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.
If he does not get it I'm not going to the voting polls.
If you are talking about the Nov election and you really are a Democrat, then you are simply being spiteful. In the end, you only hurt yourself.
As radical as Senator Sanders seems to be, I know he would encourage every voter to go to the polls and check the box next to Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination and vice-versa.
So far people are crying about something that hasn't happened yet. I was in FL in 2008 and volunteered for a local field office. I was very upset when Obama won the nomination and, as another poster mentioned, felt the voters in my state had been treated unfairly. Still, I got over it, and then I began canvasing for Obama because I felt an Obama-Biden ticket was the best choice. If you want Trump or Cruz to be our next leader, just stay home as you will reap what you sow.
That is a very big IF, is it not? You have absolutely NO idea at this juncture who is going to win the popular vote.
Yet, you continue to spout your "Democratic elites' rhetoric.
Get back to us when the votes have been counted.
CNN said last night that IF Hillary wins every state from here on out by a 55 to 45% margin...that is winning 49 of 50 states...she even then would not have enough delegates to win, that she wouldn't be close.
...until you go to the superdelegates. That the super delegates will ultimately decide the election unless Hillary can garner massive landslides. BOOM.
Sorry, but the party elites in both parties have too much control.
CNN said last night that IF Hillary wins every state from here on out by a 55 to 45% margin...that is winning 49 of 50 states...she even then would not have enough delegates to win, that she wouldn't be close.
...until you go to the superdelegates. That the super delegates will ultimately decide the election unless Hillary can garner massive landslides. BOOM.
Sorry, but the party elites in both parties have too much control.
Wait, so you are suggesting that if Clinton wins 49 states, and the last 47 are with a 10 point margin, that superdelegates should ignore the will of the people and vote for Bernie??
Superdelegates are not bound by popular vote but that doesn't mean they aren't guided by it, or that they shouldn't ultimately contribute to the winning candidate's victory. That's how the Democratic party system was designed to work.
Someone who disagrees with that shouldn't be running for the nomination of the Democratic party.
Wait, so you are suggesting that if Clinton wins 49 states, and the last 47 are with a 10 point margin, that superdelegates should ignore the will of the people and vote for Bernie??
Superdelegates are not bound by popular vote but that doesn't mean they aren't guided by it, or that they shouldn't ultimately contribute to the winning candidate's victory. That's how the Democratic party system was designed to work.
Someone who disagrees with that shouldn't be running for the nomination of the Democratic party.
No.
What I am arguing is...is that BOTH parties give enough weight to the political elite superdelegates to make the popular vote delegates in the states not have much meaning.
Hence, as CNN pointed out yesterday...someone could win every single state by a 55 to 45 margin and not even be close to wrapping up the nomination and that it will ultimately come down to superdelegates being the decider, unless someone is winning by landslides.
Look at New Hampshire...Bernie Sanders won in a landslide (won by 22%), yet didn't get more total delegates in New Hampshire due to the political elite superdelegates breaking strong for Hillary.
Elites run both parties and it is hard to break through without elite approval.
P.S. So far the elite party super-delegates are breaking 96% (451) for Hillary and 4% (19) for Bernie. People at work keep saying this is close between Hillary and Bernie...Hillary is up in the TOTAL delegate count 502 to 70, thanks to superdelegates from our ruling elite political class.
As you hopefully know by now, superdelegates are not bound until they actually vote at the convention. However, since they are primarily current and past office holders and other party notables, they often endorse the candidate of their choice. That's essentially what has happened here - when asked who they were supporting, 400+ said Hillary, and a dozen or so said Bernie.
That doesn't mean the process is corrupt because as was shown in 2008, when pledged delegated and momentum clearly favored Obama over Hillary, many of the superdelegates switched their preference, so that their votes could contribute to Obama's delegate majority at the convention.
If Bernie has true momentum and started racking up delegates, he would still need superdelegates to go over the top as well, as it's pretty unlikely that he'd win enough just in pledged delegates as that same 55/45 break would apply to him as well. But were that to be the case, I have no doubt that superdelegates will move to support him. I just don't think that's going to happen, but even if doesn't, that doesn't indicate the vote is rigged in any way.
The reality is that with Bernie bashing "the establishment" the way he likes to, why wouldn't those establishment Democratic figures support someone else? Even with that said, they would not "steal" an election away from him if he were clearly the popular favorite among the electorate. But he hasn't come close to proving that to be the case at this point.
We're talking about the nomination process here, and it is a selection process rather than an election process.
People are having a hard time understanding the difference.
People vote, so it's an election process. Delegates vote, so once again, it's an election process. Some people in each party get more votes. That's the difference. The thing is it will come across worse for the Dems if they "select" Hillary over Sanders, when the people want Sanders. After all, the Dems have been working for voters rights. But I guess that's voters rights, only when it is Dems against Repubs?
You can talk your way out of it, but does it really matter? Consequences will follow. It's the party's choice if they want it to be sooner or later.
People vote, so it's an election process. Delegates vote, so once again, it's an election process. Some people in each party get more votes. That's the difference. The thing is it will come across worse for the Dems if they "select" Hillary over Sanders, when the people want Sanders. After all, the Dems have been working for voters rights. But I guess that's voters rights, only when it is Dems against Repubs?
You can talk your way out of it, but does it really matter? Consequences will follow. It's the party's choice if they want it to be sooner or later.
Do you presume to know that the Democrat voting public wants?
We have a long way to go. The people will speak and then we will ALL know.
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.
