[ascagnel_]

Yes, the DNC uses superdelegates, which is an undemocratic part of the process. But in both 2016 and 2020, Sanders did poorly enough in the regular primaries that the number of superdelegates was irrelevant to the final outcome.

As much as I hate to say it, and as someone who very much would like to have seen Sanders win either of those primaries, much of America is further to the right than Sanders, and seemingly have no desire to learn the difference between social democracy and socialism.

[dragonwriter]

> Yes, the DNC uses superdelegates, which is an undemocratic part of the process. But in both 2016 and 2020, Sanders did poorly enough in the regular primaries that the number of superdelegates was irrelevant to the final outcome.

Superdelegates who had made public announcements were, through 2016, usually counted in running delegate counts by media and not distinguished from pledged delegates. Because the perception of winning votes is...actually, empirically, a powerful means of winning more votes, this meant the superdelegates were a significant influence on winning pledged delegates.

Because Sanders did so well in 2016, his faction won major concessions in DNC rules, including the erasing of first-ballot superdelegate voting rights (well, in the circumstances where they could matter). As a result, their collective thumbs were lifted off the nominating process in 2020 (now, Sanders did worse in 2020 anyway, both the situation and the field of primary candidates were different.)