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.
It's clear that she is so unpopular that she can't even win the Democrat nomination for President without the help of the party apparatus and super delegates.
It's now mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination without them.
Obama needed superdelegates to get the nomination in 2008. That worked out great for President McCain, didn't it?
And as a matter of fact, you are wrong, Hillary Clinton could in fact get 2383 in delegates solely from pledged delegates based on what she has right now and the number of delegates that are outstanding. She doesn't need to, so it doesn't matter, but as a mathematical number, you are absolutely incorrect.
Whining about how unfair the world is isn't much of a strategy for affecting political change.
yep exactly.
And no, Hillary supporters are not complacent about the general election. As a matter of fact, they worry that the longer Bernie is being an obstinate fool who hypocritically thinks he's entitled to a nomination despite getting beaten by VOTES and PLEDGED delegates, and continues to work his supporters up into a frenzy of disrespect if not outright hatred for the Democratic nominee, he is going to bear major responsibility for creating an environment that leads to the election of Donald Trump. And yes, it will be on his head if he doesn't start changing this.
Obama needed superdelegates to get the nomination in 2008.
False argument. Obama was a one term no name Senator running against Hillary Clinton. Despite this, Obama beat flawed and weak Hillary. Now Hillary is running against a 75 year old socialist with one arm tied behind his back, should be much easier than what Obama faced, and she still can't win it.
Weak, flawed and will be wounded by the time of the convention.
False argument. Obama was a one term no name Senator running against Hillary Clinton. Despite this, Obama beat flawed and weak Hillary. Now Hillary is running against a 75 year old socialist with one arm tied behind his back, should be much easier than what Obama faced, and she still can't win it.
Weak, flawed and will be wounded by the time of the convention.
Hundreds more pledged delegates, even more committed superdelegates, millions more popular votes. You sure have an odd definition of weak.
Bernie is a zombie candidate - his refusal to concede isn't anything but sop to his own ego, with the support of Devine and Weaver and all the others making bank off this campaign. The reality is that he has lost, and his choice to stay in the race doesn't change that. And you yelling weak over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Time to tell your paymasters that this line of attack isn't working and they need to feed you some new talking points.
The DNC chairmen herself said that the super delegates were there to prevent grass roots candidate from getting into office. Hillary is so unpopular, a system rigged in her favor (can barely I should say) get her nominated.
The problem with your argument is that Hillary has received millions more votes than Bernie. Millions.
The DNC chairmen herself said that the super delegates were there to prevent grass roots candidate from getting into office. Hillary is so unpopular, a system rigged in her favor (can barely I should say) get her nominated.
oh dear. That would be bad except for the fact that it's exact opposite of what she said. The reference to grass roots candidates was in reference to delegates - and to point out that taking the party leaders out of the delegate election process meant that those slots would be available to grass roots activists and others. If you are at a caucus or looking at a ballot picking delegates, if you see Senator Whoever or Mayor Someone else vs. SomeGuyINeverHeardOf, who are you more likely to select? Party officials were getting all the delegate slots and making them automatic delegates opened those delegate slots for other people.
But again, as has been said over and over and over, since the inception of the superdelegate process, they have NEVER overturned the choice of the elected, pledged delegates. Yes, they could - and maybe if there was the Democratic equivalent of Trump, they might. But since that has never been the case, it's a non-issue and the superdelegates have consistently ratified the voice of the voters by confirming the nominee as picked by the voters and the pledged delegates.
She has ~7% more in pledged delegates. And that number keeps going down.
Not sure how your math works but my math says Hillary has 1716 to Bernie's 1433. That's 283 more, or 20% of 1433.
And she's 143 delegates away from getting 2383 and the majority of all delegates, and she will be the nominee.
Not going to repeat what I just posted to you on another thread, but this argument of yours is the only weak thing going around, not Hillary's candidacy.
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.
