Superdelegates should nominate Bernie Sanders, even if Hillary Clinton wins more pledged delegates and votes
Superdelegates are a compromise between allowing Democratic Party voters to nominate a potentially weak candidate and party leaders nominating an unpopular one. They do not exist to validate the primary race. After the 1968 riots when the DNC nominated a pro-war candidate who had not won any primaries, followed by a voter-chosen nominee losing the 1972 general election in a landslide, superdelegates are part of the Democratic Party reforms made in the 80s. If the pledged delegate front-runner is unlikely to win in November, superdelegates have the power to instead nominate another candidate who would fare better, but only if the primary race is close enough. In the 2016 primary, the definition-of-establishment candidate happens to also be the pledged delegate front-runner, but as it turns out, she is not as sound a choice for the general election as grass-roots-powered Bernie Sanders. In a priceless irony, Former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the weak front-runner who, for the good of the party, superdelegates must prevent from being nominated.
Most Bernie supporters argue that superdelegates are unfairly hindering him and should vote according to their state. It is true that the media’s premature inclusion of superdelegates has given the appearance of Hillary Clinton having a heavy lead from the beginning, and people like to vote for a winner, but distributing them now according to voters would not put Bernie in the lead. Are superdelegates undemocratic? Sure, but there’s nothing nefarious about pointing out their use. Hillary Clinton did not force a contested convention in 2008 because superdelegates had already fled from her. Plus, she became Secretary of State, a position she doesn’t downplay. But, even Bernie himself says the nominee should be whoever wins the most pledged delegates. What about the will of the people? Senator Sanders is a gentleman and a scholar, but what’s best for the party is to nominate him. In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, too. And with low voter turnout, closed primaries, voter registration purges, countless reports of election fraud, and all the other problems in the primary, who truly knows the will of the people?
Why should superdelegates thwart Hillary Clinton in favor of Bernie Sanders, who only recently joined the party and poses a threat to the establishment, which includes most of them? Enough with the “Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat” bullshit! He is the only true Democrat in the race! Bernie is FDR while Hillary represents the unfortunate Neoliberal episode of the Democratic Party, and most Democrats in office support her because either they, too, are Neoliberals or they are scared of going against The Clintons. In any other election, yes, Hillary Clinton is supposed to win, “that’s how it works” (you incessantly reiterate). However, the year that Americans are revolting against establishment candidates, Bernie is our guy. But, let’s say I buy your argument that Bernie is only well-liked because he has not spent 25 years getting publicly attacked, even though he obviously has been during his 35 years in office, and still maintains high likability ratings, so I’ll set aside the polling trend showing him consistently beating Donald Trump. (I guess I’m also not questioning the logic of nominating someone with 25 years of attacks to pull from and who is scandal-prone, divisive, and unfailingly shows poor judgment?) Save for Jill Stein, only Bernie Sanders will aggressively tackle our climate crisis. And he’s better than Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, dammit! More experience does not automatically make it Secretary Clinton’s strength. Sanders’ foresight has been commended and he’s connected enough to choose a Secretary of State who has more official experience than he does.
For so many reasons, Hillary Clinton is a liability. With the deck stacked so high in her favor, she should have locked down the nomination months ago. She and Bill courted superdelegates long before the primary began. Every state with reported election fraud was won by her and exit poll discrepancies consistently favor her. A co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run is the DNC chair and has remained the DNC chair instead of stepping down when the chair is required to be neutral. Additionally, Bernie was never taken seriously by the media. Even now he’s only part of a larger anecdote about Hillary (“Why can’t she shake this old grandpa once and for all?”). I’m not positing that election fraud has definitely taken place. But, with an uphill climb from the start, Bernie Sanders is still running solidly in the primary. Also, the FBI is not currently investigating him; things are not looking up for the secretary in that realm. Separate, for a moment, your opinion on her use of personal email and a private server: Who in their right mind runs for public office while under criminal investigation? Even if she knows herself to be innocent, shouldn’t a presidential candidate judge that perhaps she should lay low, not piss off the FBI, maybe officially clear her name first?
The most obvious, but apparently underrated, reason to nominate Bernie Sanders is that he brings people who have never voted before or aren’t Democrats to the voting booths. It’s one thing to say that Hillary has excited the base, garnering millions more votes than Bernie (a suspect claim, at best), but that’s not enough. To win a general election, the candidate must excite the base and more. There’s always the pander to independents, and it doesn’t hurt to have some republicans on your side, too. In 2008, superdelegates largely backed Clinton at the onset, but when they realized Obama was more inspiring, especially to those outside the party, they switched to him. So, what the hell gives?
“Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.” -Joseph Andrew
“Barack Obama can win this election, and has clearly energized a generation of voters that hunger for change, helping inspire a critical voting block for Democrats for the future. He has also inspired independent voters and even some Republicans who have never considered voting Democratic.” -Dwight Pelz
Type that last sentence verbatim into Google and more results link to Bernie Sanders than to Barack Obama. (I’m aware of Google’s algorithmic preference for recent material, but the point stands.) Independents will vote for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump because, regardless of whether they get anything passed, neither is running on a business-as-usual platform. We are not in a business-as-usual time. Remove Bernie Sanders and don’t blame anyone for President Trump but yourself.
Superdelegates have a heavy responsibility this year, one they have never had before. But, we elected them to make hard choices and must support them in this decision, especially the first ones. After it appears safe, the rest will follow suit. If they don’t switch their support to the candidate who activates non-voters and non-Democrats to vote not only for him but also down-ticket Democrats, then they should prepare to be replaced. We will elect people who can handle the heat.
“Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.”
