Sanders, Clinton, and Superdelegates

Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders has his own talking points that he brings up during his campaign rallies.  Being a socialist and a staunch believer in state control over the economy, he has continually criticized Clinton's ties with Wall Street...as if business and banking were the enemies of our country.  Well, if you're of his political persuasion, then good luck with the standard of living you are enjoying (and probably refusing to acknowledge) in this early twenty-first century...a historically high standard of living that owes itself, in great part, to business and banking...Sanders' enemies.   But that's not what I want to focus on here...rather it is another of Bernie's favorite talking points: the superdelegates...

Bernie Sanders constantly brings up the superdelegates, who were not selected during the primary season.  They are composed instead, at least in part, of the Democrats already elected in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and as state governors...a total of 261 out of 715 superdelegates.  In other words, these are Democrats who have been successful at winning general elections against Republicans.  Along with these popularly elected delegates are allotted 20 who were past presidents, v.p.'s and honored party figures from the past.  That leaves 434 superdelegates who owe their selection to having been elected by the Democratic National Committee.  Now I am all for the Democrats in the electorate being able to choose their nominee through primary elections.  And the historical trend has been more voter inclusion in the process, not less.   Not only is the number of superdelegates relatively small against the backdrop of total of 4,132 delegates, but as I have already stated, 261 of them were also elected by the people...albeit indirectly to their political offices.  The problem I have with the superdelegates as they pertain to the 2016 campaign is of a different nature...

Senator Sanders is right when he complains of nearly all of the superdelegates, supposedly "unpledged", nevertheless committing themselves to supporting Hillary Clinton even before the campaign season ever began.  This put Sanders in a virtually insurmountable position long before there was ever a primary or caucus...and feeds into the narrative that the process is rigged in advance against him and for Clinton.  Sanders has gone on a campaign to try to convince superdelegates from states he won to switch their allegiance to him.  He also claims that Clinton benefited throughout the primaries by receiving votes from people perceiving her as the "inevitable" nominee.  That may be true in some cases, but I believe that, by NOT being widely perceived as the eventual nominee, Sanders has been spared a great deal of the scrutiny and criticism (and attacks from Republicans) that have been focused on Clinton...ultimately detracting from her popularity.  I remember this phenomenon happening in 2008, when Obama, the frontrunner, was getting the lion's share of criticism and even Rush Limbaugh was urging people to vote instead for Hillary.  That's just the way the process works: the leader is the main target...

Historically, state primary elections were not the dominant element in determining party nominees for president.  After all, in 1968 Hubert Humphrey,the eventual nominee, didn't campaign in a single primary...there were precious few back then anyway...it was the states' "insider" party apparatus that selected delegates.  During that campaign season they weren't yet called "superdelegates"...but that's what the overwhelming majority of delegates were, as we interpret the term.  But now we're in 2016 and not 1968, and the expectations are that the nominee should be the one who won the most popular votes.  And, regardless what kind of spin Bernie Sanders wants to place on it, that candidate is Hillary Clinton, not him...