Matt - how do you think a Trump vs Sanders debate would've panned out?
As Hippie_Hunter said, Trump would've destroyed Sanders. Trump was able to successfully play on people's fear to steal the nomination. No matter how much Sanders and his supporters would have you believe otherwise, "socialism" is still a very bad word in this country to a lot of Americans over 35 (the majority of voters), even liberal democrats. You have to keep in mind, these people were programmed, while growing up, to see socialism as the equivalent to treason. That is a damn near impossible notion to overcome. Once Trump really started attacking Bernie as this commie, he would've been able to change the discussion. "Do you want a president who believes in our way of life, in capitalism, in the system our founders put in place...or do you want a pinko communist who criticizes our founding fathers while praising the likes of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro? This commie condemns the American system while praising mass murderers!" The election would be over right there and then. Don't let the Trump vs Sanders polls fool you. Sanders does well because he was never properly attacked. One week of Trump's attacks would sink Sanders. He would lose about 45 states and suffer a sweeping electoral college defeat. Trump would not only win, he would win with a very strong, convincing mandate.
Some of Bernie's supporters seem intent on continuing the momentum. Tulsi Gabbard's passing around a petition to abolish the super delegate system, for example. I'll say that while I don't want Bernie in the oval office, I'd happily vote for Tulsi over Hilldog (based on what I've read about Tulsi, and given the fact that Tulsi isn't connected to the klan's Grand Dragon of California).
Gabbard is shortsighted. First, contrary to what she says, super delegates did not cost Sanders the election. Sanders losing by any metric imaginable cost Sanders the election. The people didn't want Sanders. It is that simple.
Second, superdelegates serve an important role. Superdelegates were not designed to overrule the people as Gabbard suggests (ironically, while serving as a surrogate for Sanders, who is asking the superdelegates to do just that). They were designed in response to the 1968 primary, to avoid chaos when the will of the people is unclear or unforeseeable events make it impossible to ascertain the will of the people.
This happened in 1968 when the incumbent suddenly withdrew from the race (shortly after the first primary, which he won) and the other front runner was assassinated 3 months later, which resulted in an election with unclear results. Eugene McCarthy took 38 % of the vote. RFK, who was dead, took another 30 %. Lyndon Johnson (who wasn't even in the race) finished without 5 % and the remaining 25 % of the vote was scattered among other candidates. The youth movement wanted McCarthy (whose supporters and movement is not dissimilar from Sanders). They claimed he won the nomination on the merit of beating a dead guy. Ultimately, at the convention, Johnson's supporters rallied behind Humphrey as did Kennedy's and Humphrey took the nomination. Anyway, the superdelegate system was created in response to this. There was no real way of ascertaining what voters wanted. The front runner dropped out and the other front runner was assassinated. Should the nomination have just gone to McCarthy? The guy who would've finished third if the other two stayed in? Probably not.
As such, a superdelegate system was put in place to have delegates who are unpledged and can vote in the best interest of the party and the country WHEN THERE IS NO MANDATE FROM THE ELECTORATE. That is the key part Gabbard and other critics of the system ignore. Superdelegates have never overturned a popular vote. They probably never will (despite Sanders, Gabbard, and Co.'s best efforts to get them to do so).
Another event in which there is no mandate from the electorate or the will of the peopel may be unclear is one in which a narcissistic megalomaniac whose rhetoric resembles that of Adolf Hitler is able to take advantage of a 17 candidate field and steal the nomination, with a plurality rather than a majority. In such a case, superdelegates, being available to act in the best interest of the party and the country is a good thing. I know after their primary the GOP is certainly wishing they had a superdelegate system in place. I sure as hell don't want the Democratic Party getting rid of ours.
If anything, it simply needs to be reformed so that superdelegates cannot impact the election before voting. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that Clinton starting the race with a 500 vote lead did not impact some voters. I do not believe that it is insurmountable. Hell, the same thing happened in 2008 and Barack Obama beat Clinton, at which point her superdelegates switched sides. That being said, I would not oppose a rule that prohibits the superdelegates from announcing their intent or supporting a candidate prior to the convention and even then, only in the case where there is no majority vote. Basically, I would do it as follows:
First, pledged delegates are counted. If a candidate crosses the magic number with pledged delegates, they are the nominee. The end.
The first tie breaker is popular vote. If no candidate crosses the pledged delegate number but a candidate takes a majority (50 % + 1 vote) of the popular vote, they win.
The second tie breaker would be superdelegates, in a case in which no candidate crosses the pledged delegate number (like the current Democratic Primary) OR obtains a majority of the popular vote (as is the case in the current Republican primary).
But to get rid of them all together is typical, Bernie Bro, shortsighted, "the system is fixed against us!" boo hooing.
Trump's antics work best as news soundbites from interviews and rallies.
He's not that great at real time debates.
Neither is Sanders. Contrary to what social media would have you believe, screaming, spitting, and pounding your first as you ramble about "the establishment" is not good debate form and is a large part of the reason he could not sway voters away from Clinton. He often came off as a rambling lunatic.
Or, if Bernie kept his cool Trump would've fallen apart because whenever he's asked to speak for longer than 10 seconds on any issue of merit he starts repeating himself or creating weirdly nonsensical and sophomoric statements. It could go both ways depending on who stays calmer in the debate, Trump could've dragged Bernie down to his level if Bernie fell for it, or Bernie could've shown Trump to be the juvenile imbecile that he actually is.
Sanders's behavior and reputation in DC is indicative that he would not have had the temperment to withstand Trump's attacks. Trump would've flustered him in a heartbeat.
