No. The "early states" included 2 caucuses, a tiny state, and a regular state. You could give him 100% of the votes in all those places and he'd STILL be losing the popular vote. It's what happens when you lose almost all the big states - Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, etc - by large margins. The only big place he's won is Michigan, and that was basically 50/50, so no real gain in the popular vote there.
Another argument is this: If the public is so influenced by the super delegates and the media, what is the point of letting them vote in the first place? Just let those other entities decide for them.
I think if it wouldn't create outrage among the people that is exactly what they would like to do. They changed the system to the superdelegate system because they didn't like a couple of candidates in a row that were picked by the people.
Super Delegates are a built-in fix for a candidate like Trump. It is a way to assure a toxic candidate doesnt get the nomination.
That's exactly what they were designed for and the Republican party is wishing that they have that system.
The Superdelegate system is a system designed so that the Democratic elite can control who is the Democratic candidate in case the "by the people" thing isn't working for them.
It hasn't been around for very long and I don't think they have but it was created in response to a couple candidates being selected(by the people) that the DNC didn't like. Why should a group named Democrat be against democracy?
Krugman tweeted today that Bernie's last 7 wins represented about30 million people total or about the same number as Ms. Clinton's win in Florida alone.
Its less about a toxic candidate and more about keep the establishment in power. Are you imply Bernie is toxic?
Super delegates were not designed to keep people like Sanders out, if he wins the elected delegates, he will have the support of super delegates. Super delegates have never voted against the elected candidate. They are designed to keep people like Trump out.
Actually, they kind of were. The party instituted them when the democratic base kept nominating candidates that were "too liberal" in the Reagan era that were ultimately not electable in the political climate of the time. Bernie would be exactly the kind of candidate that would have been shut out in that political climate. That being said, I don't think they would go against in if he were to go against the pledged delegate count. I also think that all superdelegates should just keep their mouth shut until the convention especially since they will most likely not contradict the will of the people. Getting all these endorsements has just fueled a false of narrative of an insurmountable Clinton lead.
When it comes down to many hardcore Bernie supporters; it is always someone else's fault when things do not go the way they want... Whether it is some faceless corporate monster, the media, Hillary Clinton or the DNC delegate rules. If all else fails, they bury their collective heads in the ground and deny unquestionable realities.... This isn't any different than Trump supporters. For many it is pathological. There obviously are Sanders supporters that are not wired as uncompromising and unrepentant Bernie worshippers. However the amount of ignorance as to how the delegate process works and foolhardiness that Bernie is on track to win is distressing... Which is only surpassed by those that realize he is losing, but follow it up with some version of "the man" fooling voters or the media purposely conspiring not cover Bernie or distort his message, or that Clinton is afraid of Bernie and will only win by running out the clock.... All of which fail to realize the reality, Hillary has far more votes, more voters have voted for her. I suppose a lack of personal responsibility is to be somewhat expected from a socialist. Still it gets quite old. Bernie has a place in the political spectrum of relevance. He is passionate and I have yet to hear a single negative word about him personally or really heard anyone question his integrity. However he is an extremist and I don't believe is likely to be a successful President.
An establishment candidate that was to the right of LBJ, JFK, and virtually the entire New Deal Coalition. He went on to be crushed. Dukakis also faced a similar fate in the 1988 election, despite having support of the superdelegates. Eventually, the DLC convened and made the final step of the Democratic Party transition to a Neoliberal institution. Superdelegates were simply another step in the eventual shift of the Democratic Party to the right. They were a reaction to Reagan's victory and were thought to be an adequate solution to the issue of electability of democratic candidates. A Bernie Sanders candidacy in 1992 would likely have been shut out by the superdelegates, considering he was more to the left than any other candidate in recent history. I concede that they were initially made to give party leaders more say in the nomination, but they also became a leash for pulling the party back to the center if the voters went too far left.
I think Bernie supporters are fed up with constantly being addressed in condescending tones (your post corroborates this.) I concede that many Bernie supporters are more or less "gut supporters" that may not understand the full historical context of his candidacy and why should they? They like his policies, and its that simple. However, to not acknowledge that the corporate media is biased against him, that they've chronically undercovered him, to not understand that the primary process is built against establishment candidates is very naive. To think that multi-state super Tuesday primaries have not contributed to Hillary's lead among votes is foolish, and to not acknowledge that Bernie's name recognition, let alone his policies, in the southern states is abysmal is also ridiculous. That being said, many states are yet to vote so let's see how it plays out. Lastly, Bernie Sanders is not an extremist, his policies are pretty much in line with FDR's and the New Deal Coalition, the group of people that deserve perhaps the most credit for the building of the modern U.S. Bernie Sanders is a centrist in an international context, and it's the U.S. that has moved way to the right.
They are passionate, and often well-informed individuals who simply want to fight for what they think is right. The kind of spirit that is necessary for a political revolution. It's not advisable to generalize millions of supporters under a dismissive label, something the Clinton campaign has been criticized of by David Axelrod. Why don't you analyze the legitimacy of the facts presented and entertain arguments from all sides, instead of reflecting a narrative that has been pushed by the Clinton campaign and virtually every major media news outlet?
