Delegate Counts as of today: Hillary Clinton 409, Bernie Sanders 34, Ted Cruz 8, Donald Trump 7 (democrat, Republicans)

[lizjo]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Soros has donated $8 million for Hillary.

I'm so glad somebody mentioned this. I saw it yesterday or the day before. Why isn't anyone mentioning it? Except you, of course.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

Yes. It's all a giant scam.
Superdelegates

But the fact that you focus on one part of the scam as you put it, shows your own bias.

[fenstratpick]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

But the fact that you focus on one part of the scam as you put it, shows your own bias.

Your own bias and devotion to Hillary keeps you from seeing the truth

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

the Democratic Party grants 388 "superdelegates"
who are not beholden or constituted by any primary or caucus.
essentially, these 388 superdelegates are used to override the
votes of the people and impose a top-down result from party brass.
nobody will know whom these 388 superdelegates will vote for until
the convention, however it is suspected that they have been bought
by the Clinton campaign.

Most of them have been surveyed and they said who they'd vote for..

yeah, they could change.. but until they do.. they havent..

[biscuitmom]

Originally Posted by lizjo

I'm so glad somebody mentioned this. I saw it yesterday or the day before. Why isn't anyone mentioning it? Except you, of course.

Because it's small potatoes compared to the $15 million given to Ted Cruz by fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.

[Bureaucat]

Originally Posted by biscuitmom

Says everyone the first time they vote for a losing candidate. My awakening was in 1972, I truly thought McGovern had a fighting chance, LOL!

I voted for George as well. It was by absentee ballot from an aircraft carrier parked in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Enough said. I wasn't under any illusion that he would win, but still being there in 1972 was a travesty and I never could stomach Milhous.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by fenstratpick

Your own bias and devotion to Hillary keeps you from seeing the truth

no bias or devotion. the Democratic process didnt change from 2008 till now, then Hillary lost, now she is winning.

the only factor that changed was her winning and your hate for her rising.

[TheWiseWino]

Originally Posted by ElectionPrediction2016

If Sanders got enough delegates in enough states it is theoretically possible for him to be the Democratic nominee. But it seems unlikely he will win more than NH and VT... and even more unlikely he'll get more delegates than Clinton. First of all, he needs the black and hispanic liberal vote, and they're backing Clinton.

Goodness folks... same time, same place 11 years ago Super Delegates, women, minorities were backing Clinton, then Obama won Iowa, but lost New New Hampshire, came back and won Nevada and South Carolina and the Clinton coalition started shifting. If you can predict the electoral future you are wasting your time here and could be making millions of dollars as an election fortune teller.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

no bias or devotion. the Democratic process didnt change from 2008 till now, then Hillary lost, now she is winning.

the only factor that changed was her winning and your hate for her rising.

She is winning, but Sanders in the race will cause her to spend much of her money fighting him, rather than concentrating on beating the GOP.

[phma]

Originally Posted by biscuitmom

Says everyone the first time they vote for a losing candidate. My awakening was in 1972, I truly thought McGovern had a fighting chance, LOL!

I haven't voted for anyone yet. What a ridicules statement.