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.
This is SOP for any out-of-nowhere candidate such as Sanders, and yes, it is an attempt to convince his supporters to return to the reservation. No different from what is going on in the R primary, although I will say that Clinton has a better argument (and a better chance) than Bush.
They know Bernie relies on tens of thousands of small donations from the supporters, and if many of them give up out of worrying over wasting their money, his campaign will be severely impacted.
I guess with increasing victories of Bernie, we'll hear more noises about how he will still never win, despite all.
They know Bernie relies on tens of thousands of small donations from the supporters, and if many of them give up out of worrying over wasting their money, his campaign will be severely impacted.
I guess with increasing victories of Bernie, we'll hear more noises about how he will still never win, despite all.
I've made 4 donations to Bernie and will keep giving more.
Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans “just aren’t ready” for something — and then they’re always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. They don’t want the boat rocked. They try to scare the average person into voting against their better judgment.
And now, this year “they” are claiming that there’s no way a “democratic socialist” can get elected President of the United States. That is the main talking point coming now from the Hillary Clinton campaign office.
Hillary Clinton supposedly has 440 delegates all sewed up - It’s technically possible for Clinton to win the nomination by dominating the superdelegate count even if she (narrowly) loses every state: Thanks to strict proportional allocation on the Democratic side, a candidate only gains a small delegate advantage for a small edge in primary votes.
That has never happened and unlikely to happen, but the Super Delegates actually can take away the results in the primary and give votes to a candidate of their choice - not necessarily the winner of the caucuses and primary elections. It was a major concern during the 2008 Election as Clinton had a lot of Super Delegates lined up. She has even more lined up in 2016, but not much said about it other than her totals.
The GOP does not use this sort of system - all their Delegates are pledged to follow the vote in their State. Democratic Super Delegates the Democrats devised it in 1968 at their Convention, but it finally implimented in the Mid-80's. Democrats were concerned that their new system didn’t place enough weight on electability, and believed a larger voice for politicians and formal party leaders would tilt the nomination in that direction. Super Delegates are approximately about 20% of all votes.
You might think that Bernie won that Primary - but Hillary claimed one half of the Delegates.
Democrats have no clue about how their Primaries are rigged. Keep in mind - this "plan" was sold as a way to get the Party Insiders out of the process. The Republicans need to keep a close eye on thing and make sure the GOP doesn't try the same thing.
No it's not. We've been through this in other threads.
It's about the democratic primary voters.
Whoever wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. Period.
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.