No Party With ‘Superdelegates’ Gets to Lecture Me About Disenfranchisement

by Jim Geraghty

From the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Why Do Grassroots Democrats Let the Elites Run Their Party This Way?

Of course, all those Democrats voting in New Hampshire may not have had as much impact on the process as they thought they did. Let’s do something unusual and check in with Russ Belville over at the Huffington Post:

I wonder what kind of surprise awaits the Millennial voter the more he or she sees the results of their hard work canvassing for voters to Feel the Bern.

First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets… 29?

Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets… 15?

What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie?

The answer is the “superdelegates,” those high-ranking lawmakers who automatically get a vote to decide who the nominee that is equal to about 10,000 grassroots primary voters. “In New Hampshire, it took convincing 60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.”

Ace offers a sense of the delightfully awkward conversations we can now have with our Democratic friends:

Just say it while shaking your head sadly. Don’t make any positive statements; ask about it, as a question. They’ll answer the question themselves.

Just shake your head and say, “I just don’t understand how Clinton could lose in two races — okay, she supposedly ‘won’ in Iowa, okay — and have 394 delegates while Sanders only has 42. Do you understand this? I’m kinda dumb but can you explain this to me? Just doesn’t seem fair. Seems like income inequality all over again, writ large.”

That “writ large” makes no sense at all, and neither does the income inequality thing, but you’ll be talking to an Idiot and they’re impressed by words they don’t understand so it might be a good Politicsmanship gambit.

How about, “If your vote isn’t going to count because of the way the party system works, I guess requiring voter ID isn’t so disenfranchising after all, huh?”

The Corner

The one and only.