Are superdelegates going to cost the Democrats the White House? Yes, and here's why

Democrats have bet on the weaker candidate.

Perhaps never in recent memory as a political party worked so hard to destroy itself and its chances to win the White House.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - Right now, you're thinking about the insanity of this year's election cycle. How could they do this to themselves you may ask. How can one political party merrily march to its own demise? 

And if you think that party is the Republican Party, you're wrong. It's the Democrats.

The Democrats are about to be done in by their own chicanery, the now-infamous superdelegate system.

The superdelegate system is intended to strengthen the Democratic Party, to establish a virtual senate for the party that would look after the party's interests. They were intended to be a check against party leaders and the party's masses, both of whom could be starstruck over a particular candidate with weak election prospects. The superdelegates are to be the discipline in the party, representing 20 percent of the nomination. These individuals will promote the best candidate with the best chances for the good of the party, even if that candidate is less popular with the base. After all, politics is about the practical, if nothing else.

However, it's clear to see the superdelegate system is badly flawed. It has always been flawed, but the problems are in high relief this election cycle.

Bernie Sanders should not be performing very well at all. He's an out-of-the-closet socialist. He used to be a Senate pariah, a curmudgeon in the corner that everyone tolerates and never listens to. Instead, he's the hottest ticket across the country. He's filling stadiums better than rock and roll bands. For the first time, the cliché has been reversed. We have long said, when the youth are as enthusiastic about politics as they are about their celebrities, we'll be in good shape. Well, that day has clearly arrived.

Hillary Clinton is winning the Democratic nomination for two reasons, neither of which is encouraging.

First, she has first-in market advantage. She's been angling for the presidency for a decade and she has nearly a year's head start organizing versus Sanders. A lot of loyal Democrats gravitated to her early, as the heir apparent to Obama. And once people make a decision, they tend to stick with it, even if they later learn their decision isn't the best one.

Second, Clinton has a lot of establishment support. This includes support for the superdelegates. Clinton is the quintessential establishment candidate, a member of the parasite class in Washington whose fortunes depend on reelection and placating their corporate sponsors. The superdelegates are also in the same category as her, so there's tremendous natural affinity for Clinton among them. The result is, locked-in support. 

These reasons are discouraging because nobody in the general electorate cares. In fact, establishment affinity could become a liability. Sander's insurgency suggests as much.

Sanders polls better against Trump in every poll. With wide appeal among independents, Sanders is the no-brainer choice for the Democrats should they want to guarantee the White House for themselves in 2017 and beyond. Because of this, the superdelegates should all be voting for Sanders. The decision requires no thought.

Yet, the system that should ensure victory is undermining it because the system itself is corrupt. Establishment insiders are going to support their own kind. As a result, Clinton will win the nomination and Sanders will be sent packing. As with that decision, the Democrats will ensure at a minimum they turn an easy win into a hard-fought, expensive battle.

Worse for themselves, they jeopardize their chances altogether.

The assumption is that Clinton will defeat Trump quite handily. After all, who could ever vote for an outspoken, racist, xenophobe? Who could support a man with ludicrous ideas such as building a wall between the USA and Mexico, and billing Mexico for the privilege? And who will support a candidate who is likely to antagonize our enemies, such as Russia and China? A candidate who has seriously advocated the torture of criminal suspects and attacks against innocent people related to terror suspects?

Perhaps you can't. And once again, you'd be in a very distinct minority.

Most Americans don't believe Trump is genuinely racist or xenophobic, or that he will undo basic civil rights or that he even can in the first place. Most believe he is sensible enough to avoid open conflict with powerful nations like Russia and China.

The right or wrong of the thing is irrelevant here. We're dealing with perception and belief. And most Americans will happily believe Trump is a genuine patriot who will advocate what is in our best interest. Moreover, they see Trump as a fighter.

Americans feel emasculated. That's why Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America great again" resonates with so many people.  People feel they are less than they were before. Again, I repeat, reality has no power here. There are no statistics you can show to change this widespread emotion, the feeling of hopelessness many Americans suffer. It's perception, not reality that matters. And Trump is the master of perception.

His speeches are targeted to motivate the disenfranchised, the jaded, the disappointed. Meanwhile, Clinton's messages are more clinical. But people do not vote with spreadhseets in hand. They vote with their hearts, which is why Sanders enjoys so much appeal. It's also why Republicans are seeing record turnout in favor of Trump.

Over the next six months, Trump will systematically destroy Clinton. She will present clear, articulate policy proposals, and these ideas will be dismissed with ad hominem attacks. Like any good gladiatorial fight, Clinton's prospects will die to the sound of thunderous applause.

Trump will call Clinton out on her emails, her judgement, and more. Her husband's infidelity will become an issue. Trump will find ways to sound more populist than Clinton, who has corporate donors and must watch what she says.

And Clinton's greatest liability will be the fact that America is awake and sick-and-tired of the establishment politics which have done much to destroy the middle class and continues to prey on the poor. Clinton's very name is synonymous with the establishment.

Trump is less constrained. The public views him as independent. They love mavericks, they see him as a man who "says what they are thinking."

His insurgent campaign will grow more powerful with each poll, and he will build support. And he doesn't have far to go.

Most elections are decided in three swing states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Trump already holds a solid edge in Ohio. He runs almost neck-and-neck with her in the other two states. He doesn't have that much work to do to secure the win.

All Trump has to do it pivot towards the middle, distance himself from some of his more radical statements and generally persuade voters he will not start World War III. If he appears on the debate stage looking rational and presidential, he will win.

Americans hate Hillary Clinton. They don't quite hate Donald Trump, but they are afraid of him. If Trump can soothe their fears, and he has six months to figure out how, then he can easily defeat Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment.

Sorry Democrats, but you put your money on the wrong horse. Maybe you'll be smarter about it next time.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online