Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders-Supporting PAC Wants Superdelegates to "Follow the Will of Voters"

Progressive group MoveOn wants to nip Hillary Clinton's support among Democratic Party elites in the bud.

|

MoveOn, the federal political action committee (PAC) "focused on running powerful progressive advocacy campaigns" wants Democratic Party superdelegates to "follow the will of Democratic voters and caucus-goers" and pledge to back the candidate with "the most votes" at this July's Democratic National Convention.

Get Your Bern On
MoveOn.org

The PAC endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for president in January and announced its new campaign yesterday via a petition on its website. At the time this post was published, it had received more than 80,000 signatures.

MoveOn also intends to track the commitments of the 712 superdelegates (a group comprised of sitting congresspeople, governors, and other party elites) and that it is "prepared to launch accountability campaigns focused on any superdelegates who argue that insiders rather than voters should choose the nominee."

MoveOn Politcal Action Executive Director Ilya Sheyman said in a press release, "The party's base simply will not tolerate any anti-democratic efforts by superdelegates to thwart the will of the people" and that the process which allows a well-placed party official's preference to count for as many as 10,000 individual votes in determining the nomination is "undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters."

As I noted last week, Bernie Sanders has a superdelegate problem, with the current tally running 355-14 (with 341 uncommitted) in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) over her only rival for the Democratic nomination for president.

Paste's Shane Ryan argues that those who have been taking note of this substantial lead in favor of the Democratic Party establishment's clearly preferred candidate are peddling "bullshit" meant to "discourage, dismay, and dishearten" ecstatic Bernie Sanders supporters in the wake of his landslide victory in the New Hampshire primary. 

Though Ryan offers a thorough explanation of the whole superdelegate phenomenon, the only evidence he offers to support his belief that superdelegates couldn't possibly tip the nomination in favor of Clinton is this:

Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

That line of thinking assumes 2016 will be like 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) won 133 more primary delegates than Clintion, even though Clinton held a substantial (though not nearly as large as this year) lead in pledged superdelegates during most of the campaign. 

But what happens if this year's "will of the voters" is not as clear as it was in 2008, when a sizable number of pledged or uncomitted superdelegates went with Obama once the delegate math seemed to be indicating his victory? If going strictly by the popular vote, the "will of the voters" of 2008 is even more difficult to pin down, due to a number of complicating factors such as the party's decision to penalize Michigan and Florida with "half-votes" for holding primaries on earlier dates than they were instructed to.

Come convention time, it's not inconceivable that Sanders and Clinton could wind up separated by a handful of delegates and just 1% of the popular vote, as was the case in the recent Iowa caucuses. If such a scenario were to occur, would the establishment whose support has been cultivated by the Clintons for decades flip to the socialist senator who is not even an official member of the party?

Questioning Sanders' electability has probably been the most frequently-deployed tactic used by Clinton loyalists against the Vermont outsider. Just today on MSNBC, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said, "I think the superdelegates who cast their vote based on electability have serious doubts whether Bernie Sanders could be electable once the GOP starts campaigning against him and putting ads against him."

For an idea of how an air-tight finish between the two Democratic hopefuls might play out, look back at what Clinton wrote to undeclared superdelegates in May 2008:

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House…

And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. 

Swap the words "Senator McCain" and replace then with "Donald Trump" or "Senator Cruz" and you have your late-stage campaign Hillary Clinton selling point: I do well in battleground states and you'd be insane to pledge support for Bernie Sanders.

Advertisement

NEXT: Watch a Campus Police Officer Say Offending Students 'Is Against the Law'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I seem to recall that Move-On was founded to defend the Clintons. I always figured it was just part of their machine. Apparently not?

    Also does Move-On’s purpose (“progressive advocacy campaigns”) mean that it is a pacPAC?

    1. It looks like after almost 20 years they finally really have moved on.

    2. One might even call it a Super PAC.

    3. I thought they were made to support Obama. I hadn’t really heard of them before then.

      1. MoveOn.org was literally founded to get people to stop focusing on Bill Clinton’s fucking and lying. It grew to become a general progressive cause group.

        1. Huh, learned something new.

        2. It is actually pretty funny. The group called itself “move on” but spent then entire two Bush Administrations obsessing over the vast right wing conspiracy against Clinton and the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. They didn’t exactly live up to their name.

        3. Received their initial funding start up money [I believe it was around $50,000] from none other than George Soros, for the purpose as you state of deflecting the criticism of Clinton. Funny how it has turned around on them.

          1. Was David Geffen also involved, or was just generally sucking Clinton cock throughout the 90s?

      2. No, it was the Clintons. They were formed when Clinton was being impeached. Move On was drop the scandal and move on.

        They resurfaced during the Bush as a more general left-wing group.

        1. Pretty honest of them to admit a scandal. They won’t make that mistake again.

        2. It was originally “Censure and Move On.”

  2. The PAC endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for president in January and announced its new campaign yesterday via a petition on its website.

    And all this time I thought Bernie wasn’t down with e$tablishment munny!

    1. I forget who it was (Hot Air maybe?) from the conservative blogosphere that went around interviewing Bernie supporters, continuously asking them about money in politics (bad), billionaires (bad), SuperPACs (bad) and then asked about MoveOn (good) and the fact that it was largely supported by 3 billionaires (…blank stares…drooling…).

      1. Lol. Who are the 3 billionaires?

        1. Betting one internet cookie that either Soros or bloomberg is one.

          1. Wikipedia mentions Soros and two other folks I’ve never heard of.

            This kind of thing isn’t Bloomberg’s bag – he may be a gun- and soda-grabber but he’s not strictly speaking a “leftist”. More of an “authoritarian”.

            1. Isn’t Bloomberg a member of the GOP?

              1. If he is, I think the non New York part of the party has disowned him.

                1. He’s not. He left the party after in 2007 along with a sixth of the country.

      2. I saw that on YouTube. You could see their worlds turned upside down in real time. One guy couldn’t believe that George Soros is worth 10x what The Donald is.

        1. He was also 10x the Nazi that The Donald is, for all his bluster.

  3. Oh hey, I mentioned it in the previous thread from a couple days ago but I think it went stale.

    One Superdelegate is Maria Cantwell. Cantwell personally owes Hillary Clinton. A lot. You think she’s gonna vote Bernie?

    1. If she has any integrity, personal honor or loyalty, would she be a senator? If Cantwell thinks voting Bernie is in her best interests, your damn right she will vote Bernie.

      1. This superdelegate thing fascinates me. They must be all looking at each other, waiting to get some feel for who’s actually going to be President. Don’t move too soon, don’t move too late. Hillary’s campaign must be FURIOUSLY coordinating.

        I can only imagine what those meetings look like.

        “Senator, we’re prepared to offer you major support in your next election bid…here’s a list of the SuperDels we have on board, can we count on your vote in the primary?”

  4. How amazing would it be to have a bona fide convention floor knife fight over delegates?

    1. That would be awesome, especially since i could easily see the Clintonistas escalating to actual knives.

      1. As long as election day escalates to this.

        1. I have it on good authority that clip can actually be confused for a documentary on election day in Chicago. 😉

          I also can never decide if GoNY is awesome, awful or equal parts both.

          1. My friend insists it’s a masterpiece, and whenever I start to think he’s right, I remember Cameron Diaz. Nor is Leo all that great.

            1. JUST GIVE HIM THE OSCAR ALREADY

              1. I would love to see the obvious Oscar-bait get snubbed.

            2. Yeah, and Scorcese’s penchant for tying up long-winded and convoluted movies with just an orgy of violence strikes me as a bit lazy at times.

        2. Whenever I see/ hear the phrase “get out the vote” I think of this scene.

  5. The super delegates don’t matter much in the end. Hillary is going to destroy Bernie in the South.

    1. That is the assumption. The Democratic party is so small in the South, I would think it would be mostly pretty hard core Progs who would be inclined to vote for Bernie. Bernie really must not be getting any black votes.

      1. South isn’t Prog friendly. Our dems tend to be more like New York’s Republicans.

        1. But outside of the black community, there are hardly any Dems left in the South. And most of them are gentry white liberals who love Bernie.

          1. Completely anecdotal but when I’m walking my dog through some of the nicer neighborhoods in Houston, the ONLY signs you see are for the Bern. I’m sure you can chalk a lot of this up to the “Hillary is inevitable” feeling and apathy to her though.

            1. I know one person who is enthusiastic about Hillary. She is a public school teacher in her 50s. I know a lot of Democrats. They are not enthusiastic about Hillary. I really think she is going to have a hard time getting the turnout Obama did.

              1. She’s the Dem’s Romney, except she has real scandals as opposed to manufactured ones. Even if she gets the nod she won’t be able to beat any of the Republican nominees (even Trump).

              2. No, most aren’t enthusiastic about Clinton. But, on some level, they realize that Sanders would be a disaster. The country isn’t going to elect an out-and-out commie to the White House. Sure, a lot of Democrats would like that. They just know it would mean an electoral rout.

                1. I hope but not confident

                2. They totally understand that Bill. I think they also realize that Hillary is a terrible candidate who can only win if the Republicans are completely incompetent and let her (a distinct possibility for sure), and if she does win, it will be a grim win that has no coattails and no mandate. Hillary can’t even unify the Democratic party let alone the country.

                  1. who can only win if the Republicans are completely incompetent and let her

                    So she is going to win.

                    1. Did you work all afternoon on that joke Ivan?

                3. But they also have to be expecting to lose this election on some level. Switching between parties every president has been normal for a while. Now is a good time to normalize the far left by putting Bernie up as the nominee. That way the next election (which should be much more competitive) they have a wider range of potential candidates.

                  1. As much as I would like to see the Republicans get their heads out of their asses, the more pressing problem is that the Democrats have gone insane. We are stuck with the two party system for the foreseeable future. That system can’t work if one of the parties is insane and not a reasonable if distasteful alternative available to punish the other.

                  2. I think the Bern would win the general due to his promises of free stuff.

                    1. This is definitely going to help him drive the youth vote, that’s for damned sure.

          2. Feminist groups down here are hardcore. Damn near hysterical belief that their neighbors secretly want to put them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen by law. Leads them to being relatively politically active, and that group swings Hillary.

            1. Bernie won women under 40 in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It is interesting how the Democrats in the other states are apparently so much different than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire.

              1. Sorry, should have stated older Feminists. There is a generation gap between women who have essentially grown up in a sexism free era and women who started their careers when marital rape was legal. There is a disconnect in how the two generations tend to view things, even within the feminism movement.

                1. Both generations are nuts. I am not sure which one is crazier to be honest.

              2. Just goes to show, women don’t necessarily line up with feminists.

                1. Shhhh, that’s a secret. We aren’t supposed to acknowledge the lack of a hive vagina in public.

                  1. They say there is a special place in hell for you…

                  2. hive vagina

                    Hey, thanks for naming my next band.

  6. If the super delegates can’t decide the primary there is no point in having them. People aren’t going to shell out major moolah just to have their opinion not matter.

  7. before I looked at the receipt of $thirty thousand , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this ………….

    — A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

  8. Why do bernie supporters think that new hampshire is the will of the people? What if hillary wins the other states?

    I guess i dont understand calling for superdelegates to switch to him due to the will of the people based on 1 small white state

    1. They are calling for it because some Hillary supporters have been claiming that none of the primaries or caucuses matter because Hill’s got Super Delegates tied up, thus she’s already won. Starting the arguments early helps to nullify that narrative and helps build Bernie’s own.

      1. But she needs like 2200 delegates. At most the superdelegates are 700.

        1. There are 4,233 delegates total and 850 super delegates. So if Hillary really did have the Super Delegate all lined up she would only have to win 1/3 of the popular vote. An easy feat for her.

          1. Thanks for the info

    2. This. We’ve only had 2 states vote (1 caucus, 1 primary). Couldn’t we at least wait until most of the remaining 48 have voted before we anoint the nominees (this goes for Republicans too). FFS…

      1. And not just 2 states, but 2 sparsely populated ones.

  9. “undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.”

    I am pretty sure that was the whole point.

  10. I cant understand why anyone but college kids like bernie. It is mind boggling

    1. Because their other option is Hillary. Bernie allows a good Democrat to not have to vote for someone who they know switches positions with the wind and committed felonies.

      1. But seeing how progs operate i dont see why they care. Obama could club baby seals and theyd still love him

        1. That’s because Obama has already been elected, there is no alternative to him. Primaries give them the option between two ‘good’ people (people with D’s after their name), so they can acknowledge flaws in candidates (which will be promptly forgotten come the real election).

          1. Plus, when Obama started running he was a damn good blanks slate that was very capable of making everyone think he agreed with their favorite positions.

            1. In the media he was a blank slate, in reality he was a radical leftist who belonged to a black supremacist church.

    2. Free shit is popular. And he is offering so much free shit. Very few of his supporters notice that he’s planning to pay for all the free shit using the same sources. Sure, he could possibly tax evil speculators and the 1% enough to pay for one of his free shits. But all of them? Nope, going to tax the snot out of everyone.

      1. going to tax the snot out of everyone

        which is how Europe’s social democracies work. The delusional American left thinks it’s high taxes on the affluent or the corporations. No, it’s high taxes on everyone, particularly those we would consider middle-income. Imagine a person earning 50K per year suddenly facing a federal income tax rate of nearly 40%. And that’s just federal. Add in state and FICA and Medicare and and and, and you’re looking at far more than half of your money subsidizing some branch of govt.

        1. Bernie’s beloved Denmark kicks in its highest tax bracket at, i believe, the equivalent of around $50k, which is barely into the bottom of the middle class in the U.S.

        2. And that doesn’t even include the 25% VAT.

    3. If the only two options in the Republican primary were Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, I think Rand would have scared the shit out of Bush too.

      When it’s a two person race and the ‘front runner’ is horrible, a bad runner-up can still get tons of votes

      1. I largely agree with this premise but his supporters all seem like a starry-eyed cult messiah figure. I understand why they may not like the front runner, but cant understand why they are in love with him (other than the unicorns)

        1. Just like last time.

  11. I am worried he is going to win. He is dumb on economics yet appears to be getting everyone excited due to his make believe boogeymen.

    I think this nation is screwed if he wins because others will follow his lead like squaw. He is dangerous due to his ignorance and his apparent rise to power…the ego will take over

  12. Leaving aside the fact that watching the Democratic Party blow up would be amazingly fun, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with MoveOn. Party elites should not overrule the will of their constituents in the selection process. I also agree with Ryan that the Democratic party is not stupid enough to risk it. They’ll stick with the popular delegate winner.

    That said I understand this article’s point, that it could get really complicated to the point it’s not clear who won the popular delegates. That would be even more fun, and current college students would still be bitching about the time the establishment screwed Bernie when they’re Bernie’s age.

    1. current college students would still be bitching about the time the establishment screwed Bernie when they’re Bernie’s age.

      IOW, 150…

    2. I agree. And as stupid and pathetic as the Bernie supporters are, not all of their bitches are unfounded. The Clintons and Obama have let Wall Street and the banks totally fuck the rest of us and have gotten rich for the trouble.

      Of course unlike the Bernie idiots, I understand that the problem isn’t Wall Street or that people there get rich. The problem is the people there pay off the government and stick me with the bill when they go broke.

      1. The problem is Wall Street in that they find ways to get politicians to give them what they want. It’s just that the answer isn’t more government power, since a powerful, redistributive state is how Wall Street has been able to fleece everyone else in the first place.

        1. Yes. I mean the problem is not that capital markets exist. The problem is the vile assholes who inhabit our capital markets.

          1. The problem is the vile assholes who inhabit our capital markets.

            You’re referring to the IRS?

          2. When the farmer fills up the trough, you don’t blame the pigs for eating.

        2. if there is an axis of evil, it’s Wall St/K Street/PA Avenue. People bitch about the tax code and ignore how much of it a trade of campaign contributions for favorable legislation and votes, along with contributions for protectionist rules that make it difficult for competitors to enter certain marketplaces.

    3. Leaving aside the fact that watching the Democratic Party blow up would be amazingly fun, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with MoveOn

      No shame in that… I’m cheering Bernie on, and will do so until I’m hoarse. Anything to sink the Clintons.

      1. I’m with whoever will bring about the #BTGSTTG Party faster.

  13. Do you guys think the bern would win the general?

    I do if it is trump or cruz. Maybe a toss up if rubio or kasich. There are two big blue states that anchor the rest.

    1. Not if he’s running vs. The Donald & The Michael.

  14. You know, it makes me think that the reason the Democrats are so sensitive about money and undue influence in politics is because it’s a central tenet of how they run their party machine.

    The entire concept of the Superdelegate thing seems to make sure payola and graft are built in to the system. They’re so entirely corrupt that they simply assume everyone else is, so that’s why it all has to be banned… for everyone else.

    1. Yea i agree except i think the talk of banning is just that…talk. How would they ban it for everyone else and not themselves?

      I don’t think they really want to actually do what they say…as they really are the party of the rich

      1. Yea i agree except i think the talk of banning is just that…talk. How would they ban it for everyone else and not themselves?

        When you live and breathe that stuff, there’s always a way. Probably the same that stuff that’s illegal for private individuals and/or companies to do is perfectly legal when Unions do it.

        1. I couldn’t see them able to get away with it while republicans don’t….then again i guess i need to realize who we are dealing with.

          1. If you control the IRS, then you can use the IRS as a tool to exert effort here, but not there. Just to give one example. It may not have to be entirely codified in law, just codified in power.

            And yes, the obvious retort to this is, “But… but… they won’t always be in power.”

            I now think it’s gauche to keep repeating that obvious point. You know it, I know it, they know it, but yet they still persist. Because I believe that they actually look even further down the road. “Sure, we’ll lose power, but we’ll get it back again, and each time we have it, we’ll work to destroy our enemies. He who does the most damage while in power wins.”

            1. Part of me thinks most of them the two parties are in cahoots. They just compete for the power. But are more united then one is led to believe

              1. The only real difference is in managerial style.

            2. The IRS is controlled by the federal apparatchiks working there.

              This is true of most of the federal government. That was always the goal of progressives- the rule of an unaccountable apparatchik class.

    2. and that’s the malicious truth the Dems want to keep under wraps: they are the party of Wall St and, to a large degree, of the 1%. This is also why Bernie can expect the DNC to come at him full barrel. He means all that stuff and the party chiefs are not having their gravy train derailed by the likes of him.

      1. Yea this is kind of my point….it sure seems awkward for him to run as a democrat. I don’t get why he is considered honest when he never alludes to the democrats obvious love of big money. When will he call them out seeing how he is supposedly authentic?

      2. Yea this is kind of my point….it sure seems awkward for him to run as a democrat. I don’t get why he is considered honest when he never alludes to the democrats obvious love of big money. When will he call them out seeing how he is supposedly authentic?

        1. I can’t for the life of me figure out why he is running as a democrat other than being a hyuge sellout.

    3. Payola and graft? In OUR little secret ballot election system?

  15. Poor Bernie. I wonder if the irony of equal redistribution is lost on him. Both of them did their best, therefore both should get an equal amount of delegates, right?

    Surely he doesn’t support delegate inequality. That would be evidence of a rigged system.

  16. So doesn’t the rise of the Bern…the whole middle class is being destroyed, the billionaires oligarchy and buying elections etc..doesnt this kind of present an awkward conversation for obama and the democrat party

    Obama has saved the country! Yet the middle class is being destroyed? Obama was elected democratically! Yet billionaires are buying elections?

    Doesn’t all his rhetoric about big money in politics present an awkwardness for the Ds who are obviously involved in the graft?

    1. That’s Bush’s fault.

      Obama wasted to do something about it but the Republicans kept him from fixing it. Even when the Democrats had a majority, the Republicans would call them mean names and say bad things about them if they tried to fix any of this, so Obama’s hands, along with those of the Democratic party, were tied.

      1. What’s Bush’s GOP’s fault is using asset-forfeiture to entice California and other looter states into raiding grow houses like Herbert Hoover did for whiskey stills. OF COURSE mortgage values went to Hell with looter politicians confiscating all those properties, and they went to Hell right before Obama was sworn into a collapsing economy. Yet even here (et TU Brute!) there are people who do not grasp the connection between the leper’s bell of the approaching looter and money disappearing from banks, securities and fixed assets as fast as victimless young people disappear into prison cells.
        Bernie and the Dems understand some economic facts lost on “conservatarian” impostors busily pretending to care about rights. Maybe some more tax forfeiture will bring home to christianofascist infiltrators that abortion rights activists and prohibition repealers VOTE.

  17. Just the existence of super delegates is a great issue for Bernie.

    Nothing says that the establishment is corrupt quite like super delegates. If Hillary wins by superdelegates, she will be the poster child for a corrupt and unaccountable establishment.

    Headline – Citizens Voted For Bernie, but Superdelegates say Hillary Wins!

    1. Tails I win. Heads you lose. =D

  18. One of the two major political parties representing the will of the voters – now there’s a novel concept. The fact it’s novel is also why more people now identify as independents than ever before.

  19. So , if the concept is unDemocratic, why do the Donks have Super Delegates at all? Seems to me that they made their own beds.

    There are no GOP Super Delegates.

  20. The Democrats use coin tosses, and super delegates in order to keep the “undesirables” out, and the Republicans use back room deals to the same effect. The more people realize this the better. You the voter are just lubricant for the gears of political machines.

  21. The issue is: Bernie’s PARTY says women have a right to choose, regardless of whether GOP-forced urinalysis has fucked them out of a job. I remember when Reason and the LP could clearly focus on the individual rights interesting to voters. Fondling antichoice scrota is not going to drain votes away from the Dems. Voters can clearly see that the GOP wants them in jail for weed or bleeding to death in a back alley as the IRS tows their car. What’ll it be? Back the Ram Johnson campaign or back a meaningful attempt to move some spoiler votes and change the laws that rob, murder and imprison the younger generation?

  22. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.