U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2017, 12:53 PM
 
Location: New York City
8,277 posts, read 6,304,102 times
Reputation: 6087

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Which is why I wrote "effectively" cast as the pledging of votes had the same stifling effect. But hey, maybe the Democrats will learn to let the Democratic process play out next time. I am doubtful though.
well said
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2017, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,205 posts, read 11,826,310 times
Reputation: 32223
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
No, and no it's not. If it was only an endorsement, we wouldn't be having this convo. And, indeed, endorsements rarely are of any consequence today in terms of getting people to vote. But these are not just mere endorsements we're talking about. These are endorsements that, while pledged, carry an outsized weight/influence in the official nominating process. What I'm calling for is a revamp of the process to reduce or eliminate the influence of party bigwigs in an official presidential nominating contest via the so called super delegate.
And I'm waiting for an explanation of how Democrat X saying "I endorse Candidate Y and will vote for them in November" is so monumentally different than saying "I endorse Candidate Y and will be casting my ballot at the DNC for him/her"

Superdelegates only have power to the extent that someone feels their opinion is important, same as if they have an endorsement without a superdelegate attached. It matters to someone who cares what they think. There is no outsized weight in the primary beyond that because they haven't overturned the results of the primary vote. They could, if it were close, but they haven't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 01:52 PM
 
5,956 posts, read 5,443,103 times
Reputation: 10600
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Which is why I wrote "effectively" cast as the pledging of votes had the same stifling effect. But hey, maybe the Democrats will learn to let the Democratic process play out next time. I am doubtful though.
No, not really since the same thing happened for Barack Obama. The superdelegates had pledged for Hillary before he even started, but by the time of the convention his momentum (and showing in the popular vote) was so strong they switched to him.

Bernie had a lot of enthusiasm among the young, the far left leaning and working class rust-belt democrats. But, he was crushed in the South, among centrist democrats, and among African Americans over 30 or so. By the time he got to the last part of the race he had lost the popular vote. So superdelegates didn't switch.

I like Bernie BUT he didn't win over enough Democrat voters. It was a great effort but he really should have done more to reach the African-American community. The wikileaks emails showed the party faithful didn't like him and even tossed around ideas on how to stop him, but in the end most of the stuff they talked about they didn't do. It wasn't the DNC's doing IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,348 posts, read 11,562,324 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina View Post
No, not really since the same thing happened for Barack Obama. The superdelegates had pledged for Hillary before he even started, but by the time of the convention his momentum (and showing in the popular vote) was so strong they switched to him.

Bernie had a lot of enthusiasm among the young, the far left leaning and working class rust-belt democrats. But, he was crushed in the South, among centrist democrats, and among African Americans over 30 or so. By the time he got to the last part of the race he had lost the popular vote. So superdelegates didn't switch.

I like Bernie BUT he didn't win over enough Democrat voters. It was a great effort but he really should have done more to reach the African-American community. The wikileaks emails showed the party faithful didn't like him and even tossed around ideas on how to stop him, but in the end most of the stuff they talked about they didn't do. It wasn't the DNC's doing IMO.
It was not momentum, Barack Obama had simply won more pledged delegates. Bernie was never close to making that argument other than the first 3 weeks of the primary after he had won New Hampshire.

After Super Tuesday, I dont think he came with in 100 delegates of Clinton again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 02:17 AM
 
39,336 posts, read 20,404,136 times
Reputation: 12792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Why? Because Hillary got caught cheating him so his supporters just couldn't vote for her and stayed home?

There are MUCH greater factors IMO the main one being how so many people touted that she had it in the bag so both Hillary and her supporters coasted down the stretch.

Another would be the bitter, racially charged 2008 primary that left a lot of black voters with negative opinions of her. The Obama camp did a masterful job of painting Hillary supporters as racists and it stuck to her like stink.
Hey I hear Michelle Obama said that any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice yet it was ok when Obama was running against Hillary. This woman can't stand either of them and they certainly don't talk for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 06:58 AM
 
79,559 posts, read 33,708,686 times
Reputation: 15951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
How do I figure?


But for Bernie's existence, Hillary Clinton would be president.
You are assuming that those who supported Bernie would have simply thrown away every principle they own and supported Hillary.

That's simply not true. If it wasn't Sanders, it would have been someone else. You can't run a lying POS war monger that has been bought off by Wall Street and expect people to vote for her simply over a couple social issues that she has little real care for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 07:59 AM
 
7,328 posts, read 3,780,494 times
Reputation: 3803
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You are assuming that those who supported Bernie would have simply thrown away every principle they own and supported Hillary.

That's simply not true. If it wasn't Sanders, it would have been someone else. You can't run a lying POS war monger that has been bought off by Wall Street and expect people to vote for her simply over a couple social issues that she has little real care for them.
Which war did she monger us into?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 04:02 AM
 
79,559 posts, read 33,708,686 times
Reputation: 15951
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Which war did she monger us into?
She supported them all.

Hillary the Hawk: A History | Foreign Policy

She argued we should start shooting down Russian planes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:43 PM
 
79,559 posts, read 33,708,686 times
Reputation: 15951
Long watch and I realize that few will take the time but a good watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=V8ERFwZoPXE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,205 posts, read 11,826,310 times
Reputation: 32223
Quote:
The presidential candidacy of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has excited many liberals throughout the country, but there's been very little analysis of his foreign policy positions. This past Sunday, Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster."

Sanders' assertion about Clinton is true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with just as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance that caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.
ELECTION 2016: Bernie Sanders' Troubling History of Supporting U.S. Military Violence Abroad
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:27 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top