The Democrats need to come to a critical decision about whom to nominate for their party. The superdelegates have been much maligned this year, mainly as a way establishment Democrats can make sure that a candidate to their liking is the nominee. But there ostensibly was another reason for the creation of superdelegates that's a lot more valuable, & that was to make sure that a candidate who may be prohibitively ahead in the pledged delegate count, but is found to have a critical potentially damaging, even disqualifying problem or set of problems hanging over him/her that would make it especially difficult for that candidate to win in the general election, could still be, with a large number of superdelegates going against that candidate, prevented from winning an overall majority.
This may be the election where that latter advantage of superdelegates could, or at least should, come into play. The leading Democratic candidate is being investigated by the FBI, which I think is unprecedented, & might be considered disqualifying in the past. She is strongly tied to the establishment during a highly anti-establishment election year, has a terrible trustworthiness issue, & her favorability numbers are in the negative 20s (in contrast to Sanders' positive favorability margin of around 8) & getting worse with each successive poll. Also her polling numbers keep getting worse versus Trump both nationally & by state. Even in states where she easily beat Sanders in the primaries, such as Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina & Arizona, which are all important states for either party to win, she's behind Trump while Sanders is ahead of Trump, & nationally she has fallen into a statistical tie with Trump, while Sanders consistently stays ahead of Trump by double digit margins. Many make the point that poll numbers mean little or nothing this far ahead of the general election, & that's true about isolated polls, but where polls are particularly informative is regarding trends, & the poll numbers have all trended steadily downward for Clinton & upward for Sanders, & any further downward projection for Clinton means her defeat. With all the things hanging over her & the many concerns about her, there's no legitimate reason to expect any permanent turnaround in those numbers.
So now the Democratic Party, both the superdelegates & voters in the remaining primaries, needs to decide whether it can risk going with her or settle on an alternative, & what that alternative should be. They need to first consider the relative importance of the following goals: the special singular goal of electing Hillary Clinton, the strength of the Democratic Party now & in the future, potential expansion of the party vs. the establishment maintaining control of the party, how best to stop Trump & the Republicans from winning, potential ramifications to the Supreme Court & Congress, & the good of the nation regardless of which party leads.
Let me go through these aspects one by one. You'll see it's not all one-sided – there are pros & cons with going either way – but perhaps the preponderance of the argument goes in a certain way.
Hillary Clinton is a unique, widely respected, world-renowned figure, who has been the most prominent woman in American politics for the past quarter century, & it could be argued, in the history of our democratic republic, even without achieving her aspiration of becoming the first female Democratic presidential nominee (to say nothing of president), which would indeed be a remarkable groundbreaking achievement, & one that the US has embarrassingly & shamefully been slow to accomplish. How important is it to achieve in this particular year, & is this the woman we want marked down in our history books as our first female president, or would we be better served by another woman by the next election, & would having our first female vice-president ever be a satisfactorily precedent-setting substitute in lieu of Hillary being the Democratic presidential nominee? These things & more are worth considering, & there are certainly good reasons for going either way. But if you're really invested in having Hillary as the nominee, or having a woman as the Democratic nominee this year (although read below for an alternative to Hillary), above all other considerations, then you'll stick with her no matter what.
Now we look at the party. Republican voters have roundly rejected the establishment this year by choosing Trump. There is a lot of anti-establishment feeling among Democrats as well, but it hasn't completely carried the day. Independents by virtue of being independent are showing they reject both major parties (& they comprise 43% of the total electorate), & where they've been able to vote in Democratic primaries, usually the anti-establishment candidate, Bernie Sanders, prevails. Sanders' anti-establishment populist campaign has resonated with many Democrats & Independents alike, & even a few Republicans, & the Democratic membership has been swelling with many new enrollments because of him. The question is, will those new members stay with the Democratic Party if Sanders isn't nominated, & that would depend a lot on whether they can be convinced that their candidate lost fairly & squarely & whether their concerns will be a primary goal of the Democratic Party in the future. If neither of these things happen, you can be sure they will quickly flee & so will many longtime Democrats who supported Sanders. So what could've been a huge expansion of the party would end up being a major loss.
Is there any reason to believe that the above scenario would be a positive development? Well, since that is really in the hands of the Democratic establishment, including the superdelegates, which is why I focus on their point of view rather than the more meritorious consideration of the welfare of the whole party, we would have to convince them otherwise if we'd want them to consider voting for Sanders rather than Clinton. So there are 3 scenarios: Bernie is the nominee, the party expands & becomes unbeatable at probably all levels for the foreseeable future, & the progressive/anti-establishment/populist wing of the party becomes dominant; Clinton is nominated, but there is an attempt to placate & retain as many Bernie supporters as possible by the Democratic platform clearly spelling out their goals, & by Hillary taking up their cause in a convincing manner, which could keep this coalition together for the time being to maintain a clear majority for Democrats in most elections, although it will likely be contentious & fractious over a number of issues for the foreseeable future, & there will be a fair number of defections either (back) to being Independent, 3rd party or joining anti-establishment Republicans or Trump followers (although this should be a fairly small minority of them); the 3rd scenario is for the establishment to declare itself firmly behind Clinton's nomination & rejecting most demands by followers of Sanders, in which case there will likely be a mass exodus from the party, with possibly many of them working to form an alternative party to challenge the Democrats (& Republicans) in future elections. In the first scenario, the Democrats significantly increase their membership, are poised for a long, massive winning streak in elections starting with this election, but the centrist establishment is likely relegated to minority status within the party, something they've not experienced for at least a quarter of a century, & being part of the establishment, most of the superdelegates wouldn't like. In the 2nd scenario, Democrats will still be dominant & should win most national elections, with a possibility of winning this election as well, although it depends a lot on what happen with the investigations & other matters that put Clinton's trustworthiness & qualifications into question, but there is likely to be considerable conflict within the party as long as neither wing is dominant & there will remain some uncertainty about the future viability of the party, particularly if Clinton either fails to win this election or is considered (by more than hyperpartisans) to have a relatively failed presidency. In the 3rd scenario, the Democrats would suffer an overall decrease in membership, a likely loss this election with vast repercussions to itself, the nation & the world if the new president is Trump, probable losses for the foreseeable future, & perhaps face a viable 3rd party challenge that could eventually push the Democrats to irrelevance, but at least the establishment wing would be even more in control, & might even be able to lure establishment Republicans into the fold, if the anti-establishment elements remain in control of that party, but that might mean that whatever progressives remaining & some moderates would then leave. So none of these alternatives is especially appealing to establishment figures of the party or superdelegates, because no matter which way they go, their power & influence appear bound to diminish in some way. At the rate we're going, it appears that the 2nd option is most likely, but it will be trickiest to achieve & maintain & not necessarily with the best outcome over the long run, & either of the other options are still possible at this point. So from the personal point of view of the Democratic establishment, which includes most of the superdelegates, it's really unclear which would be the best option, but a case can surely be made for the strength & viability of the party as a whole to nominate Sanders.
Now how would other electoral contacts be affected by which candidate is chosen as the nominee? Well, to have a positive effect on downticket candidates, it has to be a positive thing for the other candidates to be associated with the nominee, we'd need a huge turnout of partisans to vote, & our nominee needs to win. Bernie Sanders has shown a great ability to turn out people, especially those who feel marginalized & don't usually vote, so if he's the candidate we can expect a great turnout for Democrats & Democratic-leaning Independents. Hillary has not shown that ability to draw a lot of voters, especially among the anti-establishment crowd, who in fact may just as easily go for Trump as for her. Being shamelessly progressive, anti-establishment & associated with Bernie's agenda seems to be a positive for any candidate whereas being considered establishment is a turnoff in this election. Finally the polls show that Sanders will almost surely beat Trump, & most likely in a landslide, carrying states that Democrats haven't taken for a long time, therefore likely bringing lots of progressive Democrats into Congress. The polls are very ambivalent about Clinton, & the trends have been negative for her against Trump. Even if she ekes out a win, there's no certainty she'll carry enough congressmen with her for the Democrats to take back either chamber. So in consideration of Congress, the evidence decisively favors Sanders as the nominee.
The US Supreme Court is a huge concern & the big prize for whichever party takes the White House. Right now the Supreme Court has only 8 justices because the Republicans refuse to consider Obama's nomination for Scalia's replacement. This position & potentially 2 or 3 more could be decided by the next president. It is now split 4 by 4 in regards to populist vs. corporatist, & 4 are socially liberal, 3 socially conservative & the remaining justice, Anthony Kennedy, socially moderate. He can go either way in regards to social issues, & recently in some major cases has sided with the liberals, but if there's any corporate angle to the case he always takes the corporatist side. And it is the pro-corporatist decisions on important cases that has undermined our democracy & been damaging to the general public & environment. Trump has already revealed whom he is considering to nominate in order to woo conservatives, & they definitely don't appeal to liberals. Of course, with him it's always possible he'd change his mind, even radically so, but who'd want to take that chance? Hillary is socially liberal but has many corporatist ties, yet there may be reason to expect her to choose a socially liberal populist regardless, just as her husband did. However, she's unwilling to make overturning Citizens United a litmus test, as Sanders has declared he'd do. Under Sanders we could be assured that we'd have the most socially liberal, populist judges on the Supreme Court in generations. Under Clinton, we'd almost surely get the most socially liberal court we've had in a very long time, but it could still have strong corporatist elements to it that may make overturning decisions such as Citizens United & making sure corporations pay for damages they cause to the environment & public health, for example, still a challenge. We don't even know which side Obama's recent nomination would take on these corporate issues. Then there's the question of which candidate would most likely win the general election if he or she were the nominee, & polls indicate very persuasively that Sanders looks like he has the easier path towards victory as Democratic nominee. So this argument clearly favors Sanders as the nominee.
Now we go with stopping Trump (or any Republican) from becoming president, which is a declared goal of the whole party, & which Bernie Sanders has repeatedly stressed is a must for him. So first we look at which candidate looks likelier to beat Trump, & the polls show consistently & by a large margin that Bernie would, & in the process win a lot of states Democrats don't normally win, while Hillary has trouble in a lot of swing states & states Democrats consider as must wins in order to prevail. And it's not only polls, but logically speaking, Bernie is the perfect foil for a demagogue like Trump while a candidate as tied to the establishment & flawed as Hillary, particularly in regard to trust issues, is extremely vulnerable to someone like Trump. So clearly Democrats should choose Sanders if we want to be sure of defeating Trump. But if Hillary were the nominee, conventional wisdom has it that the best way to defeat Trump is to ensure that Clinton wins, & therefore Sanders would need to galvanize his followers to support her. But I have doubt that he can, since the aversion to Clinton by many Sanders supporters, particularly millennials, is too strong for even Sanders to change. What conventional wisdom also says is that a possible 3rd party run by Sanders would hurt Hillary, & besides he has promised to support the nominee. However, there have been enough election irregularities to put in doubt in the minds of many the legitimacy of some of Hillary's victories & margins of victory, as well as other indications of establishment bias for Hillary & against Bernie, that may push Sanders supporters to call for him to make an independent or 3rd party run & may provide some justification for him to do so. Furthermore, there's a case to be made that an independent run by Sanders would hurt Trump more, because they're both perceived as anti-establishment candidates, & it is likely that out of party loyalty, many of those Democratic supporters of Sanders in the primary that would switch to Clinton if she were nominated, would stay with her if he ran as an independent, while the vast majority of those who'd switch to Trump would switch back to Sanders if he were on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate. Probably more independents would switch to Trump than to Clinton if Sanders weren't the nominee, & then back to Sanders if he were running as an Independent. If Clinton's numbers were to fall further, due to an indictment or whatever, then Sanders might be seen as the more viable alternative & he becomes that Plan B for anti-Trump people in case Clinton failed, & votes would switch to Sanders & then he becomes the prohibitive favorite. Clearly it's better for the Democratic Party & Democratic unity if Sanders is their nominee rather than a rival, but his running 3rd party upon failing to win the Democratic nomination does appear to be a better strategy for defeating Trump than his not running at all.
Each of us have our own idea about what's best for the nation. We have so many major problems facing us now, but the following 4 I consider our greatest challenges that pose near existential threats. The first I'll mention is the huge, growing & seemingly uncontrollable national debt. It is a subject that Democrats hardly talk about but should a lot more. In fact, it is the Republicans who repeatedly & increasingly imperil our fiscal solvency by persistently spending more than they take in, largely due to the regressive tax system they've put in place with lots of tax loopholes & havens for rich people & corporations, but also by great increases on Defense spending. They often talk about living within our means, but fiscal responsibility is always thrown aside if any tax reduction on the rich is up for consideration, because that is always their overriding concern, no matter how much this policy has contributed to our debt, tripling under Reagan, & doubling under each of the Bush administrations (even though the junior Bush was bequeathed a surplus by his predecessor, Hillary's husband). Trump indicates he would like to lower corporate taxes & taxes on the rich even further, doubling down on the disastrous Republican policies. Hillary has been pretty mum on this subject, from what I've heard (or haven't heard), but she should be touting her husband's record on fiscal policy & say she'd try to emulate that. Bernie has proposed ways to pay for every proposal he makes, however ambitious they may be.
The enormous & still growing gap between rich is tearing the fabric of our society & is largely responsible for increasing disunity among Americans. Trump has repeatedly implied this is a problem by making it an "us vs. them" issue, which appeals to his followers, but he often misidentifies those (the "them") who are responsible. This is the keystone of Bernie's candidacy, & what seems to both drive him & resonate most with the public. Hillary has taken Bernie's lead & will often speak about it on the campaign trail. However, many question her sincerity on the issue.
The existential environmental challenge we face due to global warming, mass extinction, resource depletion, deforestation, aquatic disintegration, dispersion of poisons, etc. is my personal greatest concern, & the fact that Bernie recognizes that climate change is the most important challenge the world faces, & he has come out with one of the best plans I've ever seen by a candidate (though still not comprehensive), & he publicly comes out for a carbon tax & has been a pioneer of carbon tax legislation makes him my obvious choice. We need to tackle this crisis massively with utmost urgency. Hillary doesn't do much more than give lip service on this subject, not making it one of the main themes of her campaign & showing indications of internal conflict with its implications on corporations on this issue. So I have no confidence she will put in the resources & energy this crisis requires. Trump shows no indication that he sees this as a problem, since he essentially denies anthropogenic climate change, although if anybody could ever convince him that he would be viewed by future generations as the greatest president & the one who saved the world if he did the things necessary to turn it around, then he might respond accordingly (or recklessly).
The final huge concern of mine is corporate control of government, media & society. This former democracy has essentially become a fascist corporatocracy. Trump gets this enough to be able to take advantage of the public's anxiety about this & related issues, but I don't see that he has any viable solutions to it. Clinton is considered too closely allied to major corporations to be able to change this significantly, & in fact, as the establishment candidate, she's considered to be part of the problem. This has been a major theme for Bernie, who keeps talking about how corporations control our lives.
So on all these points and more (education, health care, scientific research), Bernie takes the best positions, so therefore by these criteria, would be the best choice we have for the good of the country. Also his integrity & consistent record of fighting on behalf of the people make him my choice. But clearly that is a personal choice & not shared by everybody, Democrats or not. Also Bernie is likely to pull in more progressive Democrats into Congress for a Democratic majority, which might turn it around from being very dysfunctional to one that could get much of Sanders' important proposals put into law.
So based on all these points, the Democratic Party, superdelegates & each of the 2 campaigns need to decide which of the following scenarios they should try in order to ensure a winning campaign & a bright future.
Should we stick with Hillary Clinton & her groundbreaking achievement of being the first female major party presidential candidate & possibility of becoming the first female president ever? Are these distinctions important enough to outweigh the greater probability relative to the succeeding scenarios that the Democrats won't retain the White House & that they could lose membership & even break up? With a rash of bad news for Trump, including news of an investigation of him over fraud regarding Trump University, & a very well-received speech delineating various ways in which Trump is unfit to be president, she appears to have improved her standing vs. Trump. But could this be long-lasting or is this just a bump until we hear more bad news about investigations of Clinton?
Should the Democrats bring in someone new like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, as has been proposed? Joe Biden is now expressing regrets he didn't toss his hat into the ring. He would be more acceptable to more Hillary supporters than Sanders would & to more Bernie supporters than Clinton would, & he looks like a strong candidate in the general election. If the delegates could be persuaded to vote for him in the first round, preventing either Clinton or Sanders from winning in the 1st round, then in the 2nd round the pledged delegates would be free to vote for someone else, which could be Biden. The same goes for Elizabeth Warren, who was the dream candidate for Democratic progressives until she put the kybosh on such ideas & Sanders came in. She would also be more acceptable to both sides & a likely winner in the general election. But she has given no sign that she's changed her mind, & even the imagined Biden/Warren combo might not become reality because she's also shown no interest in being VP. Furthermore, you can expect neither the Clinton nor Sanders camps to be happy about this prospect. Even if the candidates themselves accept this deal on behalf of the party, many followers won't. Sanders supporters especially will see this as another attempt by the establishment to keep them down. They think that if Clinton goes down for whatever reason, Sanders should be the alternative to whom the nomination goes, although many would be mollified if it were Warren, because they see her as on their side (but this certainly isn't the view of all Sanders supporters).
So then should we go with Sanders? Against great odds, he has put on a very competitive race & come a close second (assuming that he doesn't win overwhelmingly this Tuesday). He would help himself with a convincing win in California. He polls much better than Clinton against Trump. He has positive favorability ratings vs. highly negative ones for Clinton, with the numbers on trustworthiness even more favorable compared to Clinton. He wins important swing states that Clinton looks like she might lose. Polling even gives strong indications of a landslide for Sanders, which would likely bring lots more Democrats to Congress, especially since he brings in a lot of people to vote who otherwise wouldn't. And the Democratic Party would be bigger & stronger than it has been in a long time.
And what if the Democrats go with Clinton & later it appears that it was a mistake & she's likely to lose. Is there a remedy? A Plan B? I don't know of any way to replace a declared nominee after the convention, but there might be. George McGovern replaced his initial VP pick with somebody else after it was revealed that his 1st pick had sessions with a psychologist (fortunately not a disqualifying factor these days), but I don't know if it works for nominees for presidents, but it would be good if it did. It would be too late for somebody else to get on the ballot as an independent & most likely as a 3rd Party candidate.
Bernie Sanders has to decide in a timely fashion, should he fail to get the Democratic nomination, whether or not to accept the Green Party invitation to head their ticket with Jill Stein running to become the 1st female vice-president ever. There would be strong forces pulling in either direction. But let's consider how it might affect the factors we mentioned above. The gut reaction of many if not most Democrats, especially Clinton supporters & the establishment, often 1 & the same, is to say "no way". It would be disunifying & would take votes away from the Democratic nominee, conventional wisdom says. Conventional wisdom has been proven wrong time & time again in this unconventional year, but could it even in this instance – 2 Democrats running against each other (leaving aside the fact that Bernie has been an official Democrat only since running for President, & until then was a prominent Independent who caucused & often voted with the Democrats but was highly critical of both major parties)? It appears that Sanders draws nearly as many votes who would otherwise vote for the other "anti-establishment" candidate as he would from the other "Democrat". And probably more of those that would leave him to vote for the official Democratic nominee would stay with that nominee out of party loyalty than would stick with Trump (after all, party loyalty would not be a deciding factor for them). If both Clinton & Sanders continue to focus nearly all of their criticism on Trump, it could be helpful to either. We already know that Trump & Clinton will mercilessly tear each other down, because they've already started. I fully expect that Bernie will be the target of lots of criticism, if not slander, perhaps more than he's ever faced before, but as long as he's not drawn into that game & continues to focus on the issues, I expect him to come out a lot better than his opponents.
Here's what I expect to happen if it's these 3, or even 4, with an establishment Republican running, too. First the establishment Republican has no chance, & would take virtually no votes from Sanders since they have nothing in common other than not being Trump or Clinton, while splitting votes roughly equally from the other "Republican" & the other "establishment" candidate. Since Clinton would probably have an initial advantage, since she'd retain the support of loyal Democrats, Sanders would likely attain ascendancy only if Hillary falters due to critically bad news, in which case he'd be the obvious alternative for her supporters; or the extremely negative campaign hurts her too much (more than it does Sanders, obviously), but either of these scenarios has a reasonable chance of occurring. In such a case, as more & more people see Sanders as a viable choice & preferable to the 2 major party candidates, his numbers become overwhelming & he wins in a landslide, & Trump is relegated to history, the goal of the whole Democratic Party.
As counterintuitive as it may seem on the first take, Bernie running as a 3rd party candidate could be the strategy that knocks out Donald Trump, with either Hillary or Bernie as the eventual winner, particularly if they (secretly) coordinate their campaigns. But that all depends on whether they can prioritize for the good of the country the defeat of the disaster that would be a Donald Trump presidency over their own personal fortunes.