I may be wrong in my politics but I certainly hope that the will of the voters is respected.

Sanders does excellently with independent voters, Trump does terribly outside of his 35% subset of committed Republicans. This is possibly the single best chance to get a guy like Sanders into the presidency that will happen for a long, long time. If the party does override a popular vote for Sanders, I think it will almost certainly be to protect the interests of donors to incumbent Democrats, many of whom will be superdelegates, rather than any honest concern about "electability."

I'd put that at about even money.

Losing to Cruz?

Absolutely yes. If you're a typical HN reader, you're in a filter bubble where "democratic socialism" sounds way better than it does to the average American.

I do agree that the Democratic establishment is blatantly in the tank for Clinton, who isn't particularly electable herself.

A far worse scenario is that it ends up being Sanders vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg, Bloomberg siphons disproportionately more votes away from Sanders, and we do end up with a President Trump - plus Republicans retain control of Congress and Trump gets to appoint the next SCOTUS justice. A Trump presidency with control of all three branches of government would be scary indeed.

[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...

I don't know how else to respond except to say that I strongly disagree, and think many other people would find the idea of him leading three unified branches of government scary as well.

But this is hardly the place for political flame wars.

"I voted for Bush twice, McCain, and Romney, and I'll vote for either Hillary or Bernie (two candidates I can't stand) over Trump, and I'm far from alone."

EDIT (correction): Sanders was an independent until 2015, and is now a Democrat, so my point does not apply.

It is that funding that gets used for other purposes, like securing the House, the Senate, etc., etc., and as such, regardless of his current registration, Sanders is a party outsider, and a victory for him is not as big a win for the party as a Hillary, Biden, Kerry or even Jim Webb win would be.

Delegates are used to distribute influence, which is by party membership rather than population or simple voter representation. Super-delegates were introduced after the first two Democratic nominees picked by a purely popular process were a disaster (McGovern, who won only two states, and Carter, who was a wonderful person and a terrible president who paved the way for Reagan.)

Sanders supporters are correct that superdelegates exist to potentially keep people like him from getting nominated. They are wrong that that is a bad thing. When Obama ran, his ability to win over superdelegates was a strong sign of his capabilities to bring together the party and win in the general. If Sanders can't do that, he's not going to be effective in office even if he could get there.

Plus nobody is polling a Sanders win. He will lose in South Carolina by up to 30%, Florida by up to 40%, and just barely scrape by in Nevada (within margin of error).

He will be out after Super Tuesday. He just doesn't have the right demographics (people who actually go out and vote). Even if he is super popular with all of the wrong demographics.

Sanders leads Clinton in pledged delegates (36 v 32). Superdelegates are meaningless at this point; they will shift to whomever is winning by the time the convention comes around. For example, Bill Clinton changed his superdelegate vote from his own wife to Obama in 2008.

As for your percentages, currently 538 puts Sanders only 20% (not 30%) behind in SC, 24% (not 40%) behind in Florida, and tied (with a slight advantage) in Nevada. Additionally, the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far due to the large turnout from younger voters. [1]

Hillary is the heir apparent, while Bernie is a relative unknown. Both are great positions to be in. She has nowhere to go but down, and he has nowhere to go but up. Polling is in Hillary's favor, but momentum is in Bernie's. There's no way of knowing who will win at this point.

You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful.

[1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-fo...

Speaking of disingenuous, the very same site lists her as having a ">99% chance" of winning SC. I said "up to 40%" because that is exactly what the polls have said, they've changed from the 20-40%+ over the last month. See:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so...

> And the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far.

Indeed, but not by enough for him to win SC or Florida.

> You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful.

You've presented zero corrections to anything I've said. I stand behind "up to 40%" because I can link you to a poll which shows 40%+ right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so...

Don't accuse me of being untruthful because you disagree on interpretation, which you clearly do.

I didn't say you were lying, I said you were being disingenuous.

You said both:

> You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful.

The implication is clearly that I was somehow being untruthful, or lying.

The electoral college has rarely diverged from public opinion [1], even though individual electors can and have voted "incorrectly". I can't find a similar figure for the democratic nomination.

[1] http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-...

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise

Overruling the result of a popular vote with votes from party insiders would be like denying people the right to vote by allowing the ritual of voting then ignoring the votes.

If the superdegates (who are free to change their minds at any point) end up overriding the popular vote by any significant margin, I would fully expect the USA to have a republican president.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not...

Briefly, it would only happen in the occasion of a virtual tie between the two candidates (average of 5% points or less across states), and only if the party insiders believe there is a strong electability case to be made:

"What you’re likely to see in close cases like these is competing claims to legitimacy, with Democratic party elites showing their bias by interpreting the evidence in favor of Clinton. Suppose, for instance, that Sanders is slightly ahead in elected delegates but slightly behind in the overall popular vote, which could happen if he overperforms in caucus states.3 Clinton supporters will argue that popular votes are the truer measure of support. More exotic options might include citing national polls (if Clinton is still ahead in them by June) or the number of states she’s won (if she’s won more than Sanders). If Clinton starts out well behind Sanders but then narrows her deficit, the elites may argue that momentum was in her favor."

As well, super delegates always vote with the popular vote. They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination.

I follow the actual polls, not the most optimistic imaginings of where a candidate might be.

Why don't you link to a poll that has Sanders ahead in SC or Florida? Seriously, you're implying I am mistaken, so present your facts.

> They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination.

Currently those are the delegate counts. And furthermore it is a clear endorsement by the democratic establishment.

You are stating the delegate count as if it is in stone, when in fact it doesn't work the way you imply, as others have pointed out.

Yes they are. You mean to say that polls aren't conclusions within themselves.

Polls are a piece of data, a fact.

So the GP's point about the nature of polling itself isn't pedantic but my retort on the same topic is?

You'll have to explain that to me. Neither post is very productive discourse, but you think one of the two is "perfectly correct" so call out the other..?

Sorry but that's some mind boggling mental gymnastics you had to go through to write this reply.

In my book, only one of those things is pedantry.

I'm not entirely sure how that's either mental gymnastics or a double standard, but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything, so I'm prepared to be mistaken.

Superdelegates are fluid; the only delegates that either candidate really has are the committed ones produced by the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary; superdelegate "commitments" aren't real counts of delegates that a candidate concretely "has" in any meaningful sense, they are just a measure of support from the establishment (in an election year in which for both parties, being associated with the "establishment" is a liability that candidates are actively running away from, this may be a negative signal.)