The Hillary ones for the most part are used to the present system so most need to be bought. Bernie needs his $27 per contribution followers for the elected delegates race. Hillary just gets some of her corporate pacs or wealthy friends to support the super delegates.
He has no shot at overtaking her on elected delegates (she'll have more elected delegates than him), which is why his campaign is talking about getting supers to switch to him to make up the difference.
...Well, in a saner world, I'd guess we can all comfortable acknowledge that there is a more-or-less civilized way to reform a political party structure... ...seems like the Democratic Party is going through the same sort of metamorphosis (in mood, if not tone) that the GOP is experiencing right now...
A commonly stated rationale for the super delegates is to keep someone who can't win the general election from winning. (It may just to keep the plebes from changing things for the elite). So if Hillary were to weakly limp to the finish line with Bernie constantly gaining which appears possible than it would be reasonable for the superdelegates to switch to Bernie if they want to run the stronger candidate against the GOP. In addition many of the super delegates pledged before any voting started because they thought Hillary was a shoe in to win, so why not back her. Now that they see the results in about half the states and the national polls showing about 50% of Dems support Bernie, those who feel that Bernie is the leader the Dem Party needs to start taking back not only the presidency, but the Congress.
So in other words even though Hillary Clinton has more actual votes and pledged delegates than Sanders you're now saying that Super Delegates should instead support Sanders.
Wait weren't Sanders supporters complaining that we had Super Delegates to begin with a few weeks ago and now want them to save his campaign?
Because those are the rules. I don't necessarily agree with them. In my opinion the parties should do only primaries with the winner of those the nominee. They don't do that and understand this is the rules of the campaign. What I find ironic though is that a campaign that has spent most of it's time bellyaching about how the Super Delegates were going to steal the race from them now that they find themselves trailing in actual votes and pledged delegates want them to step in and save them. Sanders is the outsider. That is what Sanders supporters have been saying since the beginning of the campaign. Why they expect the establishment to step in to save his campaign strikes me as the height of gall.
The whole thing was rigged. The fact is the media was claiming that one candidate had a massive delegate lead before a single vote was cast. The media has been calling this over since South Carolina. That's a big reason why she has a huge lead in votes. But it's changing and the momentum has been shifting. The longer he stays in the race, the more people will hear his message and his message is one which resonates strongly with the middle class. I agree if she keeps her lead in pledged delegates heading into the convention then the superdelegates should vote for her but Sanders is on a roll right now. A strong showing in NY/Penn/CA and everything changes. The polls are stacked against him but one strong debate showing and that changes (see Michigan where he got a massive win in the debate and made up a 20+ point deficit to win).
The latest Wyoming rant over a possible 1 delegate rounding allocation? The supers aren't an issue unless Sanders can close the pledged gap. He's benefited quite well with caucuses too. Which IMO are a mess. Doubtful he wins Washington by the margin he did if it's a primary. Or some of his other big wins. On another note -- he's now come out proposing a national ban on fracking. It may sit well with the college crowd and big city barista set but, add this to a pipeline ban and what does it do to fuel prices and foreign oil dependence.
The big reason why she has the huge lead in the popular vote is that she's won most of the high population states and the ones that do primaries, particularly dominating in the south. Sanders has won a lot of smaller states and ones that do caucuses which have far fewer voters. She wins the volume battle; he wins the passion battle. Delegates are allocated through a mix with the odd mix of caucuses and primaries. But when counting raw votes, passion is irrelevant.
So less media coverage early in the process had nothing to do with the states that voted early in the process?
Yeah, or she is just winning because non-open primaries are largely shutting out ~30% of voters (independents) who are most likely to vote for Bernie? Or she is winning because, like the republicans, she is taking advantage of it being more difficult to vote, making young voters less likely to vote? Another demographic he dominates. Maybe it's because primary voting within a corrupt system makes for the perfect way to continue to divide and tear up the social fabric? Is it not strange that when people get together and talk (caucuses) they vote differently? Bernie is losing this game because this system is not built for what he wants to do. She has won it fair and square according to the rules. The rules are a problem. A big big problem, for all of you. Right, left, center, independent, tea party, environmentalist, whoever. This bickering by Hillary supporters is really decrepit especially when I go back and see what the same posters were saying about Obama. Even if you support Hillary, there's no reason to celebrate her winning. She is not going to make substantive changes to the country.
You frequently like to lecture Americans but this again shows how little you understand the US. Sanders knew the rules and he certainly had the opportunity, he still does, to run as a third party. If the view that closed primaries shut out independents and progressives and that Sanders actually could carry the day with those then he should've run as an independent. Sanders and Sanders supporters keep on trumpeting that he is an outsider by nature outsiders don't get the support of the establishment. In the past 30 years Sanders could've been a Democrat, campaigned for Democrats and fundraised for Democrats. He didn't so it shouldn't suprise anyone that most of the party officials don't support him.
