51吃瓜

It would be a mistake to assume while听a听battle is being waged for the Republican Party, that there is not a fierce fight for the soul of the Democrats.

Just like in 2008, it鈥檚 coming down to the superdelegates. Barack Obama鈥檚 win was secured when two-thirds of the superdelegates decided that he would be the better Democratic candidate for president. In order to serve in their envisioned role as an electoral corrective, the superdelegates should give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination.

Obama represented 鈥渉ope and change鈥� on immigration, climate change and health care. Sanders represents the future of the party through bold foreign and domestic policy positions that have put听him听听in national polls. His hark back to FDR-style politics鈥攊ncluding investment in infrastructure and people鈥攁nd his flat rejection of the neoliberal and neocon politics practiced by Hillary Clinton have galvanized the electorate. The Vermont senator polls of the against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. His candidacy must represent our future.

So say the Democrats, including a band of fierce loyalists who have fueled his unbelievable rise. Yet, with the political, media and the pledged delegate split is 46% to 54%. So says the young generation who overwhelming supports Bernie. So say the independents comprising听听than either political party, who oppose rampant militarism and unfair trade.

But many superdelegates aren鈥檛 listening. Back in November, three months听, at least 359 of the 712 had already aligned themselves with Clinton, versus just eight for听Sanders. In October, Clinton鈥檚 support was estimated at over 500. The split is now 504 to 40, with the rest undecided. Superdelegates can switch support anytime until the July convention where the nominee will be picked should neither bow out. Yet the mainstream media has included its听support in counts of delegates, greatly misrepresenting results (like in ) and implying, for months, that Clinton听is close to winning the nomination.

Yes, superdelegates matter that much. At roughly one-third of the votes needed to secure the nomination, they will likely determine the presidential pick. Clinton would need to amass 73% of the remaining pledged delegates for the nomination to be decided without superdelegate support, and Sanders could not win the election without superdelegate support. He would need 70鈥�74% more than Obama in 2008鈥攐f superdelegates to support him to clinch the nomination, should he win half the delegates from now on. This is assuming 930 remaining pledged delegates and 714 superdelegates, as per The听New York Times this week, which implies a winning margin of 2,450 delegates鈥�67 more than the 2,383 often cited.

SUPERDELEGATES, WHO AND WHERE ART THOU?

These VIPs are a relatively recent creation. draws on National Archives files on the Hunt Commission, which created superdelegates in 1982. Before 1970,听party members chose the candidates, which led to the selection of the pro-Vietnam War candidate Hubert Humphrey, who did not run in any primaries, over anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy, who won the most primaries. This exploded in the now-infamous 1968 protests at the Democratic Convention.

In 1970, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was formed, resulting in new rules that doubled the number of primaries to 35 by 1980. Yet in the interim, Senator George McGovern lost 49 states against Richard Nixon, President Jimmy Carter lost by 10% to Ronald Reagan, and independent affiliation shot up to 42%.

The 2000 Democratic Convention 漏 Shutterstock

Time for another commission, they concluded. The Hunt Commission decided that the solution was to give power to party elites who could 鈥渂ring to the convention a certain political acumen, a certain political antenna,鈥� according Connecticut State Senator Dick Schneller. They were also attempting to counteract the 1970 reforms that 鈥�.鈥� Also, a 鈥渃oncern was that primaries, with their lower turnout rates than general elections, could give undue power to single-issue 鈥榝actions.鈥� This was a standard complaint at the time (and since) [was] that the Democratic Party was coming under the sway of groups devoted to narrowly focused causes, from gun control and environmentalism to feminism and civil rights.鈥�

The new reforms would make the nominee 鈥渕ore representative of the mainstream of the party,鈥� according to the commission鈥檚 chair, North Carolina Governor James Hunt鈥攚ith the article pointing out that mainstream was potentially code for working-class voters less likely to vote in the primaries.

The rationale seems to be remarkably prescient to Bernie Sanders. First, superdelegates鈥� 鈥減olitical antenna鈥� should indicate his resonance, since Sanders has run in the primaries despite his populist fundraising, visionary appeal and limited media time (all viewed as serious obstacles).

Second, the 鈥渆ver-shifting center鈥� of the party is certainly represented by Sanders: Hillary鈥檚 rhetoric and positions have consistently shifted toward or flat-out mirrored his.

Third, he鈥檚 no single-issue candidate. From war to inequality to banking to campaign finance to environment to trade, Bernie offers a new approach. Hillary鈥攖oday and previously鈥攈as not been associated with a compelling progressive or broad Democratic vision.

Lastly, the 鈥渕ainstream鈥� of the party (and independents)鈥攅specially the working class鈥攄o not favor her. Think what you want about Democratic congressmen, party officials and lobbyists who serve as superdelegates, but the case for their intervention is stronger now than it has ever been.

So how are they voting?

Assuming the two candidates were equally competitive and the process fair, superdelegates would be expected to line up with the citizens of the state who elected them. In fact, Clinton implicitly makes this argument when she speaks of winning the popular vote (), in a rerun of 2008.

Yet while pledged delegates鈥攁kin to the popular vote鈥攈ave split 54% to 46% for Hillary, the former secretary of state has a full 72% of those who have voiced support in states that have voted, with another 22% remaining undeclared and 5% supporting Sanders.

What is the effect of this media bias? It鈥檚 hard to tell, but it鈥檚 easy to imagine a world in which reporting was fair, where Sanders would lead by 10-plus points. Certainly, the media鈥檚听heavy coverage听gave Trump enormous momentum.

Excluding undeclared superdelegates, the superdelegates have pledged 39% more support on average than their pledged delegate split. So if the popular vote鈥攁s represented by a state鈥檚 pledged delegates鈥攚as split 50-50, that state would have 89% of their declared superdelegates supporting Clinton.

In all but two of the 48 states and territories (Mississippi and Arkansas), there is a bias toward Clinton. In fact, in the 10 states with the most pledged delegates, declared superdelegates average 40% more support for Clinton than the voters wish. Washington superdelegates choose Clinton with a whopping 73% more than the state鈥檚 caucus-goers.

Anger over this undemocratic system has led Maine to require superdelegates to vote according to the overall popular vote starting in 2020, and for its Democratic Party to petition the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to eliminate the superdelegate system. The Alaska Democratic Convention has approved a resolution to end superdelegate use. Many petitions seek superdelegate voting representative of state elections.

Clinton is clearly the weaker candidate. So, what gives?

Certainly many have connections within the Clintonian orbit that spans think tanks led by former advisors, links to worldwide business leaders and governments aligned with The Clinton Foundation, and ties to various nonprofits. In fact, the majority of superdelegates are candidates for office. The听, with the average House seat coming in at $1.7 million. The DNC helps with campaigning and fundraising. Run by former Clinton 2008 Co-Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it has made numerous decisions broadly viewed as helping Hillary, while hurting democracy and Sanders. It is doubtful that superdelegates expect it to be neutral in its support for Democratic politicians.

Clinton is also directly a major source of money. She鈥檚 cranking up donations from the wealthy and from corporations, and her support may include the (perhaps indirectly) and . Her joint fundraising committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, was said to be raising funds for 33 state parties despite breaking Democratic precedents including: presidential candidates usually entering agreements with state party committees听; taking full advantage of the McCutcheon vs. FEC Supreme Court decision and a later congressional provision to听; and accepting money from lobbyists, unlike President Obama.

Clinton often mocks Sanders鈥� use of the term 鈥渆stablishment.鈥� It鈥檚 understandable: These are her funders and allies.

The fund鈥檚 practices, described as听, sends donations to the state parties and then ,听where they could be used to court small donors. Clinton听has of hers versus just 2.3% for Sanders. The Sanders campaign has questioned this practice, and Public Citizen鈥檚 Craig Holman called it 鈥渙ffensive鈥� saying 鈥渋t should be illegal.鈥�

Sanders and Trump have demonstrated the viability of primary campaigns that do not rely on funding by corporations and the wealthy. Thus, Clinton鈥檚 practices just seem to underscore a lack of commitment to fixing the top threat to US democracy and the potential for influencing superdelegates.

It is time to hold superdelegates accountable to American voters and to their duty. Come November, many voters will ask the following questions: Should I vote for a Democratic congressional representative? Are we aligned on the big issues (say climate, trade, guns and our support for听Bernie)? And when it comes to the president, do I want to vote for the 鈥渓esser of two evils,鈥� or neither?

As mentioned earlier, the expectation might be that the superdelegates鈥� votes would mirror their states鈥� results, were two candidates equally viable and the system fair. But for institutional failures鈥攔eflected in a broken media, electoral system failures and think tank mediocrity鈥擲anders would likely have established a winning margin of at least 10 to 15 points.

Bias for Hillary

The establishment, mainstream corporate media have been strongly pro-Hillary. A study by the Tyndall Report found that media outlets gave Clinton as much coverage as Trump in 2015, while听听one-twenty-third of the coverage of either. His numbers have soared when voters learned about him, so the media鈥檚 failure to cover Bernie is a major part of the reason he often loses the early vote, yet runs听.

漏 Shutterstock

But there鈥檚 more. As the media has run through the steps of Mahatma Gandhi鈥檚 famous quote鈥斺�淔irst they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win鈥濃�擟linton has adopted a sophisticated, unethical media strategy. Hillary and her surrogates () rely on the media promoting her misleading statements, changing the subject at her whim, and highlighting her successes. Her听first debate 鈥渨in鈥� used at least four carefully crafted deceptive听answers to allow the media to declare it a 鈥渨in,鈥� which gave her crucial momentum.

Over time, Clinton and her supporters have听听Bernie鈥檚 broad movement-based campaign as being just about the banks and his health care plan as causing millions to lose insurance. She championed a minimum wage hike in New York that she has never supported nationally, after husband Bill Clinton鈥檚 series of patronizing statements toward a Black Lives Matter protester. Hillary and her supporters almost continually make听. If the issue at hand doesn鈥檛 favor her, a new talking point or a shallow policy announcement is all it takes to change the media focus.

It鈥檚 important to note that this bias spans the so-called liberal press,听with at an unprecedented pace. The New York Times鈥� columnists who have spent decades trying to overturn oppressive structures make snarky, misleading statements in almost every op-ed about a politician who is advancing their causes.

What is the effect of this media bias? It鈥檚 hard to tell, but it鈥檚 easy to imagine a world in which reporting was fair, where Sanders would lead by 10-plus points. Certainly, the media鈥檚听heavy coverage听gave Trump enormous momentum.

This profoundly unethical behavior by the media establishment has been aggravated by that of establishment institutions: colleges, left-leaning think tanks, large nonprofits, the DNC, many Democratic politicians and arts institutions. Together, these institutions have largely听failed to illuminate or advocate in a substantive way for progressive priorities, even as their funding from foreign governments, multinational corporations and hedge fund and private equity managers has skyrocketed.

Clinton often mocks Sanders鈥� use of the term 鈥渆stablishment.鈥� It鈥檚 understandable: These are her funders and allies. And she has been completely in tune with the concerns of those in the Hamptons, at pricey fundraisers and global nonprofit galas. The pain is in the streets and in the stadiums she struggles to fill, while Sanders packs them in like the Stones. She doesn鈥檛 repeat an early line in many Sanders鈥� speeches: 鈥淸T]he top 1/10^th听of 1 percent have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,鈥� or discuss her funders鈥� role in .

Her campaign of a year ago was built on positions representing the party鈥檚 strong rightward, business-friendly shift, reflecting a neoliberal worldview that champions corporate ideals in a subversive way.

addresses The Clinton Foundation, and his 鈥攄escribed as the most important book of 2016鈥攁ddresses the social, political, economic and cultural changes that have allowed everyone from Hillary鈥檚 husband Bill Clinton to President Barack Obama to ignore the Democrats’ former working-class constituency.

While there has been a concerted campaign by Clinton indicating she is more electable, this is not necessarily the case. Polling data indicated Sanders听leads听Trump by 11 points, but听Clinton wins by just one point, averaging the last six polls.

As per Frank, Democratic politics have become tethered to models of exploitation, insecurity and poverty. Highly touted 鈥渋nnovation鈥� translated to massive deregulation, or the erosion of consumer, worker or environmental rights gained through decades-long fights using models that will lead to us to being day or hour laborers.

Models of the future are ones in which online-banked microentrepreneurs conveniently eradicate poverty, even as corporations run cash-cow operations that atomize and outsource jobs. The world has massive resources, with the top 62 people having as much as the bottom 3.5 billion. Adopting and strengthening many old models and technologies鈥攆or food, farming, energy, carbon footprints, labor鈥攚ould often result in a more equitable distribution of resources. But they threaten profits that could be gained through ever-more-predatory capitalism.

Democrats, especially Hillary, who have been in a hug-it-all-out-with-the-corporations mindset, make Bernie鈥檚 campaign feel revelatory and inspirational. The sustained and convoluted brushing aside of our citizens鈥� harsh realities鈥攅ven the media offers fluffy, 鈥渞eality-based鈥� entertainment鈥攎ake it so. American institutions have failed to think clearly and big, with hopes the population will follow.

Electoral Failures

Large-scale electoral failures and fraud favor Clinton. There are the improbable听听and Bill Clinton鈥檚 potential voter violation felony, which may have prevented Sanders鈥� fifth Super Tuesday win and a stronger media narrative. , with voters waiting many hours; most provisional ballots were discarded, and registrations were flipped to prevent voting.

漏 Shutterstock

Weeks later, there was more chaos. In New York, where 125,000 Brooklynites鈥攋ust miles from Clinton鈥檚 Brooklyn office in Sanders鈥� hometown鈥攚ere dropped from the voting rolls in one of the few areas Clinton won. There were more flipped registrations and exit polls that differed from polling results in an extremely unlikely manner (with odds of听). The听,听which , and in many states. In Nevada, the State Democratic Party Chair Roberta Lange passed 鈥� via a voice vote as delegates were still trickling in.鈥� She also didn鈥檛 allow excluded delegates to explain their case and illegally ended the convention.

Of course, even the electoral structure seems unfair鈥攖he lockout of independents, the requirement to change parties sometimes very early and the inclusion of parties like the听听in California.

Deceptive Campaign听

Clinton skirts the line so that most statements are deceptive, but not outright lies. Many promote wrong beliefs about her and Sanders鈥� records. And she knows the media鈥攂ig donors to her foundation and campaigns鈥攚ill rarely call her out on it. Some have compared it to 鈥攎ental abuse by employing twisted and false information.

The slimy strategies have extended to campaign activity and social media: 听and phone calls made from Sanders鈥� phone banks by her supporters; Hillary听; and a pro-Clinton SuperPAC 听Sanders on social media.

Along with her supporters, Hillary plays the gender card: We hear repeatedly of the significance of a woman president, our if鈥攁s women鈥攊f we don鈥檛 support her, and how we don鈥檛 get the misogyny.

More relevant is the democracy card. What of the failures of our institutions? What of the heavy exploitation and/or benefit from a corrupt fourth estate; election failures at times tied to Democratic leadership supportive of Clinton; and ignorance of progressive policies, Bernie鈥檚 candidacy and Clinton鈥檚 record? The superdelegates should take these institutional failures into account.

But even more important are Hillary鈥檚 prospects. So far, the election has been remarkably clean. However, once one looks at undercover political realities, it becomes clear that Sanders is a far better candidate. Bernie鈥檚 supporters have been told throughout the primary that 听for the general election, which is also consistent with the Hunt Commission. It seems beyond simple that Sanders should receive the superdelegates鈥� votes.

This听 shows an implicit quid pro quo, with massive exchanges of money and favors and Clinton鈥檚 extraordinarily hawkish behavior. Secretary Clinton would be easy to outskirt both on the left and the right, and to expose听for her lack of integrity and consistency.

One can discard an uncharacteristically bold senator who has been听sidelined听by a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation. Yet such a tremendously harmful act would aggravate the risk of a Trump presidency.

A poll in March found that 37% describe her as听鈥�.鈥� The election, should Clinton win the nomination, is framed as one between two highly unpopular candidates that will descend into a race to be the less terrible candidate.听It鈥檚 not inspiring independents, who comprise an estimated 42% of the electorate. There goes any potential strength in the reliably Republican states of the American South.

Similarly, Democrats like听her less as they get听to know her, as听the improbable erasure of her 50-point lead demonstrates. Their affinity for honesty and a commitment to the public interest makes her 鈥渆volutions鈥� unsuccessful. Hillary鈥檚 revolution from within is little consolation to those who need a tangible revolution. How can it not get worse in the general election, as Trump rejects Sanders鈥� clean campaigning for vicious听attacks?

Losing Democratic Votes

Clinton loses many more Sanders voters than he does: An estimated 20-25% of his supporters have said they would not vote for Clinton versus 3% of her supporters.

Sanders鈥� supporters are looking for a leader who champions systemic change. Their differences are captured in the common memes with Clinton and John Kasich as the only two candidates to vote for if you听believe 鈥溾�濃�攚ith a vote for her for those who believe that 鈥渨omen are people.鈥�

In contrast, Sanders has long been fighting the system. A second meme says: 鈥淔or every mistake America has made in past 30 years you can go and find a video of Bernie Sanders trying to prevent it.鈥� The videos of Bernie denouncing the Panama free trade agreement, filibustering tax cuts for the rich, deriding the misguided focus of the crime bill and protesting the lack of integrated housing are compelling. Yes, Sanders鈥� supporters stand for Clinton priorities of equal pay and reproductive rights. But so too do they take a hard stand on militarism, corrupt campaign finance, inequality, health care and other issues.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think any Democrat鈥檚 ever won saying, 鈥榃e can鈥檛 think that big鈥攚e ought to really downsize here because it鈥檚 not realistic,鈥欌�� Vice President Joe听听on April 21. Clinton鈥檚 strong focus on 鈥渞ealism鈥� and against Trump is shocking. 鈥淗ope and change鈥� may have become more platitude than plan, but tapping into a sense of possibility is key to progressive politics.

Interestingly enough, Clinton has endorsed rapid change when it benefits corporations鈥攆or example, on war and trade鈥攅ven while she urges caution in implementing government programs to help the American population. It鈥檚 pragmatism for government and the people, pedal to the metal for corporations. But why should only听?

Hillary Clinton has sought a more populist tone, even kicking off her campaign on Roosevelt Island. However, she is not the New Dealer鈥檚 heir apparent. With her embrace of globalization and strong ties to corporates, she represents the policies that shifted power to corporations and left the vast majority of Americans served by predatory corporations and banks, with little financial cushion. That attitude, and an unconvincing swerve toward Sanders-endorsed policies that would hurt her long-time, significant donors, limits her appeal.

What is in those听emails? Is it worse than what is in those speeches to Goldman Sachs? How have contributions to the Clinton Foundation affected arms deals, militarism,听climate and energy policy?

While there has been a concerted campaign by Clinton indicating she is more electable, this is not necessarily the case. Polling data indicated Sanders leads听Trump by 11 points, but , averaging the last six polls. In fact, the shifting of polls recently to show that she actually loses at times seems to be a replay of the start of the Sanders-Clinton primary before her poll numbers plummeted. So too have her coattails shortened. A stronger Sanders performance has potentially .

Every day, people everywhere ask questions about Hillary Clinton that no one should ask about a presidential candidate. Is today the day she鈥檒l get indicted? If she does get indicted, presumably for violating the Espionage Act (ironically听听with little criticism from her), how will it affect her polling?

What if she鈥檚 not indicted, but the material leaks out? What is in those听emails? Is it worse than what is in those speeches to Goldman Sachs? How have contributions to the Clinton Foundation affected arms deals, militarism,听? Things virtually ignored by Sanders will be fair game in the general election. In fact, his clean campaigning may well be leaving Clinton untested and weaker should she win the nomination.

No Record to Run On

A common meme shows Sanders as having far more political experience. In particular, Clinton鈥檚 legislative accomplishments as senator were unimpressive, while 鈥淎mendment King鈥� Sanders left a lasting and substantial legislative record鈥攖hough the story was irrationally changed by The New York Times. Clinton has very little to show for her time as secretary of state (she shies away from Honduras, 鈥淗illary鈥檚 War鈥� in Libya, her promotion of fracking abroad, etc.), and as head of the Clinton Foundation. Her new plan to appoint NAFTA-signing, Glass Steagall-repealing husband Bill as some unelected jobs czar is less than inspiring.

The great raft of intellectuals, writers and activists deeply devoted to social justice鈥攍argely permanent outsiders uninterested in an administration job鈥攐verwhelmingly favor Sanders. Sure, the revolving door types who architected and championed unfettered globalization, free trade and so on favor Clinton. But we now need people of integrity to guide us as we cast off our current predatory models.

漏 Shutterstock

What do these leaders say鈥攖hose who shone a spotlight on corruption, warned us of systemic oppression and pointed us in a better direction? The vast majority support Sanders. All have concerns about a Hillary presidency, including The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander; MacArthur Genius Grant听winner Ta-Nehisi Coates; The End of Poverty author Jeffrey Sachs; documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, Chi-Raq director Spike Lee; political dissident Noam Chomsky; actress and activist Rosario Dawson; former State Senator Nina Turner; inequality expert Les Leopold; Professor Cornel West; former NAACP President Ben Jealous; civil rights activist Harry Belafonte; Capital in the 21^st听Century author Tom Piketty; long-time whistleblower Seymour Hersh; What鈥檚 the Matter with Kansas? author Tom Frank; and pioneering feminist Bell Hooks. Even the real life inspiration for Wall Street鈥檚 Gordon Gekko offers a sound economic critique.

These people who often speak unpleasant truths to power offered us prescient warnings we should have heeded and wise counsel we should have followed. They still offer a strong vision for a just society鈥攐ne free of racism, militarism, poverty and sexism at the heart of our most important movements.

It would be a mistake to assume while a听battle is being waged for the Republican Party, that there is not a fierce fight for the soul of the Democrats. It鈥檚 being waged over the party and convention leadership; the means of fundraising; the priorities up and down the ticket; the platform; the behavior that we tolerate; the meaning of democracy and how it applies to politicians and institutions; and the direction of America.

One can choose to cast away a politician embraced by millennials and independents, with fiercely loyal Democratic supporters who has been approved by great thinkers. One can discard an uncharacteristically bold senator who has been sidelined听by a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation. Yet such a tremendously harmful act would aggravate the risk of a Trump presidency.

The fate of America lies with those who have not yet voted, who remain politically active, and with the superdelegates. Ultimately, it鈥檚 the last group’s choice that could prove decisive. They should endorse now to help the Democrats regain the presidency and their leadership role. They should listen to 鈥減olitical antenna,鈥� follow the 鈥渆ver-shifting center鈥� of the party and electorate, and endorse a broad vision that appealing to the 鈥渕ainstream.鈥� Such a pragmatic choice would also advance higher human ideals of freedom, truth, peace, justice and opportunity.

It is time to bring the newly-energized electorate to the polls and to see the powerful vision of superdelegates come to fruition.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 听/ 听

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your听donation听is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a听sponsor.