Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As an absolute nutcase, I would keep it going.Yeah..I would love to be wrong about this, but I've pretty much decided that there are two huge groups standing in the way: Those who don't care enough to pay attention (but who can tell you all about Kim Kardashian's latest selfie) and those who are comfy with the status quo (but who say they want change).IF Trump, Cruz and Sanders are all shut out of this election by corrupt politics, then it is time to burn this rotted structure to the ground and start over.
There are some pretty obvious things that can be done to largely take corruption out of politics, but only if we really want to.
.
I got this....
One, change the rules for the Electoral College.
Dump the winner take all method. Instead EC votes are divided up in direct proportion to the number of voting precincts won by each candidate.
Or divide by house districts won. or by counties won....
Two....As part of their FCC licensing requirements, all TV and Radio stations MUST provide no cost air time for political advertising. This will be funded by the money now given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. it is time to cut PBS loose.
What this meant to do is keep some of the money powerful political committees and other organizations from having as much influence as they do now.
Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
Each primary/caucus is exclusive of all other states.who has won more votes, clinton or sanders?The process makes no sense.Welcome to what pissed us off in 2008 (those who were HRC supporters)....HRC won Texas and BHO won Idaho in the same week or so and Obama got something like twice as many delegates that week.
They all agreed to the rules going in.... most of the observers/supporters didn't know them though.
I think of the voter. The frustration one must experience when they see their candidate of choice has won the popular vote, yet the convoluted rules the party has set up, essentially dismiss their vote.
Does it come as any surprise people have simply tuned out? Their though it that no matter what they do when they cast a ballot, it won't make any difference?
That to the chosen on goes the spoils?
I suppose you as a HRC true believer that she can do no wrong and is OWED the White House, see no problem with this.
If you had any credibility whatsoever, you'd object to this result and the manner in which the DNC has rigged the primary process.
Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
Michigan: Sanders got 595,073 votes to Clinton's 576,723.
Mississippi: Clinton got 182,282 votes to Sanders's 36,284.
Total Clinton votes: 759,005 (54.5% of total).
Total Sanders votes: 631,357 (45.5% of total).
Clinton did win more delegates from Michigan than Sanders did, despite Sanders winning the popular vote by a slim margin. As you said, it was the superdelegates which pushed Clinton's count over the top.Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
Michigan: Sanders got 595,073 votes to Clinton's 576,723.
Mississippi: Clinton got 182,282 votes to Sanders's 36,284.
Total Clinton votes: 759,005 (54.5% of total).
Total Sanders votes: 631,357 (45.5% of total).
In any event, Sanders DID win the popular vote in NH yet Clinton was awarded MORE delegates. The Super Delegates are not bound by the popular vote
Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.
Sanders getting totally screwed by the Democrat Party and their rigged election procedd
the republican winner take all system is more likely to produce a candidate that does not have the popular vote than the democratic systemWhile I am not a Republican, the winner take all primaries are a way of contrasting the leaders from the also-rans, and though it is heavy handed, it at least is still DEMOCRATIC in nature.why do you republicans never bitch about the winner take all states on the republican side? sure, the democratic party has unpledged super-delegates that could slightly sway the delegate count for any given state, but in the republican primaries a candidate with 49.5% of the vote could walk away with nothing to show for it in some states and nearly half the delegates in others.
does that seem like a fair representation of the republican voters?
This Super Delegate system is anti-democratic and elitist.
while this can be speculated on, it's still yet to be seen if that is actually the case.Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.
I was talking about Michigan.
Numbnuts is trying to obfuscate the issue by lumping in Louisiana.
I was not talking about any other state than Michigan. Sanders won it, but Hillary is still getting the majority of the delegates from Michigan.
The super delegates know The Donald will embarrass the hell out of Bernie. They have to go with Hillary, or if she goes to jail, Biden or someone else.
The point is the overall nationwide vote tally is irrelevant per the primaries. Each state, whether a primary or caucus is mutually exclusive from all other states.Clinton did win more delegates from Michigan than Sanders did, despite Sanders winning the popular vote by a slim margin. As you said, it was the superdelegates which pushed Clinton's count over the top.Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
Michigan: Sanders got 595,073 votes to Clinton's 576,723.
Mississippi: Clinton got 182,282 votes to Sanders's 36,284.
Total Clinton votes: 759,005 (54.5% of total).
Total Sanders votes: 631,357 (45.5% of total).
In any event, Sanders DID win the popular vote in NH yet Clinton was awarded MORE delegates. The Super Delegates are not bound by the popular vote
As others have pointed out, superdelegates can always change their vote at the convention. The reason I posted the total votes for both of the primaries held yesterday is to drive home the point that isn't going to happen. The superdelegates are not going to change their votes. Clinton has the majority of the popular vote when you look at the entire country.
Sanders wins here and there, but there is no way he will stop Clinton from winning the popular vote of the entire country.
Clinton is not going to have to steal the nomination by way of superdelegates. She will win it fair and square with the popular vote.
LOL, that's the Democrat Party idea of democracy, no matter what the actual vote count is they always get the outcome THEY want.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
The overall national vote is relevant to how the superdelegates will ultimately vote.The point is the overall nationwide vote tally is irrelevant per the primaries. Each state, whether a primary or caucus is mutually exclusive from all other states.Clinton did win more delegates from Michigan than Sanders did, despite Sanders winning the popular vote by a slim margin. As you said, it was the superdelegates which pushed Clinton's count over the top.Ok...Then the wording of the story is misleading. It appears to me as though the story was targeting Michigan.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
Michigan: Sanders got 595,073 votes to Clinton's 576,723.
Mississippi: Clinton got 182,282 votes to Sanders's 36,284.
Total Clinton votes: 759,005 (54.5% of total).
Total Sanders votes: 631,357 (45.5% of total).
In any event, Sanders DID win the popular vote in NH yet Clinton was awarded MORE delegates. The Super Delegates are not bound by the popular vote
As others have pointed out, superdelegates can always change their vote at the convention. The reason I posted the total votes for both of the primaries held yesterday is to drive home the point that isn't going to happen. The superdelegates are not going to change their votes. Clinton has the majority of the popular vote when you look at the entire country.
Sanders wins here and there, but there is no way he will stop Clinton from winning the popular vote of the entire country.
Clinton is not going to have to steal the nomination by way of superdelegates. She will win it fair and square with the popular vote.
The Democratic Party is the direct political and institutional descendant of Tammany Hall. Just look at the Daley Machine in Chicago.LOL, that's the Democrat Party idea of democracy, no matter what the actual vote count is they always get the outcome THEY want.Yep, even though Bernie won more votes and took 50% of the vote to her 48%, Clinton still got 68 delegates and Bernie only got 65, wow.
It's a modern day version of Tammany Hall.
Uh-huh (actually it's not the case the "superdelegates" can vote for whomever they like), now explain why "superdelegates" exist at all if not to thwart the will voters. Some "Democratic" political party they got going on over there, it would have felt right at home in the Soviet Union.The overall national vote is relevant to how the superdelegates will ultimately vote.
