Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings

In the "Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings" section it states "On December 19, a panel led by Thomas R. Pickering and Michael Mullen issued its report on the matter. It was sharply critical of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment.[372] "

I believe that stating that the State Department ignored requests does not show the magnitude and scale in which the requests were ignored.

During the hearing on October 22, 2015 it was pointed out by Representative Mike Pompeo that there were over 600 security requests related to Benghazi and Libya in 2012 leading up to the Benghazi attack. This was not disputed by Secretary Clinton.

I believe it should read: On December 19, a panel led by Thomas R. Pickering and Michael Mullen issued its report on the matter. It was sharply critical of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring over 600 requests for more guards and safety upgrades and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment.[372]

Or possibly read: On December 19, a panel led by Thomas R. Pickering and Michael Mullen issued its report on the matter. It was sharply critical of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment.[372] At later Congressional hearing on October 22, 2015, it was pointed out by Rep. Mike Pompeo that over 600 security requests security requests related to Benghazi and Libya in 2012 were sent to the State Department. Hillary Clinton testified that not one of them reached her desk. Ref for the 600+ requests: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/more-600-benghazi-security-requests-never-reached-clintons-desk-reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.171.252.239 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot accept the extreme right wing CNS News website as a reliable source. Also, this article is a biography of Hillary Clinton, not an article about the United States Department of State. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post has an article about this, but they suggest the figure may not tell the whole story. In fairness, this was the fog of war, as she suggested.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The original article contains the video of the specific testimony at the hearing. Is the congressional hearing video right-wing? The Washington post reference to "fog of war" seems odd since the 600 requests for increased security occurred over the 8 month period leading up to the attack. I do not recall that the United States was at war with Libya. The biography already mentions the neglect of addressing security requests. When reading it, do we think that people should not know the extent? Was it one request for improved security? was it 600? Does the truth matter? I believe that a biography of Hillary Clinton should reflect the truth and not rewrite history by leaving one of the most significant pieces of information about the subject matter out of the equation. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8101:2E36:5181:F60D:BD0:9D21 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the hearing was pretty right wing, since it was essentially a fruitless Republican witch hunt. It's a Nothing Burger with Fries, not "significant pieces of information" at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A Young Republican or College Republican?

The article says she was the "president of the Wellesley Young Republicans" in college. Should that not be changed to the College Republicans?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The College Republicans and the Young Republicans are two different, if similiar and sometimes intertwined, organizations. The best sources I've seen say she was in the Young Republicans – see this NYT story, or this from Hillary's memoir. The Bernstein and the Gerth/Van Natta biographies also say Young Republicans. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

dangling modifier

The lede has this: "As First Lady of the United States, her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan of 1993, failed to reach a vote in Congress." This is a dangling modifier.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you- MrX 12:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote vs Superdelegates in primaries

Because it got a ton of media attention, I slightly adjusted the article to specifically mention the fact that Clinton lost the popular vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary and provided a reference for it (there are dozens to choose from). This was inexplicably reverted first by an editor who may as well be called "IRevertScjessey'sEdits", and then by someone else for no apparent reason than a desire to revert a reverted revert with a stern edit summary. Certainly, the matter of popular votes vs delegates/superdelegates is getting a lot of play in the media, so what do other editors think? Should we be content with having the article say Clinton "lost" the NH primary without noting this loss was only in the popular vote? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders won the NH primary. Period. Not just the popular vote. Yes, Clinton may end up with the same number of delegates from New Hampshire. But that is not because of the primary election. Those delegates were decided prior the the primary. They can change their decision after the primary. They have nothing to do with the primary. Who agrees with me? The DNC : "WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Let me just make sure I can clarify what was available during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support and they receive a proportional number of delegates going into our convention." Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are many, many articles (example) and TV discussions (not to mention angry Sanders supporters) talking about how Clinton came away from New Hampshire with the same number of delegates. I think the distinction is important, just as it was important in the 2008 primaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it has gotten coverage and should be mentioned, but NOT in any way that explicitly or implicitly is saying she won part of the primary. Also, it should be made clear that while those delegates have currently promised their support to Clinton, they are not bound to do so, could on a whim switch to Sanders (or Biden for that matter) and only their action during the actual convention matter. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate paragraph from the primaries itself just saying that she went into primary season with X promised superdelegate support. That it caused controversy at the NH primary. As the issue grows (or not) and people swap (or not) that paragraph can be used to contain the stuff relevant to super delegates. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My edit simply said Clinton lost the popular vote and included a reference for that. The edit said nothing whatsoever about delegates, and I pointedly stated in the edit summary that the matter of delegates too much for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not going to get into the delegate count and such, but why are we updating the article for each primary contest? That seems to me to be stupid and 'not the news' territory. The main article can reflect the outcome after the primaries, until then if you want to update the results use the proper articles. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Coverage of every primary doesn't belong in the main article; that's why there's an article on the campaign. And speculation on whether superdelegates will overturn the primary vote is a crystal ball claim. It doesn't belong here. Jonathunder (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any speculation about superdelegates in this article. WP:CRYSTAL applies to articles, not talk pages. It is only mentioned here for context. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit implying that Clinton won the delegate vote (as opposed to the popular vote) was such speculation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The edit simply said Clinton lost the popular vote. Delegates are not mentioned at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So it is your assertion that "She lost the primary" and "she lost the popular vote" mean the same thing? If so, why are you fighting over the change? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my assertion is. I was simply stating the facts in a more accurate way than the article had earlier. If there is a consensus for inaccuracy, I'll acquiesce. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In what way is your version more accurate? Sanders won both the popular vote, and the delegates that are related to the primary. By saying he only won the popular vote, you are introducing an inaccurate implication. The superdelegates have nothing to do with the primary. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the reliable source I added as a reference, "Bernie Sanders may have crushed Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire popular vote, but thanks to superdelegates, Clinton will leave New Hampshire with the same number of delegates as Sanders." She won 6 of the 8 New Hampshire superdelegates, which means the primary is technically tied at the moment. The article goes on to say: "Contrary to what some progressive groups who are supporting Sen Sanders are suggesting in their emails to supporters, superdelegates aren’t a trick to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is just completely wrong then (and I think you know that). Nobody "won" any super-delegates. they are a completely separate process from the primaries. We will not know who "won" their votes until the actual convention. (Although as I said above, I do think the superdelegate issue should be discussed, just not in a way that implies it happened because of the primary) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong. New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates that are specific to New Hampshire. 6 of these pledged their support to Clinton, and 2 are unpledged. Exactly the same thing happened in the 2008 election, on several occasions. It's been this way since the mid '80s. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders currently have the same number of New Hampshire delegates. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree 100% with that statement. But that statement is not what you put into the article. For the sake of argument lets say the 2 unpledged also go Clinton. Now clinton has more NH delegates. Still, Bernie won the primary. Period. No qualification needed. Of the total delegates, some come from the primary, some are superdelegates. They are unrelated processes that taken together allocate NH's delegates. But the superdelegates have nothing to do with the primary at all. This is somewhat self-evident, since we knew about those 6 pledges prior to the primary. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The source has it right because contrary to Scjessey's assertion above it doesn't say she won the supers.--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that this is confusing. It makes it sound like the American people elected Sanders, but the Democratic establishment stole their votes to give them to Hillary via the superdelegates. I don't know for sure, but that seems unlikely. It would definitely turn all voters against the DNC--the establishment no doubt knows better. Besides, that would look particularly bad for the upcoming South Carolina primary, as so many SC voters remember that their great-grandparents were not allowed to vote in that state. So in short: I don't think that is correct; the DNC will probably rectify their superdelegates to match the will of the American people. But I agree that it is confusing. So let's leave it out until it becomes clear.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates is an issue that goes way beyond Clinton and the New Hampshire primary. It could blow up and become a big issue if Sanders or Trump win their respective primaries on the popular vote but lose due to superdelegates or a brokered nomination; alternately, it may well be a moot point as it has in every election until now (I think). It's a little early to tell. We can always revisit this later. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: I agree with you that it may be too early to tell. The problem is that User:Scjessey was also correct to point out that the press published articles suggesting Sanders won the popular vote and the DNC gave the election to HRC via the superdelegates. Frankly, this looks bad. It makes it look like the DNC does not value the votes cast by the American people. Did the DNC send a press release about the superdelegates just after the NH primary results? This could explain the confusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Early in the primaries process, and especially in the initial Iowa - New Hampshire - Nevada - South Carolina sequence, vote totals and wins and margins are very important because you're trying to convince everyone that you're a viable candidate with a legitimate chance to win the nomination, and thus gain political momentum, media attention, additional contributors, endorsements, etc. At this stage actual delegates are not that important. Later in the process, actual delegates become critical. The inflection point is usually on or fairly soon after the Super Tuesday primaries. So New Hampshire was a big win for Sanders, regardless of how the actual delegates shook out. Similarly, Kasich's second place was a huge difference compared to Rubio's fifth place, even though the delegate difference between them was only one or two. So there is no point in adding a 'popular vote' qualifier to the New Hampshire description here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we know who these delegates and superdelegates are?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The superdelegates are known. They are various party officials. For the most part they aren't notable, except that they get to make up their own mind on who to vote for. The other delegates are nobodies selected during the primary to represent their district. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a list of the superdelegates?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016--ICat Master (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this list likely to change (WP:CRYSTAL) if the superdelegates realize that the people disagree with them? Or is this list definitive? In other words, if the governors and congresspeople who are backing Clinton realize that they will lose their re-elections if they vote against the will of their constituents, can they change their minds and vote for Sanders instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Going purely by what has happened in past elections, it is unusual for delegates to switch until the convention; however, if Bernie Sanders ends up with a "regular" delegate lead by the time of the convention, expect a dramatic change with all of Clinton's superdelegates switching to Sanders. I'm actually starting to change my mind on this, and withdraw my suggestion that we need to distinguish between "wins" and "popular vote wins" on this article; however, I think it might still be worth doing in the election article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We should just say that Sanders won the primary since that is what happened. As a result of winning the primary he received more of the delegates that were elected in the primary. These delegates by law must vote for their candidates in the convention. Superdelegates have nothing to do with the primaries. They are delegates because they hold elected offices and are free to vote however they wish. Some news media are adding superdelegates to the delegate count as each state holds a primary or caucus, while others include them from the start. And indeed superdelegates can and do switch, as they did 8 years ago. If Sanders decisively beats Clinton, most of them will switch to him. TFD (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: Is it fair to say that Clinton won nothing at all in New Hampshire, since the superdelegates will only cast their votes at the DNC Convention on July 25–28, 2016? I doubt New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan, who endorsed Clinton, will still want to risk being forced to resign over this. Similarly, I doubt New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster will want to lose their re-election bids simply for their superdelegate votes. Have any of them said publicly they would switch their votes to reflect the will of the American people yet? Don't you think Joanne Dowdell and Billy Shaheen, who seem to be unelected party officials, should have their own Wikipedia articles? Kathy Sullivan, another unelected party official, has one.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

She did not win anything in the primary.As TFD said, she won 9. Plus she (currently) has superdelegates who support her from NH, but not as a result of the primary. The rest of your comment is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR speculation unfit for the article. She has their support now. They might change in the future (lots of clinton's superdelegates switched to Obama in 08). If they do, we can talk about it then. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Hillary Clinton won 9 delegates and Sanders won 15. 6 superdelegates have said they would vote for her; 2 are undecided. Obviously there will be political consequences no matter what they ultimately decide. If you want a reasoned explanation about what they might do, see Nate Silver's "Superdelegates Might Not Save Hillary Clinton."[1] TFD (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is very confusing. In any case, when are their decisions/votes final/definitive? In other words, when is the deadline for the superdelegates to vote/appoint their preferred candidate? Is it at the DNC Convention on July 25–28, 2016, or can their votes be locked in prior to that?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, the convention. although there are possibly multiple rounds at the convention, so they could change their mind between rounds. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the pro-Clinton NH superdelegates has an interesting past.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Bundy was a Rockefeller delegate. But it is only important if the media decide it is. TFD (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think Joanne Dowdell and Billy Shaheen would pass AFD attempts? One is a failed political candidate; the other one is a lawyer and the former co-chair of Clinton's failed 2008 presidential bid. But they both have much more power than the American people because they are NH superdelegates. I think creating stubs should be fairly quick and easy.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Very unlikely that they meet WP:NPOL for presumed notability, so they would have to meet WP:GNG. While I'm sure one can find many passing mentions of them, are there in-death articles where the topic of the article is them? If not, they would not pass AFD. My gut feeling is no, but it would depend on if sources are available.Gaijin42 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Billy Shaheen is the most famous (or infamous) of the two, and he was appointed as United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (William A. Shaheen) by Jimmy Carter: Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, Washington Free Beacon, Slate, Full interview in the NH Business Review, Bio on his law firm website, etc... Joanne Dowdell wanted to make history but retreated, and she won't switch her vote to reflect the will of the American people. So, what do you think? Sufficiently notable?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

They would be deleted assuming editors followed policies and it is a bad idea to create articles about people when we lack sufficient reliable sources to write an article beyond a stub. There are no articles about them, merely about things they have done. Where and when were they born, who were their parents, where and when were they educated, who are their spouses and children, what jobs did they hold and what were the dates, what have the critics said about their published articles? TFD (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

FYI, in South Carolina, Clinton has another unelected mystery superdelegate, Kaye Koonce.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly fruitful game to play. You could just as easily question Erin Bilbray, Reni Erdos, Chad Nodland, who are unelected Bernie Sanders superdelegates. bd2412 T 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider the context. Look at the List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016: Clinton has 424 and Sanders 14! It's not democracy; it's kleptomania (allegedly). It's like she's the average CEO and he's the average worker...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If the superdelegate system is corrupt, then why doesn't Sanders renounce his? Why does Sanders seem perfectly content to have this system in place? bd2412 T 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you google "Bernie Sanders superdelegates", there are tons of articles against it. There's also a petition with over 120,000 signatures apparently. I am not sure if either candidate has talked about it publicly at this stage.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We are getting pretty deep in the weeds here. This level of speculation and conspiracy theorism is not fit for the BLP article but as a biography, it has very little relevance. Clinton is benefiting from the system, but she did not create the system. It could be worked into the election articles, where there has been plenty of well sourced notable speculation on its effect in the election. I think bernie is unlikely to raise a stink about it right now, because to do so implies he thinks the race will be close enough that that will matter - a losing strategy for building enthusiasm. Bernies objections would be raised closer to the convention. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: It's not us. This is not a Wiki-rant. There are tons of articles against it on Google (literally pages of Google News results). There's a petition with over 120,000 signatures against it. There's no speculation or vast right-wing conspiracy; those are facts. I don't think we should censor what's happening.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring more to your boogey-man references to the various "mystery superdelegates" etc. As I said, I think discussion about the superdelegate issue and how it could swing a close election is fine in the election articles. It is indeed a notable topic in the election. But its not a notable part of Hillary's biography. She did not set up the superdelegate system. If she wanted to get rid of it, she couldn't. The most she could do is make a public statements saying "vote for who you want". Its not a notable part of her BLP. Yet. That could change in the future.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we don't have much more to add until the candidates have addressed the furore/petition. Strictly speaking, the superdelegates are already free to vote for who they want at the DNC Convention--but whoever picked them (the establishment?) must have known they would overwhelmingly vote for Clinton? I feel sorry for her--this makes her look bad.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it makes a candidate look bad that a group of people who are likely to be more informed about the breadth of issues than the average voter are supporting the candidate they feel is best suited to handle that breadth of issues? bd2412 T 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this. The 121,508 people who have signed the petition against it, and the countless journalists who have reported on it, think it makes her look bad. It makes it sound like, "All animals are equal, but..."Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The petitioners are morons. The superdelegates weren't picked because "they would overwhelmingly vote for Clinton". The superdelegate system was put in place in the '80s, and if anything its role has been gradually diminished since then as the number of unpledged delegates has been reduced at each recent election. There are a handful of "party elders" (ex-presidents, etc) plus the members of Congress, governors and then the elected members of the DNC. Clinton enjoys more support from superdelegates because she isn't promising every American their own unicorn. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's your own opinion. Nobody knows how the superdelegates were picked, and why them instead of others?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You do realize, don't you, that Bernie Sanders is a superdelegate? bd2412 T 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not an opinion. The system for picking superdelegates is well known. In fact, I partially explained it earlier. The superdelegates consist of all the Democratic governors, all the Democratic members of Congress, POTUS, VPOTUS and then party officials (DNC members and party chairs, most of whom are elected by the Democrat party members of each state). Candidates have no control over who superdelegates are. It's a well understood system that isn't mysterious at all. If people made the effort to inform themselves about such things, we wouldn't have this "nobody knows who they are" crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

p10 of this source describes how the superdelegates are picked. Scjessey is right in that the vast majority of the superdelegates are not "chosen" at all. They are automatically in due to being elected by the public into positions of trust. There are some others that due seems to have more personal choice on the part of the state chair if those "automatic" superdelegates wasn't their full quota, but that seems like a very small percentage, and it would certainly get into WP:OR to try and figure out which delegates were which . https://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not OR. We have a list. The American people are not stupid. Joanne Dowdell for example ran for office and dropped out of the race. She's now said she would vote against the will of the American people. Who picked her over other failed political candidates?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a list? You know who else had a list? Hitler. bd2412 T 21:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The NH state party. She did not say she will vote against the will of the American people. She said she currently supports Clinton. The will of the American people is unknown at this point, and if it turns out the will is for Bernie, she can change her support. She did the last election. You need to step of the soap box. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The will of the American people, in New Hampshire, is overwhelmingly for Sanders. And I meant List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016. Sanders lost his paternal uncle in the Holocaust; I don't think User:BD2412's joke was appropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The democratic party is free or not free to set up whatever rules it wants. If the people don't support those rules, they are free to leave the party and vote in a different primary, or write in, or whatever. Maybe the rules are dumb. Maybe they will change. But its not an issue for Hillary's BLP. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: Again, that's your opinion, I have no opinion. There is a petition signed by 121,659 Americans (and counting) who are against this rather curious superdelegate setup, alongside three pages of Google News articles about it. It would be rather curious to redact all this from Wikipedia. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I said we should talk about this in the election articles? Multiple times? How many of those soures say that this is something Clinton did or has any control over? Its not an issue for her blp. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This thread about the superdelegates was started here by someone else; I didn't start it. In any case, I am not sure if this is a vast left-wing conspiracy (lighten up!). I don't have much to add for the time being; we'll see what happens when the candidates address the petition, etc. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is more: Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, who is a superdelegate, has decided to let the people decide on his website. That's one out of hundreds, but it seems notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A single delegate doing this probably is not notable enough for inclusion anywhere except Grayson's own article. If this becomes a wave where many people do it, it could go into the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. If it ends up being relevant to why someone wins or loses the nomination, then it could go into their own campaign articles (and perhaps, but unlikely, their BLP article). But with one guy its a drop in the bucket compared to the total delegates, or even the other super delegates Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many more articles about it now though, and even MSNBC has covered it. And the online petition has over 174,000 signatures. But I am not sure if HRC herself has talked about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the general question of superdelegate fairness, and the petition would be appropriate to cover in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)