First of all, "A whopping 72 percent of Washington Democrats" did NOT vote for Sanders on Saturday. 72 percent of Dem Caucus goers declared for him. According to Publicola, just 6% of voters went to the caucuses so that's just 4.32 percent of Dem voters in this state choosing Sanders. Hardly a ringing endorsement. But that's more an effect of how exclusionary and antiquated the caucus system is, not Sanders' viability.

But, more importantly, it's all well and good to demand that WA Super Delegates declare for Sanders because of this vote, since those are the people that took part in the exclusionary caucus system. But then they should also be demanding that Super Delegates all over the country follow the same system. Right? Yet, they don't seem to. Why? Could it be that, according to Publicola, "If you follow the results of all the primaries and caucuses to date and assign their respective superdelegates accordingly, Clinton would still have a 136 lead in superdelegates. This includes Iowa, by the way, where Clinton barely won, but according to Sanders fans’ strategy, she’d get all the superdelegates."

So you can yell about Washington's Super Delegates and try to claim that Sanders could be winning this nomination. But the numbers don't really hold up.

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/…

I wrote to Inslee yesterday asking that he pledge to support Bernie since he won the vast majority of every county in the state. I am going to email our senators soon.

If they don't change their pledges, they should expect challengers when they're up for reelection.

I think if Sanders wins the popular delegates the super delegates will switch. Basically the only way the dems can fuck up November is if the super delegates hand Clinton the nomination but I really don't see that happening.

Would it be fair to say some of these superdelegates would want to stay in Hillary's good graces if she does go on to get the nomination? How much of their decision is based off what they personally want, or what their district wants? Or what about fear of spurning the future president? Honest question here.

Speaking as someone who caucused for Bernie Sanders, I see the WA superdelegates' stances as a non-issue at this time, especially now that the voters in our state have already voted and the supers can't influence them. At this moment, Clinton and Sanders are in a race for pledged delegates. In the event that Sanders catches up to Clinton in pledged delegates by the end of the primary calendar, then it's going to be really tough for the superdelegates collectively to deny the will of the people, especially considering the momentum that would be accompanying his catching up. Of course, Sanders catching up to Clinton in the primaries and caucuses is a highly unlikely event.

When it comes to a party defying its voters' presidential pick, I think we'll be getting enough of that on the GOP side this year.

@1 Did you even look at the petition? The whole point is that superdelegates are NOT democratic. They should recognize this point and pledge their support based upon their constituent's primary/caucus votes. Obviously, Bernie is still behind, but our shitty corporate media can use superdelegates to make it look like he's way more behind than he actually is.

Perhaps you've noticed some media outlets saying that Bernie needs 67% of the remaining delegates to win? In actuality, he needs about 56% of the remaining state delegates, which is a lot closer. This makes it sound like he couldn't possibly win even though a lot of those delegates can change their support at anytime.

So yes, nobody is claiming Bernie would be winning, but the corporate media would have a more difficult time using numbers to get people to give up on Bernie.

Superdelegates should just keep their fucking mouths shut about who they'll endorse until the convention, and then use the announcement to push the caucus/primary winner way over the top as a momentum move.

@7 Agreed. Considering that they can, and do, change. It's absolutely pointless for them to declare right now.

Even after victories in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington, Sanders needs to win more than 56.5 percent of the remaining delegates, including in the following states: California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Current polling, which conforms to election results to date, suggest that Clinton will win each of these primaries, in some cases by wide margins. The best case for Sanders still has him losing to Clinton by 200 delegates, and its more than likely that he loses by 300 delegates or more. In all probability Sanders will be effectively finished after April 26, and superdelegates will simply not be an issue at the convention.

@4 as hard as it may be to believe, I think the elected officials of this state actually prefer Clinton. The establishment rarely endorses the anti-establishment candidate. The do have jobs to do and legitimate duties and responsibilities to every resident (even the rich ones) They are likely to prefer someone who will work with them and not against them.

The Super Delegates are free to choose whom they may. Bernie should win their hearts; that he hasn't done so is on him.

Really, the question should be directed to Bernie Sanders himself. Why, after 25 years in Congress, are his fellow congressional leaders so unwilling to back him? Even Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Sanders voters, has yet to endorse him. Why? What do they know? Many of them have worked closely with Bernie and Hillary for years.

If Bernie Sanders wants their support, he's free to get it. That he hasn't should be a real discussion here.

Any system that can prevent anyone like Trump's getting the nomination—I emphatically do not include Mr Sanders in that number, I am writing of future potentialities—is not an entirely bad idea.

If the media stopped reporting superdelegates as part of the overall delegate numbers no one would give a shit at this point.

My thought is that all of these people are long-time Democrats, who (rightly so) would probably prefer to support the candidate who has also been a long-time Democrat and has worked for other Democrats for years -- not a guy who has made clear his disdain for the party and has done almost nothing to get other Democrats elected. They're called "party" leaders for a reason.

Primaries have always been chaotic party specific affairs. Right now the Republican party leadership dearly regret dismissing their control via their super-delegates, and we can smugly see why. If you want super-delegates to become just some rubber-stamp indirect electoral college stage then what you're really wanting is a party-less system, (which might have a lot going for it, but ain't gonna happen any time soon). In the end there's really only whom do we vote against. Let us all agree that for the good of the @#$'n republic we'll vote for Bernie or Hillary against whatever box-of-snakes they settle on. selah.

Am I only getting this article because my web browser thinks I'm under 31?

Asking superdelegates to follow the vote of the people is antithetical to why superdelegates exist. They were created to return some of the voice of who the nominee is to long-time, loyal party members. This happened after a short experiment in the 70s where 100% of the voice was given to the voters and what they got was McGovern and Carter, one win in three cycles, and Reagan in the White House. (Before the 70s, of course, ALL delegates were basically what we now call superdelegates: party establishment people who voted at the convention). So they brought in the superdelegates to partially act as a check and balance to the voter, NOT to follow the voters. You might like it or you might hate it, but asking or demanding that superdelegates vote with the people shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a superdelegate is.

Let's try to remember that superdelegates are NOT acting as elected officials in this capacity; they're acting as independent members of a political party.

What is going on with the Washington Governors race anyway? I'm more worried about Inslee not getting reelected than a Democrat losing the White House in November.

Also! There is no requirement for any voting at all. Complaining that this isn't democratic misses the point. This isn't an election; it's a party selecting a candidate to represent them in an election. If they wanted to, they could choose by making the candidates play Pin the tail on the Donkey. But they don't. They have primaries and caucuses.

Frankly, the people have about 85% of the voice in choosing delegates (superdelegates make up about 15%), which is a greater share of the voice than at any time in US history except that short time in the 1970s.

There's absolutely NO excuse for Jim McDermott to be a super-delegate for Clinton. That's just downright baffling.

This is really such a non-issue and a complete distraction. Outlets that count these superdelegates in the totals are doing an extreme disservice to their readers and viewers. One of the candidates will have a majority of pledged delegates by the time of the convention and the superdelegates will follow suit. Exactly like they did in 2008.

@22-- Yep.

@13, the Republicans use a different system. They only have three "superdelegates" per state, and they are obliged to vote on the basis of the state's popular vote. Basically, they get a free ticket to Cleveland. Second prize is two free tickets to Cleveland.

@1: This.

Sure this is anon-issue.. to Clinton voters. But despite efforts to fool themselves, that are a small minority in the state. Everybody else is watching.

Might it be a moot point come the convention, bit if it isn't the superdelegates will only do their party harm in going against the will of their voters. And really, it takes a quite unique kind of smugness to not be able to see something so plain. Don't be so willfully blind, looking out of touch does not make you look like a smart and rational person.

I think this is all just a primer for the creation of a new socialist party for the 80% of 18-29 year olds who are tired of neo-liberals constantly starting wars while ruining the environment and economy.

@18/20:

I guess my biggest beef here is that so many people complaining about super-delegates clearly have little or no understanding of how party nominating processes work. I suspect many are relative neophytes to political engagement and that this is their first foray into the world of political party organizations, and frankly, their naivete is a little appalling, especially considering how generally educated most appear to be. One would think that, before they start kvetching about the "unfairness" or "bias" of the system, they would take the time to actually educate themselves on how the system is actually designed, and why things are done the way they are, rather than whinge about something that has been in common practice (for the reasons you outline) for nearly 40 years.

@1: Your math is wrong. Who cares that "just 6% of voters" caucused on Saturday? It was a caucus of the Democratic Party, not all voters.

@8- Too bad most of them declared for Hillary before the voting even started.

@12- The question should be pointed at the Democratic Party as a whole. After decades of being unable to achieve their agenda (even when they had a majority of both houses and the presidency), why are they unwilling to back a candidate who isn't just another triangulating loser?

@29 It's not just the math, it's the whole premise. So what if it is only 6% of all voters. It is implied that the majority of voters who didn't caucus would go for Clinton. But other than wishful thinking I see no case to back that up. I mean, they regularly ask 1000 people who they'll vote for and call it polling, and we are all supposed to accept that as gold. It seems unreasonable to me to say this far larger sample is somehow suspect.

In 2008 superdelegates were willing to switch from Clinton to Obama because Obama was a Democrat. He voted for the party's bills, supported the leadership and raised money for its candidates, even when he didn't agree 100%. Elected officials knew he would have their backs.

Sanders joined the Democrats the day after deciding to run and will quit the day after he loses. Sanders had the luxury of a safe seat to be a purist and avoid making any of the shitty choices that being in a party requires. He didn't have to fundraise for Dems or support a congressional leader he didn't care for. He was free to shit all over bills by other progressives and support the NRA. That may be why YOU are supporting him, but the party doesn't have to.

During his 30 years in Congress, Dems learned exactly how much they can count on him and that's why they aren't switching. Inslee, Murray, and Cantwell know he's not going to do diddly squat for them and probably support opponents from the left anyways.

I got mail system delivery failure notices for nearly all of the email addresses provided in the article. In the future, please pre-check the validity and functionality of the email addresses you provide.

@34: Hey, I'm sorry about that. I updated the post with links to their respective web contact forms. (Shame that you can't just e-mail your elected officials, I think. Those had appeared to be their official addresses.)

All of the cries that a caucus system is exclusionary because one has to be up at 10am on a Saturday and give ~3 hours of their time ignore the fact that anyone can still vote if they can't meet this requirement.

Washington Dems allow you to fill out a Surrogate Affidavit form e-mail, fax, or mail it in by March 18th if you can't make the caucus. So while the idea that a Caucus system makes it harder for those that work weekends, are sick, disabled, etc to vote is valid; there is a way around it so that if you're determined to vote you can do so.

Not to mention that there are no non-anecdotal signs validating the idea that those people who didn't vote would have voted for the losing candidate. And if anyone thinks this is not true then they should engage themselves in the democratic process and their community to spread the word about the ability to caucus without being present.

Surrogate Affidavit Form:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems…

There is a difference between the right to vote in a general election and the right to participate in the party's selection of its candidate in the general election. You belong to the party and participate in party nominating subject to party rules. The Superdelegate system is intended to address exactly the situation that is occurring this year. It is intended as a hedge or firewall against populist sentiment or outsiders trying to hijack the party's nomination. Superdelegates are selected because of strong ties with the party. Sanders expressed his preference for the Democratic Party when he filed for his candidacy. He had stated that he is running for the Democratic nomination because it is too hard to get money and press coverage as an independent. However Sanders has never been a Democrat. He has been an independent -- a Democratic Socialist. Admittedly he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and his positions overlap with many of those held by the Democratic Party. Nonetheless the party is entitled to appoint Superdelegates who can swing a nomination in favor of a longer standing, more loyal, more orthodox Democrat.

And let's not act like the universal will of the people is being significantly subverted. Those people who participated in the caucuses (myself included) represent a tiny minority of registered Democrats (and the number of registered voters is itself only about 80% of the population of eligible voters). The figures I have seen reported as of today show that only a little over 26,000 people participated in the caucuses statewide.

@5 FTW.

I hope these elected people remember who elected them. We will vote you out if you don't follow the wishes of the people. We'll start a new shoe bridgade like we did when Patty Murray first got elected.

@39:

But, if you vote someone OUT, you must, by design, vote someone else IN. If you're a liberal and your choice is between NOT voting for a Centrist Democrat and instead voting FOR a Far Right Republican, your "will of the people" argument loses its steam, because the only alternative is to not vote at all, which is tantamount to giving the electoral advantage to the person least likely to represent you and your interests.

... with taste and words of the Gore/Bush debacle still on the tongues of it's constituency--- how they were "robbed" of their voice by the Supreme Court---- yet the DNC and the Establishment, status quo Party machinery show their true colors when it comes to what hacks like Wasserman-Schultz actually think of their voters....

@37 the numbers you have seen as of today is the number of delegates elected to the next tier, county conventions and legislative district caucuses, not the total number of caucus attendees. There were more voters than that caucusing in my county alone.

The Caucuses are NOT an accurate representation of the will of the voters - it just represents those who were able to show up. Had this been in a mail-in vote, the results would be vastly different. Caucuses disenfranchise millions: older/elderly (who will vote for Clinton), those with no transportation, the handicapped, those who work on caucus day, etc. Not to mention all those who did not want the drama and confrontation from Bernie Bros. Please stop whining just because the super-delegates will not be bullied by you, as well. Hillary won the popular vote last time, and yet she still lost by delegates. This time, it is working for her, in addition to winning the popular vote.

"Whopping 72 percent" - is totally inaccurate. The Caucuses are NOT an accurate representation of the will of the voters - it just represents those who were able to show up. Had this been in a mail-in vote, the results would be vastly different. Caucuses disenfranchise millions: older/elderly (who will vote for Clinton), those with no transportation, the handicapped, those who work on caucus day, etc. Not to mention all those who did not want the drama and confrontation from Bernie Bros. Please stop whining just because the super-delegates will not be bullied by you, as well. Hillary won the popular vote last time, and yet she still lost by delegates. This time, it is working for her, in addition to winning the popular vote.

@44 you're an idiot.

This headline is ridiculously misleading and inaccurate, for the reasons and in the ways others have already articulated. When did we become so righteous and self-involved that we ignore facts and figures?