Sanders supporters (NOT CAMPAIGN) creating Super Delegate Hit List

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnsmith

remember me
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/09/47339...erdelegate-hit-list-superdelegates-not-amused

"Nobody is going to arrive in Philadelphia with enough delegates to win the nomination," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager. "And the superdelegates don't vote until you actually get into the convention process. So there's been a lot of talk about how the Republicans are going into an open convention. Well, the truth of the matter is, it looks like the Democrats are going into an open convention as well."

It's true that no one will likely have the 2,383 delegates needed for the nomination strictly out of the pledged delegates. But that's also because that number is a majority of all the voting delegates, which includes superdelegates.

The Sanders campaign still has its focus on winning as many pledged delegates as possible in the states still yet to vote, like New York, Pennsylvania and California and the campaign is trying to direct supporters looking to help to volunteering or organizing in those states. In fact the campaign's website lists hundreds of organizing events, many posted by volunteers, but the campaign has moved to remove any events related to reaching out to superdelegates.

But this hasn't stopped Sanders' enthusiastic supporters from taking matters into their own hands. This week, a Sanders fan named Spencer Thayer created the "Superdelegate Hit List," a website to compile and share the contact information of superdelegates, so they can be persuaded. It is not affiliated with the Sanders campaign, but a campaign spokesman didn't respond to multiple requests for comment.

So who wants to help start of a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates? PM me. #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/HVfwISXdP0
— SPENCER THⒶYER (@spencerthayer) April 4, 2016

Superdelegates have been hearing from Sanders supporters for months — and it's not always pleasant. Akilah Ross Ensley is with the Young Democrats of America, and she's a superdelegate who plans to support Clinton. She has to check her professional Facebook page several times a day to deal with all the messages and posts.

"You should be ashamed of yourself," Ensley reads from a recent Facebook message she received. "Maybe you will do some soul searching and have some integrity and think about the decisions you're making and its implications."

Ensley said she's been called names, and there have been expletives.

"They said, you know, you should go to hell," said Ensley, describing another message. "How dare you vote against your own interests as an African-American woman. I expected you would be smarter than that."

When Clinton-backing super delegate Joyce Elliott heard she was on, what at the time was called the Superdelegate Hit List, she was taken aback.

"That is, that is very interesting," Elliott said after laughing uncomfortably. "As far as I know, this is probably only the second time I've been on a hit list, and the other one was not pleasant."

Elliott is a state senator in Arkansas and the last time she was on a hit list, it was over legislation she had introduced. That time, she said, the FBI got involved. This list isn't as scary. Although, she has heard from 20 or 30 Sanders supporters trying to get her to switch.

"Some of them will tell me, you know, how awful Hillary is, therefore, I should support Bernie, and then tell me how great Bernie is," said Elliott, who has known the Clintons since the 1970s. "And that's the kind of thing I think that is not helpful."

For Ken Martin, the chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party, the flow of messages is constant — 20 a day, he said. His state went for Sanders in its caucuses, and the pressure to switch from Clinton to Sanders is intense.

"Someone received my cellphone number, and they posted that, and so I'm getting calls on my personal cellphone from people all over the country," Martin said.

When Thayer, the creator of the superdelegate list, was told people were feeling harassed and unpersuaded, here's what he said:

"It's likely that most callers are actually polite. If a few people contacting superdelegates are being obscene they'll of course drown out reasonable voices and harden opinions. However, it's useful to look at what's causing some of the anger and outrage we're seeing.
"Voters know they are being disenfranchised by superdelegate influence and these privileged voters are a reasonable target for frustration. And, let's be honest, if superdelegates aren't prepared to deal with the public, they shouldn't be party officials."

Obviously the Sanders campaign isn't responsible for the action of it's supporters, but I do think they contributed to this with their talk of winning by getting superdelegates to switch due to "momentum" or electability. This was never going to happen, and the person with the most pledged delegates was always going to win the bulk of them. Even Bill Clinton said he would vote for Bernie if Bernie had the most delegates, just like he voted for Obama in 2008.
 
Yes stalking and harassing people is the way to swing their vote.

"They said, you know, you should go to hell," said Ensley, describing another message. "How dare you vote against your own interests as an African-American woman. I expected you would be smarter than that."

I'm shocked
 
It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.
 
HillGAF thirsty for some drama

I wonder what you think of those threads talking about things that Trump supporters have done.

It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.

Yeah, and they have never voted against the will of the people since they were created.
 
I mean I would understand a campaign to like bombard them with requests to support Bernie instead of Hillary in like the form of an email and tweets and such being all like "We support Bernie Sanders because XYZ and hope that you will to and see that millions of other Americans want him as our nominee" and other non-aggressive and positive type stuff. But literal harassment campaigns are fucking dumb. You can't bully someone into voting for the candidate you like. Making their life hell and attacking their person is never going to work and just make you look like a real cunt.
 
It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.
They're not supposed to represent the will of the people, they're a firewall in case something goes very, very wrong w/ the election/campaign and they need to stop a Trump from happening.
 
Yeah, and they have never voted against the will of the people since they were created.

You're going to have a hard time backing that statement up. First you'll need to start by defining what you think "will of the people" means and then showing that 100% of super delegates have aligned with it.

All I'm saying is that calling officials in power to persuade them and voice your opinion is inherently democratic, to give an unelected official power and no expectation to listen is not.

They're not supposed to represent the will of the people, they're a firewall in case something goes very, very wrong w/ the election/campaign and they need to stop a Trump from happening.

Right, undemocratic.
 
You're going to have a hard time backing that statement up. First you'll need to start by defining what you think "will of the people" means and then showing that 100% of super delegates have aligned with it.

All I'm saying is that calling officials in power to persuade them and voice your opinion is inherently democratic, to give an unelected official power and no expectation to listen is not.



Right, undemocratic.

No. Not really.

The candidate who won the most pledged delegates has never once been denied the nomination by superdelagates.
 
Write a letter or a message asking them to change their vote, sure. Harassment and intimidation have no place in the political process.
 
It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.
How would voting against the person with most votes and pledged delegates be honoring the will of the people?
 
It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.
That is not the purpose of super delegates. The nomination process is controlled by the party, and its rules don't need to be democratic. Voting for a nominee is a relatively new thing.
 
It's all in the details. Death threats and harassments aren't cool but I don't think there is any reason delegates shouldn't be be slammed with people telling them how to vote. Expecting otherwise is the antithesis of democracy, they are supposed to represent the will of the people.

They do represent the will of the people. Many of them were elected by the people. How they choose to govern or legislate reflects the will of the people by virtue of the mandate they were given.

That aside, the general population (or, depending on the state, registered democrats) also get to directly voice their opinion on the candidate. The vast majority of delegates are pledged and determined through caucuses or primaries.
 
Why were they created in the first place?

Who knows?
720x405-GettyImages-481233084.jpg
 
Interesting how you'll see some people bandie the argument that superdelegates should vote the same way as their state, but then you have people in states like Arkansas getting pestered too.

No ones going to say it so bluntly but I wish someone would just own up that they would have no problem with the superdelegates subverting the primary results if it meant giving Bernie the win.

Frankly Hillary is likely to finish the race with a 400-500 delegate lead and will only need a sliver of the superdelegates to push her over the top. Bernie would need every single super to come to his side to win. I hope should Hillary stake out a clear lead in the delegate race (as if it isn't clear enough already) after every state including California have voted that he has the sense not to try and force a floor fight.
 
They do represent the will of the people. Most of them were elected by the people. How they choose to govern or legislate reflects the will of the people by virtue of the mandate they were given.

That aside, the general population (or, depending on the state, registered democrats) also get to directly voice their opinion on the candidate. The vast majority of delegates are pledged and determined through caucuses or primaries.

Delegates are super delegates aren't. And not every state handles that the same way and not every states let's non-registered Democrats participate in the caucus system. It's actually a pretty shitty system if you look past the Hillary/Bernie things. The whole reason it's done that way is to give the party power to override things and we might even see the Republican side exercise that.
 
To undermine democracy.

I want to make this very clear, i do not support any harassment campaign but super delegates are bullshit.
They are not bullshit, They have a very clear base, If bernie was the popular choice with the majority of the votes he would get the super candiates vote. He's not so that's why he hasn't.
 
Interesting how you'll see some people bandie the argument that superdelegates should vote the same way as their state, but then you have people in states like Arkansas getting pestered too.

No ones going to say it so bluntly but I wish someone would just own up that they would have no problem with the superdelegates subverting the primary results if it meant giving Bernie the win.

Frankly Hillary is likely to finish the race with a 400-500 delegate lead and will only need a sliver of the superdelegates to push her over the top. Bernie would need every single super to come to his side to win. I hope should Hillary stake out a clear lead in the delegate race (as if it isn't clear enough already) after every state including California have voted that he has the sense not to try and force a floor fight.

Basically. I mean, you don't hear how undemocratic caucuses are from the average vocal Bernie supporter since that undemocratic processes is actually helping Bernie.
 
Delegates are super delegates aren't. And not every state handles that the same way and not every states let's non-registered Democrats participate in the caucus system. It's actually a pretty shitty system if you look past the Hillary/Bernie things. The whole reason it's done that way is to give the party power to override things and we might even see the Republican side exercise that.

Many superdelegates are just members of the DNC (which makes sense, given that the purpose of the primary is to determine a candidate for the Democratic Party), but roughly 35% are either members of Congress or sitting governors this year (and I'm assuming the distribution would be slightly more even if Democrats did a bit better during midterms, or in gubernatorial races).
 
The whole reason it's done that way is to give the party power to override things and we might even see the Republican side exercise that.

While a two party system exists, I see no reason why the party leadership shouldn't have the ability to influence the primary process. The eventual nominee will be receiving the support of the party leadership, including fund raising, influence, and the ability to be represented by the 'D' by his or her name. As a result, while the nominee reaps the benefits of these factors, it seems only reasonable that in a close primary election, the party could swing in favor of a more supportive party candidate. I know people like to argue that the process is 'undemocratic', which is a reasonable argument. But the response I have to that is 'so what?'. Purely democratic processes are not necessarily a good thing. If they were allowed without checks, this country would be significantly different than it is now in terms of race relationships and social inequality.
 
You're going to have a hard time backing that statement up. First you'll need to start by defining what you think "will of the people" means and then showing that 100% of super delegates have aligned with it.

All I'm saying is that calling officials in power to persuade them and voice your opinion is inherently democratic, to give an unelected official power and no expectation to listen is not.



Right, undemocratic.
Yeah, nah, nah. You don't get to use that word, mate. Undemocratic would be superdelegates ignoring who has the most pledged delegates, ignoring who has the popular vote, and voting for the losing candidate anyway just because their supporters made more noise. Call it what you will, but one thing that would definitely not be would be "democratic" and I don't think you know what your arguing for if you truly prioritize such actions and behavior as a sign of "democracy" over actually fucking voting, nor understand what the consequences would be of doing so and giving such tactics such incredibly heavy weight. Just nonsense.
 
They are not bullshit, They have a very clear base, If bernie was the popular choice with the majority of the votes he would get the super candiates vote. He's not so that's why he hasn't.

Although superdelegates follow the pledged delegates in practice its strange to me that they are allowed; by essentially PERSONAL opinion one single vote by a super is equivalent to the combined vote of thousands of people. It's the principle of the matter, even if supers have not overwrought a popular candidate the fact that the option exists implies how the democratic party is not willing to select candidates based solely on the will of the people. I think the sheer existence of supers is a midfle finger to democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom