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.
Because the superdelegates have heavily influenced the voting and the pledged delegates all through the campaigning as people get tricked into believing Hillary has a far higher lead than she really has. I was all on board eliminating them early on, but when they didnt do it and instead shaped the narrative from day 1 of her "big lead in delegates", might as well try to flip them.
As said before, he joined the Democratic Party last year as a tool to fulfill his presidential ambition. He knew all the rules before he opted in. It's hypocritical to cry about it
I don't see how the system intrinsically favourable Hillary either
She fought the hard way by having to wait for 8 years for another run even though she got unprecedented 18 million votes in 2008, beating Obama handily in many major states like California Texas Florida New York Pennsylvania Ohio New Jersey Massachusetts
tool to fulfill his presidential ambition....He is the last person who is in this for himself. It becomes absurd. He lives the most humble life imaginable, he walks to work, drives on old clunker. He is 75 and could retire with his family and live a peaceful life. But he is in this for the people, and he sees the current two-party duopoly as a rigged system shutting out millions of people from the political process. By design. Public funding of elections, elimination of the electoral college and equal media time are just some ways to make the system more democratic, but the vested interests will fight for their turf.
Why should states where Sanders won still allocate the majority, if not all, of its super delegates to Clinton?
Because that was the whole point in creating Super Delegates. The Democratic party created a group who would have a say independent of the voters. They have no moral obligation to vote the way the voters in their district voted.. That's not their purpose in the nominating process. You can make the argument that the Party should get rid of Super Delegates, if you want, but they were never meant to be bound to the voters decision, that's the purpose of pledged delegates.
Quote:
If they're up for grabs they're up for grabs.
Bernie argued in the beginning that there should be no Super Delegates, and that the voters should decide who the nominee is. Now that the voters have chosen Hillary Clinton, he wants to play the same dirty games he was once against by convincing the Super Delegates to ignore the voters and give him the nomination. That's the very definition of hypocrite.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-05-2016 at 01:00 AM..
Because the superdelegates have heavily influenced the voting and the pledged delegates all through the campaigning as people get tricked into believing Hillary has a far higher lead than she really has.
Seriously? How do you know that? There's no way anyone can know that. But regardless, for whatever reason, the voters have chosen Hillary. If Bernie went in to the convention arguing that the Super D's should flip the script and give him the nod based on "what might have been" if there were no Super Delegates, he'd be laughed out.
Quote:
I was all on board eliminating them early on, but when they didnt do it and instead shaped the narrative from day 1 of her "big lead in delegates", might as well try to flip them.
My whole point is, in the beginning, Sanders was against the Super Delegates, saying it should be the voters that decide. Well, here we are and they've decided. Clinton is legitimately ahead even without the Super Delegates, so now Sanders wants to play the same dirty game that he was once against. How is that not hypocritical?
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-05-2016 at 01:29 AM..
You may have a point if Bernie had won the most votes, most states, and most pledged delegates, and the only thing standing in his way were the Super D's, but that's not the case. Hillary is winning with the people by all measures, and now it's Berne who wants to subvert that.
Here's where you got it very wrong.....the votes of the people really don't matter in a primary. That's the rules. That's a game to make people THINK they have power, but the don't because see, it's THEIR party, the Dems or Reps party, and they can pick who they want. So even if 1 person voted for hillary and 10 million voted for sander's, it's the right of the party to pick clinton. No explanations needed.
Plus you do realize before the pseudo game of the democrat voting started for the dem party primary, clinton got a bunch of pledges from delegates/superdelegates before the primary voting even started, who the people preferred?
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party’s estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."
No, pledges this early or at anytime aren't set in stone, but:
"Barring a campaign collapse, it would be unlikely for many pledged superdelegates to defect away from supporting her."
There's your system people. I'm not a fan of sander's policies but I'm VERY happy he's continuing. At least he's exposing to this nation the "rules" of "their" party. And I think regardless of what you feel about sander's, give him credit for exposing the "rules" that I bet the vast majority of people voting in the primary aren't aware of.
Here's where you got it very wrong.....the votes of the people really don't matter in a primary. That's the rules. That's a game to make people THINK they have power, but the don't because see, it's THEIR party, the Dems or Reps party, and they can pick who they want. So even if 1 person voted for hillary and 10 million voted for sander's, it's the right of the party to pick clinton. No explanations needed.
Plus you do realize before the pseudo game of the democrat voting started for the dem party primary, clinton got a bunch of pledges from delegates/superdelegates before the primary voting even started, who the people preferred?
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party’s estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."
No, pledges this early or at anytime aren't set in stone, but:
"Barring a campaign collapse, it would be unlikely for many pledged superdelegates to defect away from supporting her."
There's your system people. I'm not a fan of sander's policies but I'm VERY happy he's continuing. At least he's exposing to this nation the "rules" of "their" party. And I think regardless of what you feel about sander's, give him credit for exposing the "rules" that I bet the vast majority of people voting in the primary aren't aware of.
Wake-up time for the herd.
Yeah, you're exactly right, and now that the voting is pretty much over, and the voters themselves have chosen Hillary, who is ahead even without Super Delegates, now Bernie wants to use that same "system" to subvert the will of the voters by convincing the Super Delegates to give the nomination to him, even though he has less votes, less states, and less pledged delegates. He's such a hypocrite.
So why should Sanders get any credit for "exposing the system" now that he's trying to use that very same system to get the nomination?
Well by the end of the race if Bernie can win at least 275 of the votes in California...He'll have won one State less then Hillary and bring this race to 100 Delegates or less.
Why do you keep mentioning the number of states Bernie won? As I already wrote on another thread, Hillary has so far won 9 of the 12 most populous states in the country. Look at the list below. Bernie supporters are going crazy over his win in Indiana, but he won by less than 35,000 votes. Hillary won 1,097,400 votes in Florida to Bernie's 566,603. In Texas she won 935,080 votes to his 475,561. In Georgia, she won 71.3% of the vote with 543,008 votes to his 214,332. Then I hear "Bernie is going to win" when he gets 66,720 votes in Rhode Island, only 14,000 more than Hillary.
Hillary not only won most of the biggest states, but she won with big margins. I will highlight the states Hillary won in orange and Bernie won in purple. Calif and NJ haven't had their primaries yet. Look at how many states Bernie won in the top 12 list. Actually, when I put this together, I was surprised he only won one state in the list. However, it's obvious that Hillary has been winning in the states that have the most influence in a general election when looking at the popular vote and electoral college.
Largest US States by Population
California 37,253,956
Texas 25,145,561
New York 19,378,102
Florida 18,801,310
Illinois 12,830,632
Pennsylvania 12,702,379
Ohio 11,536,504
Michigan 9,883,640
Georgia 9,687,653
North Carolina 9,535,483
New Jersey 8,791,894
Virginia 8,001,024
Last edited by justNancy; 05-05-2016 at 02:06 AM..
Yeah, you're exactly right, and now that the voting is pretty much over, and the voters themselves have chosen Hillary, who is ahead even without Super Delegates, now Bernie wants to use that same "system" to subvert the will of the voters by convincing the Super Delegates to give the nomination to him, even though he has less votes, less states, and less pledged delegates.
So why should we give Sanders any credit for "exposing the system" now that he's trying to use that very same system to get the nomination?
I can see your point. Just a guess on my part but perhaps he's going to "show by example", right up to the end, so he can have a "full report" and show the people what it's all about, especially if from here on out he does very well in the remaining states?
Looking at the data, there are 1159 delegates "not allocated". That's a bunch not committed yet if I understand the data correctly.
It's certainly possible on the momentum end as he might have even more momentum based on his win in Indiana and CA is a big/rich delegate state coming up. So if he does well in the remaining states with a large number of not allocated delegates remaining and he's still far behind in the delegate count, he can say even more loudly......"see....they committed to her last summer, before the people even spoke/voted, I did very well yet I still have a fraction of the delegates."
The other thing he can simply be trying to do is get to the convention and show he got some good support and sway the party to adapt some of his ideas based on his support he received.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
It would be great if we could get rid of delegates, superdelegates and caucuses. Just let each voter go to the polls and vote. Period.
Thanks. I'm glad you quoted that portion of my post before I edited it to make it shorter. I guess I should have kept that sentence!
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.
