the people’s candidate? He is the people’s candidate for the predominantly white younger skewing demo that supports him and has an outsized voice on the internal and especially in the progressive blogosphere but he isn’t the people’s candidate for people of color or women or people in the lowest income bracket or the top 2 or 3 brackets (all of those support Clinton).
Nor should you claim that Sanders is some fringe candidate. If you can demonstrate that HRC voters were as fully informed on both candidates (who they are, their records, and public policy positions) as Sanders voters were, you would be in a better position to claim that HRC is closer to the people’s choice.
“Time for a woman” isn’t informed and frankly, is the lowest form of democracy. Because the pastor or fellow worshippers said to vote for HRC isn’t informed either (and you know damn well that that happened).
Or that it was time for a woman? Please do me the courtesy of sticking to what I actually posted. As for what I did post pointing out the demographics of his supporters is just that pointing out the demographics of his supporters and why, like it or not, they are not the base of the party right now.
That Sanders supporters were more informed than Clinton supporters that is an issue with the Sanders campaign team. I really want to know just where did your assumption come from? Sanders saying the night he lost in South Carolina that the people in Minnesota are smart so of course he would win that state thereby implying that the people in South Carolina who overwhelmingly voted for his opponent were not as informed.
But hey let’s play that game. Let me ask how informed some Sanders supporters are. You know the ones who think he can just given them free college. Who don’t bother to really understand just what a education system like Denmark would look like. Or let’s look at Sanders himself. I feel comfortable saying the turning point in this primary was his disastrous NYDN where he couldn’t or wouldn’t article details to back up his issues.
To add one more thing. There are very few women who support Clinton saying they are voting for her because it is time for a woman.
Also regarding your point about Pastors, why don’t you just come out and say those ignorant blacks just followed the lead of what their pastor told them. Stop pussy footing around with your dog whistle and own what you are saying.
Not that it is true. As I said before black women are the base of this party right now and they are also some of the most active informed voters in the party. They are the ones who never miss a state, local, primary, or federal election.
Finally let’s turn around what you said. I could make the same outrageous claim about some Sanders supporters. They were just supporting him because it is the cool thing to do right now but they aren’t really informed on the issues. After all some of them weren’t even informed on basic primary rules like having to register as a D in October even though that information was on Sanders site.
My point is this – while some voters may fit the description we each gave is is the height or arrogance to assume that the majority of them did. After all voting is more difficult it has been in a while and if someone made the effort to vote in the primary I am going to assume they did so thoughtfully.
Yes he is not supported by ALL the people. But he supports ALL the people. HRC supports HRC.
What makes him the people’s candidate are the rallies, energy, volunteer base, and creative explosion of grass roots support that has sprung up around Sanders almost spontaneously.
It’s not fair to call them white. Sanders wins AAs under 45 years old.
His base does skew young. That’s the energy, that’s the future.
What the Democratic leaders don’t seem to get is that the future is here and now whether they like it or not.
Grady, I’m afraid he is the past not the future. Although it makes me puke, Clinton is the future – a dystopia.
Don’t believe that and the cold hard facts are that more people voted for her in this primary than Sanders.
By the way I used to think Senator Sanders was in it for the people but as this election has gone on I feel his relative success has gone to if not his head, then his advisors’ heads.
I agree with your last sentence and agree to disagree about the rest.
SuperDelgates are a lousy way to attempt to correct for the limits and imperfections of democracy. Voters do have a duty to become as fully informed as possible before making their decision and casting their vote. If voters fail on that, why would the special people, SuperDelegates, do any better?
There might be a case for SuperDelegates, in addition to pledged delegates, as representatives of voter constituencies if they were limited to existing elected officials. It’s total BS that former elected officials and party apparatchiks are SuperDelegates. The whole notion of “wise men” in the US Senate has been trashed time and again. And as far as elected officials choosing a higher level official, we tried that with state legislatures choosing Senators and the corruption in that process was rampant and the winners more often than not were third rate hacks.
“There might be a case for SuperDelegates, in addition to pledged delegates, as representatives of voter constituencies if they were limited to existing elected officials.”
Yes, I agree about the “party elders”. Existing elected officials have a stake in fostering unity.
Existing elected officials have a stake in the future. If not ours, then least their own because most choose to run again and therefore, will face the voters in that future. Party officials have no stake in the future other than to feather their own nests.
As I said above, to remove party deadlocks when there is no clear majority. YMMV.
Difficult for a convention to be deadlocked when it’s rare for a primary to contested after the first few states. If the primary is limited to two candidates or additional candidates don’t get any delegates before dropping out, a convention deadlock is impossible.
Democrats like to wrap up their primary season as early as possible (except when a Clinton is losing). Not sure why because it disenfranchises millions of voters.
Process and what counts is not in the middle of the primary process. It is afterwards and before the next one. Also if fairness and transparency were so important to Sanders supporters they would be the first in line to say get rid of the caucuses the least fair and least transparent primary contest of them all. Except most aren’t, including you it seems, because Sanders won most of those.