Mineral Man logic on superdelagates...

[dutch508]

Star Member MineralMan (82,228 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511662159

Let's say I'm one of the superdelegates who is an elected member of Congress or a Senator. Now, I'm getting pressure from Sanders supporters who tell me they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. They think I should switch my vote at the convention to Sanders. They're also telling me that if I don't, they won't vote for me, either. Some of them are even posting rude things on my Facebook page.

OK, then. I'm going to wonder if they voted for me in 2014 and 2010. I'm going to ask myself whether these folks like me in any case, or would they just as soon sit home at the next election, as usual. I'm thinking maybe they aren't people who have ever voted for me in the first place. So, why on Earth should I switch and support the candidate they prefer? Will that keep them from following through on their threats to primary me the next time I'm up for election, like they're trying to do to my colleague Debbie Schultz in Florida.

If I'm one of those elected people who is a superdelegate, I think I'm going to consider what they're doing to be akin to blackmail, and I'm not going to cave in to their threats. Nope. I think I'll take my chances with my constituents, who have elected me to this office more than once, and stick to my voting plans. That's what I think I'll do.

Blackmail sucks as a negotiation tool...

 

ViseGrip (1,598 posts)
1. Not about blackmail, and we are not 'there' yet. But when we arrive and the writing is on the ****ing wall...

it's good you are really not an elected or a superdelegate!

 

Once Hillary is selected as the nom the purge at DU will be epic!

Star Member MineralMan (82,228 posts)
11. I see. OK, then.

I'm not an elected official at all. Well, I'm an elected DFL Party precinct chair, but that means nothing, since there are no required duties of that, except presiding over a caucus every couple of years.

I can see that it wouldn't be good if I were an elected official. Maybe it'd even be dangerous, eh?

I wouldn't want "nothing should happen to me," after all.

It would be a shame if something happened to you...

Star Member SheilaT (21,710 posts)
9. So let's say the state you're from has gone overwhelmingly for Bernie. Should you vote for him? Openly defy the clear wishes of the good citizens of your state?

You don't know what's best for you. ONLY the party leaders know what's best for you.

noamnety (20,104 posts)
10. Let's say you are an elected official and you hear from your constituents on ANY issue, and they say it's an important one, important enough that it's a deal breaker, they won't continue to vote for you if you don't represent them.

Do you ignore them?

What if, for instance, they tell their elected official if you support fracking in our community, I won't vote for you? Is that considered blackmail?

Is it just this one issue, or is it all issues that they shouldn't tell you how they feel?

Star Member MineralMan (82,228 posts)
12. What I would do would be to weigh all of the factors. I could, and then make the decision that appeared to be the best and that I believed was correct. Elected office-holders never hear from more than a very small percentage of their constituents. With the ones who do, the really angry ones who make a lot of noise and make threats can be safely ignored. They were never on your side in the first place.

Attempts to coerce a decision using threats of any kind, even threats to withhold a vote, are not worthy of consideration, frankly. Ever.

WE know what is best for you...

[franksolich]

Well now, I have to wholeheartedly agree with the mineral-headed Minnesota Moses on this; he's absolutely right.

And I can see where the Bernie bullies are even now applying the sorts of pressures and threats as he imagines them.  Some people need to be in jail.

[Carl]

Nothing should tell the mutts just what their betters think of them then the superdelagate thing the undemocratic party has.

[thundley4]

Nothing should tell the mutts just what their betters think of them then the superdelagate thing the undemocratic party has.

You mean like the RNC is going to do to republican voters at a contested convention?

[Carl]

You mean like the RNC is going to do to republican voters at a contested convention?

Very possibly and not without risk.

[thundley4]

Very possibly and not without risk.

The risk is letting the Democrats when everything.

[Carl]

The risk is letting the Democrats when everything.

I know,and also realize that many of them don`t care as they will not bear the burden.
Perhaps it really is a distinction without a difference but at least it is not so brazenly built into the primary system on our side.

[thundley4]

I know,and also realize that many of them don`t care as they will not bear the burden.
Perhaps it really is a distinction without a difference but at least it is not so brazenly built into the primary system on our side.

If we get the brokered convention, that sameness will be hashed and rehashed.  It will help the Libertarian if nothing else.

[BlueStateSaint]

Hannity had a great point today.  The Rules Committee meets some time before the Convention.  Cruz and Trump need to stack that committee with enough of their people, so as to ensure that only one of those two can get the nomination.  Set a minimum number of states won to be nominated.  Kasich and anyone else would not be able to mount any sort of challenge to that rule, because it would require a majority of the Rules Committee to agree to the change.  If a majority of the Rules Committee were either Cruz or Trump people, there is no way that anyone else could be nominated . . .