Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually it's an open Primary. Texans don't register or affiliate with a party.
Other than that, you're right but still it's comparable in that Hilary supporters felt robbed. For the record, I'm a Texan who voted and caucused for Obama in 2008. During the caucus, I had friends and neighbors who supported Clinton. The room was hot and overcrowded and it went on for hours but we remained friends and good neighbors. No hard feelings.
In those days MSM and social media didn't go all hate-crazy. The Clinton campaign rightly protested the results and eventually the Texas Dem party ruled against her protest. It was all very civil, Texas Dems who had supported Clinton went on to support Obama in the general.
My mistake, got it from Green Papers (which I generally think is the best site out there to explain the Primary rules and Delegate process), but even they make mistakes from time to time.
What business is it of Americans how the Democratic Party establishes its internal rules? As for the " dreaded Super Delegates they are party officials who have been elected by Democrats to make the best decisions that they deem to be in the best interest of the Democratic Party.
At the end of the day, this is what it really comes down to. The DNC is not a branch of the government, it's a political organization whose primary reason for being is to nominate candidates to run for public office whose ideals mesh with those of the organization's platform. If they want to set up their nomination system to favor a candidate who is an established member of the party over an interloper, that's their right. Anyone who has a problem with it should either ditch the party or get involved in party leadership and work to change it rather than just whining about it on an internet message board.
I didn't say the system was right or fair, in fact if you read my entire post you will see that I conceded that possibility. In fact, I'll go on record right now as saying it should be changed so that the candidate is fully elected by the people with no individual's vote carrying more weight than another. Happy?
I was simply refuting another posters claim that the system was specifically rigged so that Hillary would win. It's not. It was in place years before she thought about running.
All that being said, I wonder how many Sanders supporters would be up in arms about this if the superdelegate poll results were skewed toward Bernie?
There shouldn't be any super delegates
These votes should have gone to Bernie if they followed the will of the people
But that would make first point more valid
Super delegates need to be done away with period. Both parties.
Here's what has happened. Moonbats created an entitlement class that expects more and more. Now they find someone willing to give them even more freebies. The head moonbats can't let someone from the outside promising tons of freebies they will
Never be able to deliver let alone not support making them richer in office. Hence, super delegates.
Bernie won by a huge margin, yet she gets the meaningful delegates that determine who gets the party nomination.
Okay, for about the five millionth time........ She hasn't "gotten" a single superdelegate. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Superdelegates cast their votes at the convention in July. In November of last year, the Associated Press surveyed the superdelegates as to who they expected to support. With Hillary carrying a commanding lead in the polls at that time, six of the eight superdelegates from New Hampshire answered that they would cast their votes for Clinton.
The answers to the survey are not binding in any way; they can change their minds, and often do. Especially when the other candidate does well in their state's primary, as Sanders did.
So my advice would be to take a chill pill and focus on doing what you can to help your candidate win as many binding delegates as possible and stop getting hung up on this stupid superdelegate crap.
there shouldn't be any super delegates these votes should have gone to bernie if they followed the will of the people
but that would make first point more valid
The superdelegate votes haven't gone to anybody yet! They won't be cast until the national convention in july! When they are cast they likely will follow the will of their constituents!
Please educate yourselves as to how the process works!
Okay, for about the five millionth time........ She hasn't "gotten" a single superdelegate. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Superdelegates cast their votes at the convention in July. In November of last year, the Associated Press surveyed the superdelegates as to who they expected to support. With Hillary carrying a commanding lead in the polls at that time, six of the eight superdelegates from New Hampshire answered that they would cast their votes for Clinton.
The answers to the survey are not binding in any way; they can change their minds, and often do. Especially when the other candidate does well in their state's primary, as Sanders did.
So my advice would be to take a chill pill and focus on doing what you can to help your candidate win as many binding delegates as possible and stop getting hung up on this stupid superdelegate crap.
Great point. I'm supporting Sanders, and I'm not thrilled with the Superdelegate process, and do have some concerns. With that being said, nothing is set in stone at this point. A superdelegate coming out in support of a candidate doesn't tie them to that candidate until the Convention actually happens. Superdelegates can and have changed.
Superdelegates haven't overrode the delegates won during the Primary and Caucus process at the Convention and unless that actually happens throwing fits about the what could possibly happen doesn't do much, but make people paranoid.
Fact of the matter is Sanders won N.H 15-9, Iowa is not set in stone yet, but appears to be 23-21 in favor of Clinton or perhaps 22-22. So out of the delegates tied to the vote so far it is likely either 36-32 or 37-31 in favor of Sanders. Clinton has a huge Superdelegate advantage as of now, but that certainly can change and that is far from being set.
Okay, for about the five millionth time........ She hasn't "gotten" a single superdelegate. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Superdelegates cast their votes at the convention in July. In November of last year, the Associated Press surveyed the superdelegates as to who they expected to support. With Hillary carrying a commanding lead in the polls at that time, six of the eight superdelegates from New Hampshire answered that they would cast their votes for Clinton.
The answers to the survey are not binding in any way; they can change their minds, and often do. Especially when the other candidate does well in their state's primary, as Sanders did.
So my advice would be to take a chill pill and focus on doing what you can to help your candidate win as many binding delegates as possible and stop getting hung up on this stupid superdelegate crap.
Great point. I'm supporting Sanders, and I'm not thrilled with the Superdelegate process, and do have some concerns. With that being said, nothing is set in stone at this point. A superdelegate coming out in support of a candidate doesn't tie them to that candidate until the Convention actually happens. Superdelegates can and have changed.
Superdelegates haven't overrode the delegates won during the Primary and Caucus process at the Convention and unless that actually happens throwing fits about the what could possibly happen doesn't do much, but make people paranoid.
Fact of the matter is Sanders won N.H 15-9, Iowa is not set in stone yet, but appears to be 23-21 in favor of Clinton or perhaps 22-22. So out of the delegates tied to the vote so far it is likely either 36-32 or 37-31 in favor of Sanders. Clinton has a huge Superdelegate advantage as of now, but that certainly can change and that is far from being set.
The problem is that, as I said, the SDs (tired of typing Superdelegate) were polled way back when Hillary was dominating the polls. The ones who indicated that they would support Clinton did so because it appeared at the time that their constituency was supporting her.
The reasonable assumption is that when the final lots are cast in July, the SDs tied to a state will likely vote along the lines of how their constituents voted. Assuming both candidates stay in the race until then, of course.
I probably let this bother me too much, but I just wish people would take a little time to educate themselves about how the system works before spouting off irrationally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why did HRC get all the super delegates in NH?
