(10-14-2016, 07:55 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: However, things are not so cut and dry as you think.
I figured it was relatively common knowledge by now that the super delegates were put in place to reign in and/or prevent more "left-wing" democrats from being able to challenge more acceptable and mainstream friendly bourgeois candidates on equal terms. Because by bourgeois standards, Bernie's positions are considered radical (even if in the big scheme of things, calling him radical is rather an insult to socialism but its beside the point). Super delegates were put in place by the ruling class to keep exactly these types of democrats from being able to fairly challenge more moderate party members, let alone actually get them elected.
The DNC (and especially the odious Debbie Wasserman Schultz) hated Bernie, and pulled out the stops to see him defeated, no doubt about it. And yes, the superdelegates were quite intentionally put in place to stop populist upstart candidates from unseating the party elite. All that is true.
But Hillary didn't need either. She won convincingly enough to make it a non-issue. It wasn't close. It wasn't close even if you don't count the superdelegates at all. She won by 3.5 million votes, by almost 12%. I'm not an American, so I don't get to vote in US primaries, and if I did, I would have voted for Bernie. But he lost, and no amount of chipping at the edges changes that.
-Jester