Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nfl46, Mar 15, 2016.
So whats The problem?
That without a close race, the superdelegates will probably side with Hillary.
I'm just passing along the article to people on this forum. Feel free to read it. It's a lot more in depth.
By the way, Sanders came out against super delegates a while ago, now plans to beg them for their vote to win the nomination.
Through him? He's the only chance Democrats have against Wall Street scum.
Pretty much. If it isn't close to 50/50, they won't have a real incentive to switch over.
The super delegates have been bought and paid for by Clinton. There is no chance of them switching.
....See through him?
I get that your rabidly for Hillary, whom I will vote for if I have to. But you honestly think Sanders is not the real deal on the issues he's trying to bring up to the American people? Seriously?
I hope you're ready to implement his agenda, if he doesn't get the nomination Sanders will be by far the most powerful and influential Senator in the country with massive coattails to boot.
I'm confused by your wording, are you seriously against Sander''s ideas? I've been assuming up to this point that Hillary supporters genuinely want the system changed in this country but are going with Hillary because she is easier to get into office. You're wording here makes it seem like you actually want the country to only nibble at the edges of solving massive systemic issues. Is that the case?
Let's not make this about me. Read the article and move on. Thanks. I'll do others a favor and erase what I said and lead by example.
No, you don't get to dictate how the conversation goes. I've had an incredibly hard time understanding where you are coming from. I get that you are pro hillary, but It seems you are actually against the ideas that Bernie supports rather than trying to achieve the same goals "pragmatically" through Clinton, is that not the case?
The Sanders campaign is doing what needs to be done inside the corrupt Democratic party to change it, I don't see the problem here.
To be honest, I'd rather not go back and forth with someone about Sanders. At this point in the race, I'm ready to turn my focus to Trump/Clinton. Sanders is done, and you and I back and forth exchange over him is as well. Now, lets move on and get back on topic. No one is interested in us bickering over this. Thanks.
I say let it rip however it goes.
If the superdelegates mess with the establishment's pick that's one thing, although it's unusual. I don't see it happening in 2016, not because there isn't populist pressure on the establishment, but because the machine is pretty strong for having worked towards Clinton as the 2016 pick for a long time.
But if the superdelegates are seen to suppress the people's pick, that's another thing and may suppress turnout in the fall. Then there's a lesson to be learned about superdelegates stepping on their own base.
If the Dems do drop the idea of superdelegates then they risk being unable to dampen a populist wave from fringe left or fringe right in the party. A political party does have to remember that getting what it wants in a primary does not necessarily translate well to winning on the national stage. This is the dilemma the Republicans have been facing for years now. The GOP tried to remedy this for 2016 by figuring ok way to go is get behind a leading candidate earlier to shorten exposure of intra-party bickering. So GOP decides to make all their races from March 15 forward into winner-take-all.
And what happens in 2016? The GOP has a huge field in the beginning, this guy Trump shows up and is ignored while the field slowly slowly winnows out with proportional delegates being allocated... and then Trump starts looking like a problem... and before March 15 he's seen as a big problem, and on March 15 he takes Florida for the whole 99 delegates and everything from here on out is winner take all for the GOP too. That's before their superdelegate thing which is different from the Democrats' superdelegate constructions, and less influential.
Lesson: the more you mess around with trying to manage primaries in favor of the establishment, the more you may find yourself surprised by getting what you thought you wanted per the rules, but not getting what you wanted per the resulting nominee or leading candidate(s). Lesson applies not only to superdelegates but to the allocation of pledged delegates as well, and to the rules for releasing them in stages at the convention.
I think you lack integrity if you oppose much of what Hillary stands for and believe in Sanders vision but the would vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
That makes you part of the problem and why American politics is in shambles and controlled by a few bought and paid for rich elites in 2 parties.
But if the GOP's candidate espouses a set of policies you very strongly disagree with, why would you not try to use your vote to prevent that person from gaining the office?
I'm not happy with the idea of voting for Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders in November. I think Clinton can do the job and do it well, but on policy implementation strategy I distrust her independence from her husband and I distrust the influences of the people around him, from his prior administration and from his time with his foundation.
Completely overriding that dislike is the fact that I do not want the Republicans to have control of the White House and the Congress. They have espoused positions on the environment, taxation, foreign policy, social safety net, health care, public health and education that I disagree with profoundly. I probably left something out, too. The list is practically all-inclusive, but if the GOP likes the Senate cafeteria's recipe for navy bean soup, I'm with them on that 100%.
So if voting for Clinton because I don't want her Republican counterpart to win demonstrates a lack of integrity on my part, and a support of establishment politics, so be it. At least it's the Dem establishment. The day I support the GOP's 2016 platform is the day after someone planted a new chip in my brain.
Hillary has 1132 pledged delegates without the superdelegates factored in. Sanders has 818 of the same. Hillary has 467 supers (granted by Debbie Washerwoman-Schlitz) for a total of 1599 delegates. Sanders has been awarded only 26 superdelegates for a total of 844 delegates. Flip the super distribution and Hillary would have 1158 and Bernie would have 1285. Bernie would be winning based on the actual popular vote. It's a cynical hustle, a game of 3-Card Monte over there in the unDemocratic Party. In their vile corruption, the DNC may foist Trump upon the nation.
It ain't over until the balloons fall out of the ceiling. There are races yet to be won and states with proportional allocations still to be divvied up. Bernie can't win if he just keeps getting half the votes but he's getting way more votes in way more states than anyone had anticipated. The superdelegates follow the races, they see how it goes for the candidates. They can shift their votes if they think it's appropriate.
Calm down. We will need you to count the balloons since you're good with numbers.
Democrat 2016 Popular Vote:
Hillary - 8,651,128
Bernie - 6,111,918
+2,539,210 in favor of Hillary
I love how you tried to flip the narrative and give Bernie 467 and Hillary 26. Maybe if Bernie wasn't busy being an Independent for all these years he would have the Super Delegates on his side. My issue with Bernie is, don't (b) about the Super Delegates, NOW all of a sudden, see that you don't have a path to the nomination without them being in your favor.
I guess American's go to Google to check out the delegate math and say, "Oh Hillary is up by xx, so I guess I'll just vote for her since she's so far ahead." GTFO. She is winning this fair and square. Stop your (b) and accept things for what they are. Funny in 2016, people FINALLY want to complain about Super Delegates when Hillary is winning.
I'm done talking about this. You can respond if you like. Don't even discuss Bernie with me anymore. He's irrelevant and its all about Trump/Clinton now.
You wish. Someone forgot to tell Bernie.
You sound a little butthurt. Don't take politics so personal.
Butthurt about what exactly? Last time I checked, Hillary is closer to the nomination than "you know who."
--- Post Merged, Mar 16, 2016 ---
His path to the nomination is through SD, or Hillary being indicted. The chances of either of those happening are slim to none. He's a message candidate at the point. Maybe if his little fans get off the internet and get to the polls, it'd be a different story. "All talk. No action" sums up his "supporters".
--- Post Merged, Mar 16, 2016 ---
Just a question...
How do you relay on something?
--- Post Merged, Mar 16, 2016 ---
Hey! Every vote counts!
Hahaha. Hillary is quickly using up her stronghold states. The schedule heavily favored her in the beginning but that is about to change. The states coming up are Bernie territory.
It's going to be much closer than you think. I'd be scared if I were you.
It's hard to know, since you never want to debate anything on here, and instead get oddly defensive when anyone wants to make the conversation deeper than candidate cheerleading.
Debate with you guys...on the internet? LOL. There's nothing I could say to change how you feel about Hillary...so I don't even waste my time.
--- Post Merged, Mar 16, 2016 ---
Do you want a reality check? It's all about delegates, not states won. Are you referring to those small delegate states that's upcoming? Or are you guys still focus on winning NY, Pennsylvania, and California by 1% to 2%? Oops. Math isn't adding up.
So you're admitting that the reason you're here isn't to have a healthy debate but merely to troll us with drive-by comments?
We all debate each other on here, even if it's abundantly clear someone's mind is already made up.