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.
You can bet, if she keeps it up, the DNC will jettison the Super Delegates in 2020.
The Democrat party will never agree to this. Had this been done in 2016, and even considering the very crooked caucus system which handed Hillary a bunch of delegates, neither Hillary or Bernie would have had enough delegates to win.
So the Super Delegates picked it just like 2008, and there wasn't a snow ball's chance in hell they would give it to Bernie. They do not want to lose that control over the process.
The Democrat party will never agree to this. Had this been done in 2016, and even considering the very crooked caucus system which handed Hillary a bunch of delegates, neither Hillary or Bernie would have had enough delegates to win.
So the Super Delegates picked it just like 2008, and there wasn't a snow ball's chance in hell they would give it to Bernie. They do not want to lose that control over the process.
The Democrats do not stand a chance with Hillary or any of the other old school liberal politicians. If they were seriously thinking about winning they should look for liberals in the program Shark Tank: https://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/cast. Then after closely scrutinizing the candidate they would have an equal match for President Trump (maybe).
Unfortunately for the Democrats; they do not know how to look outside the box. They are operating like a drug user that has to bottom out; before they do any personal reassessment of their condition. It is very likely that President Trump will appoint two more Supreme Court Justices before they realize the stakes. There is a chance that 2018 will not be enough to push them over the edge? But time will tell and it has to hurt to always lose!
Sometimes I get to see posts when they are quoted even when I have the person blocked, and in this case, I had to respond.
Quote:
The Democrat party will never agree to this. Had this been done in 2016, and even considering the very crooked caucus system which handed Hillary a bunch of delegates, neither Hillary or Bernie would have had enough delegates to win.
So the Super Delegates picked it just like 2008, and there wasn't a snow ball's chance in hell they would give it to Bernie. They do not want to lose that control over the process.
If there are no superdelegates, then no, a candidate does not need to get a majority of all delegates INCLUDING superdelegates. The number of superdelegates would have been subtracted from the total number of delegates. That's like saying if we eliminate Senators as electoral college voters, so there are 100 fewer electoral college voters, but to win, a candidate would still need to get 270, except that instead of it being 270 out of 538, it would be 270 out of 438. Nope, doesn't work that way. Hillary got a majority of the non-superdelegates, which is what would have counted if there were no superdelegates.
In any case, by any possible way of calculating things, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2016, and superdelgates had zero control over the outcome - beyond providing their personal endorsements, to the extent that those influence anyone (which I am skeptical about).
Long before the race even started there were articles noting that Hillary already has X amount of delegates wrapped up. There was even a thread started here.
Those were intended to keep people from entering the race and IMO it did.
Long before the race even started there were articles noting that Hillary already has X amount of delegates wrapped up. There was even a thread started here.
Those were intended to keep people from entering the race and IMO it did.
So what. It was basically the equivalent of getting endorsements. If people wanted to support a different candidate, they were free to do so. The reality is that Bernie Sanders spent decades attacking the Democratic party - yes he caucused with them but still attacked them. No surprise that many Democratic politicians supported a different candidate, particularly one who had been working for the party and helping out hundreds of candidates over the years.
And clearly, even being the front runner to start with didn't get Hillary nominated in 2008. If someone else wanted to run in 2016, they were free to do so and see if they could pull off what Obama did in 2008.
Here an interesting and thoughtful article about Hillary. Michael Goodwin discussed why she might run and why she might (probably will?) win the nomination.
The only people hoping she runs again are right wingers. They are the ones starting the rumors. Well, maybe some Russian trolls, too. Hey, right wingers. Get over it! You guys won!
and where are you getting that information? How many Democrats do you know who don't want her to run? Most that I know do, so I think you are simply posting what you would like to believe and nothing that is factual.
Long before the race even started there were articles noting that Hillary already has X amount of delegates wrapped up. There was even a thread started here.
Those were intended to keep people from entering the race and IMO it did.
Along with the other two ways to keep people from challenging her.
1) Threaten them politically. ie) IF you run against me then the DNC won't give you money and we'll run a strong primary against you. This wouldn't work against Sanders of course given his constituency but it would against many.
2) Buy them off politically, "Don't run and you'll get to be secretary of state" type deals.
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.