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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Nope. Hilary leads in regular delegates by a pretty wide margin. And the Super Delegates always side with the winner of the regular delegates.
Worse for your 'subverting democracy' horseshit, not a single Super Delegate has cast a single vote for any candidate.
Worse still, you know all of this.
Isn't that just a tad bit disingenuous to say that no Super Delegate has cast a single vote? NO delegates have cast a single vote.
Pledged delegates are committed to the candidate that won them.
Super Delegates can (and often have) changed their vote before the convention. In 2008 when Obama won the most pledged delegates, many of the super delegates that had expressed support for Hillary switched to Obama.
You know this. But really hope we don't. Making your argument profoundly disingenuous.
The super delegates can vote for whomever they wish, you know that. The pledged delegates must vote by the primary vote, you know that. If there is no nomination the first round then they can change their vote to whomever, you know that. It is a rigged system to allow the establishment to select the nominee. Certainly your come back will be they only represent 1/6th of the delegates but 1/6th is more then enough to sway almost any election, and you know that. And they know already whom most of the super delegates will vote.
Then show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.
If the 'system is rigged' as you claim, then it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If you're offering us an intentionally disingenuous pile of rhetorical horseshit, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.
Gee....I wonder which its going to be.
Repeating back exactly what I posted then saying I said something else is truly low level. But you know that.
The Super delegates switching their votes for Obama isn't evidence enough?
Super Delegates switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. You intentionally omitted that extraordinarily relevant part as your argument is a steaming pile of disingenuous horseshit.
And exactly as I predicated, when I ask you to show me an example of a Democratic candidate who didn't have the most pledged delegates getting the nomination because of Super Delegates.....
......you give me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: There is no such example. The Super Delegates have NEVER turned an nomination against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Ever.
And what's worse, you *know* that. But you really hope we don't. So much for your 'rigged system' nonsense.
Well I guess you don't "know" as much as I gave you credit. If you think that the popular vote elects the nominee you are delusional. DELEGATES decide, period. They are still arguing who won the popular vote in 2008, that is why it was said that the DNC knifed Mrs. Clinton in the back.
So, I did a little google for you, start here in your education.
Problems with popular vote metrics[edit]
Caucus states[edit]
The popular vote is easiest to tally in primary elections, where a simple vote for a candidate is recorded. Incaucuses, the "popular vote" is often interpreted as the number of supporters who vote for each candidate at the conclusion of precinct-level caucuses. The table uses the official "popular vote" reported in all primary states and in the caucus states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam. Official numbers were not reported in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. These four states have been estimated by RealClearPoliticsbased on other information released by the states.[13] In Texas, two-thirds of pledged delegates were selected through a primary, while one-third were selected through caucuses. However, voters were eligible to participate in the caucuses only if they also voted in the primary, so RealClearPolitics used the primary results and ignored the caucus in determining the popular vote.
Nationwide, the RealClearPolitics tally counted one caucus participant as equal to one primary participant. However, turnout is generally lower in caucuses, and as a result, the popular vote may overweight the influence of primary states.[14] For example, Hawaii and Rhode Island have similar populations, but the opinion of Rhode Islanders is weighted more heavily in the popular vote total. Clinton won the Rhode Island primary 58-40% and received 33,600 more votes than Obama. In contrast, Obama won the Hawaii caucuses 76-24%, but received only 19,500 more votes than Clinton.[13] Thus, some researchers argue that the popular vote underestimates the depth of Obama's support in caucus states.[15] If these states were to hold primaries and Obama were to win by a similar margin, his popular vote total would be considerably higher.[15]However, Clinton argued that she would have done better in these states if primaries were held.[16]
and
Nomination rules[edit]
Finally, the nomination was decided by delegates under the Democratic Party's rules, so the candidates campaigned to maximize their delegate advantage. If the nomination were decided by popular vote, they likely would have campaigned differently, in order to run up the vote in populous states like New York and Illinois. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the popular vote should have no effect under the current rules: "It’s a delegate race. The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."[19] Obama's chief strategist suggested that the Clinton campaign's focus on the popular vote was a distraction tactic: "When they started off, it was all about delegates.... Now that we have more delegates, it’s all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game ofcribbage to choose the nominee."[19] Nevertheless, polls have shown that a plurality of Democrats think superdelegates should consider the popular vote when deciding which candidate to support.[20]
Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The truth is exactly what I said, the delegates decide. As you can read the whole caucus/primary system seems to be an actual joke. So the DNC coming up with whatever numbers they want seem to be in order. In 2008 the leadership wanted Obama and that is where the super delegates went after pledging to Mrs. Clinton.
I wonder how many democrats don't even vote because they know it really doesn't matter.
The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
you're not a democrat. you don't care
you might want to do a little learning about what the super delegates are, though before you whine about something that has zero meaning to you... except to whine.
The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
you're not a democrat. you don't care
you might want to do a little learning about what the super delegates are, though before you whine about something that has zero meaning to you... except to whine.
They're looking at the train wreck of their own primary process....where their own party hates their leading candidate and is actively trying to force a brokered convention to prevent him from getting the nomination.....regardless of his proportion of popular vote.
And are trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the cluster fuck their own primary process has become by insisting that dems are the 'real problem'.
In their defense, that's pretty much their standard response for *every* failing in their party.
but yet you will vote for hillary no matter what even though you have spent the last few weeks saying how you wont....thats what really pisses me off about parties. They have a monopoly over the process. IOW's- the game is riggedThe democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
where jones care to show us?....."Half of Hillary's delegates are not earned, DNC corruption"
As already correctly noted: nonsense.
The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
you're not a democrat. you don't care
you might want to do a little learning about what the super delegates are, though before you whine about something that has zero meaning to you... except to whine.
They're looking at the train wreck of their own primary process....where their own party hates their leading candidate and is actively trying to force a brokered convention to prevent him from getting the nomination.....regardless of his proportion of popular vote.
And are trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the cluster fuck their own primary process has become by insisting that dems are the 'real problem'.
In their defense, that's pretty much their standard response for *every* failing in their party.
but at some point they need to grow up and clean their own house. their party was so busy trying to make sure that no one could beat the person who won on super tuesday (when all the white southerners vote in the GOP primary) that they now are faced with the donald being almost locked in.
they clearly don't understand that what happened in 2008 when it became clear that the primary voters wanted barack obama, was that the super delegates switched to make sure that they followed the electorate..... which, as you pointed out, is clearly not what the GOP "establishment" is trying to do.
Republican blames Trump’s rise on Obama’s level-headedness
Republican blames Trump's rise on Obama's level-headedness
Well, they are smart enough to have in place to have counter to a guy like Trump ... though in a two person race, imo either party goes with the guy with the majority of votes.The left has no faith in the American people so they need super delegates to correct the sheep as necessary.
No. I'm saying that the party itself has an interest in picking who wins. An example, and the reason why the democratic party set the rules is the 1972 primary. Muskie was the fav, but he imploded with some help by Nixon's dirty tricksters. Humphrey actually won the popular vote 25.77%. McGovern, who became the nominee, had 25.34 and Wallace, who was shot during the campaign had 23.48. And there were some lesser candidates as well. Scoop Jackson and Shirley Chisolm. When you have that kind of race, the party itself has an interest in picking the most electable ... and it sure wasn't McGovern.Well, they are smart enough to have in place to have counter to a guy like Trump ... though in a two person race, imo either party goes with the guy with the majority of votes.The left has no faith in the American people so they need super delegates to correct the sheep as necessary.
So you are saying the establishment of both parties are better to pick a Presidential candidate than the people of this country?
The democrat party is subverting democracy with "Super delegates". These delegates don't represent the voters...they get to throw their support to whomever they want. That is why half of Hillary's delegates are not earned.
The DNC is stealing democracy like the GOP, with the "Representative republic" con job, just like the "electoral college" has done, overruling the voters in the general elections.
No. I'm saying that the party itself has an interest in picking who wins. An example, and the reason why the democratic party set the rules is the 1972 primary. Muskie was the fav, but he imploded with some help by Nixon's dirty tricksters. Humphrey actually won the popular vote 25.77%. McGovern, who became the nominee, had 25.34 and Wallace, who was shot during the campaign had 23.48. And there were some lesser candidates as well. Scoop Jackson and Shirley Chisolm. When you have that kind of race, the party itself has an interest in picking the most electable ... and it sure wasn't McGovern.Well, they are smart enough to have in place to have counter to a guy like Trump ... though in a two person race, imo either party goes with the guy with the majority of votes.The left has no faith in the American people so they need super delegates to correct the sheep as necessary.
So you are saying the establishment of both parties are better to pick a Presidential candidate than the people of this country?
IF Bernie was actually cleaning up by double digets, but not getting superdelegates, it might be an issue. But the dems can't win battleground states without "minority" voters. And Bernie's not been interested in them since 1966 or so. And as a consequence, Bernie will be mathematically eliminated in one to two weeks, and the party has an interest in getting it over with sooner than later. But they are not picking a winner between two candidates.
The gop contest is more interesting, and more similar to the dems in 72. I think Rubio is gonna quit. If Kasich picks up his support, he may actually be getting more votes that Trump.
Trump's running an economic progressive campaign. It's all rhetoric. Imo his insults are annoying. I'm all for progressivism, so long as it free market and not socialism, but it's a dangerous game where I live. There was a time when progressives wanted free school books for whites but not blacks, because educating blacks was considered simply making a poor field hand.
Personally, I think Cruz and the teaparty are usless idiots. Their aim is not narrow, but taken to their logical conclusions we'd defund middle class entitlements, which is not only political suicide but is not a good thing for the middle class, which is where most of us live. They are no less pseudo-intellectual elitists than Bernie's supporters.
But, if the gop goes into Cleveland with no one a clear winner, why shouldn't the party itself have a hand in picking the nominee?
No. I'm saying that the party itself has an interest in picking who wins. An example, and the reason why the democratic party set the rules is the 1972 primary. Muskie was the fav, but he imploded with some help by Nixon's dirty tricksters. Humphrey actually won the popular vote 25.77%. McGovern, who became the nominee, had 25.34 and Wallace, who was shot during the campaign had 23.48. And there were some lesser candidates as well. Scoop Jackson and Shirley Chisolm. When you have that kind of race, the party itself has an interest in picking the most electable ... and it sure wasn't McGovern.Well, they are smart enough to have in place to have counter to a guy like Trump ... though in a two person race, imo either party goes with the guy with the majority of votes.The left has no faith in the American people so they need super delegates to correct the sheep as necessary.
So you are saying the establishment of both parties are better to pick a Presidential candidate than the people of this country?
IF Bernie was actually cleaning up by double digets, but not getting superdelegates, it might be an issue. But the dems can't win battleground states without "minority" voters. And Bernie's not been interested in them since 1966 or so. And as a consequence, Bernie will be mathematically eliminated in one to two weeks, and the party has an interest in getting it over with sooner than later. But they are not picking a winner between two candidates.
The gop contest is more interesting, and more similar to the dems in 72. I think Rubio is gonna quit. If Kasich picks up his support, he may actually be getting more votes that Trump.
Trump's running an economic progressive campaign. It's all rhetoric. Imo his insults are annoying. I'm all for progressivism, so long as it free market and not socialism, but it's a dangerous game where I live. There was a time when progressives wanted free school books for whites but not blacks, because educating blacks was considered simply making a poor field hand.
Personally, I think Cruz and the teaparty are usless idiots. Their aim is not narrow, but taken to their logical conclusions we'd defund middle class entitlements, which is not only political suicide but is not a good thing for the middle class, which is where most of us live. They are no less pseudo-intellectual elitists than Bernie's supporters.
But, if the gop goes into Cleveland with no one a clear winner, why shouldn't the party itself have a hand in picking the nominee?
