It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[flacaltenn]

As long as you have enough Super Delegates, that is...

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

 

[koshergrl]

The one thing that the Oregon fiasco did was add to the anger and resentment. It has been added to Ruby Ridge and Waco. It is now useful to stoke the anger.

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

No, the people who killed them are to blame.

 

[Skylar]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

Lets take the last election. In 2012 Obama received 3,166 delegates, with a clear majority of pledged delegates.

Did the Super Delegates turn the 2012 democratic nomination against the democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates in 2012?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

See leftists are only interested in winning. The governing part is just a nuisance.. So SuperDelegates are the un-democratic method of BOOSTING the candidate judged by Sgt Schultz as "most likely to win"..

A thumb in the eye of every one who went out to vote ON PRINCIPLES and not on attaining power..

There's nothing "coincidental" about it, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain. There's no doubt that the pool of superdelegates are what you might call "elites", but they're not beholden to Debbie Schultz or anyone else.

The vast majority of superdelegates who've announced their support have done so for Clinton - not because of some conspiracy, but because they think she's got a better chance than Sanders.

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention, so counting those votes for either candidate beforehand is counting your chickens before they hatch. Were some insane confluence of events to occur giving Sanders a popular delegate lead going into the convention, you would see plenty of superdelegates switching their votes.

My former business partner is a "superdelegate" to the DNC. He gained this status as a result of being popularly elected to a local Democratic Party office - he was chosen by voters - and he's received no "commands" from Schultz on who to vote for.

Although he hasn't announced support for either yet, he's voting for Bernie, by the way.

 

[flacaltenn]

The one thing that the Oregon fiasco did was add to the anger and resentment. It has been added to Ruby Ridge and Waco. It is now useful to stoke the anger.

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

First thing that happened at the compound was they shot the Kid's dogs. In a FENCED area. IN FRONT of the children.. No parent is gonna release their children to folks that ESCALATE a simple dispute about reselling gun parts into a military operation done for photo ops and press coverage.

First thing the "whackos" did was to call the Local Sheriff and ask him WHY people were shooting their dogs and at the compound. It was a SPECTACULAR over-use of power..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

 

[flacaltenn]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

Lets take the last election. In 2012 Obama received 3,166 delegates, with a clear majority of pledged delegates.

Did the Super Delegates turn the 2012 democratic nomination against the democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates in 2012?

How dense are you? Obama was the SITTING PRESIDENT in 2012.. Who would the party pledge SuperDelegates to?? Better question is --- what FOOL would challenge a sitting president in a primary?

Try again. Try 2008... Where where all these UNDEMOCRATIC freeloaders pledged at the beginning?

 

[bodecea]

Listen to Gav tear them up. This is great:

Can't run it now...is this another life-long resident of that area of Oregon....who speaks with an English accent?

 

[Skylar]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

Lets take the last election. In 2012 Obama received 3,166 delegates, with a clear majority of pledged delegates.

Did the Super Delegates turn the 2012 democratic nomination against the democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates in 2012?

How dense are you? Obama was the SITTING PRESIDENT in 2012.. Who would the party pledge SuperDelegates to?? Better question is --- what FOOL would challenge a sitting president in a primary?

Try again. Try 2008... Where where all these UNDEMOCRATIC freeloaders pledged at the beginning?

So 'EVERY recent election cycle'.....except 2012. Perhaps 'every' doesn't mean what you think it means. Even in all caps.

Okay, lets try 2008. Obama had the most pledged delegates....and won the nomination. Did the Super Delegates turn the nomination against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates in 2008?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

Lets take the last election. In 2012 Obama received 3,166 delegates, with a clear majority of pledged delegates.

Did the Super Delegates turn the 2012 democratic nomination against the democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates in 2012?

How dense are you? Obama was the SITTING PRESIDENT in 2012.. Who would the party pledge SuperDelegates to?? Better question is --- what FOOL would challenge a sitting president in a primary?

Try again. Try 2008... Where where all these UNDEMOCRATIC freeloaders pledged at the beginning?

The whole point is that Superdelegates aren't "pledged" at any point. They can publically support a candidate, they can announce that they plan to vote for a candidate, but none of that actually matters, because on the day of the convention they can vote for whoever they want.

Remember who won in 2008, even after all those superdelegates had said they were supporting Clinton at the beginning? Most of those superdelegates ended up voting for Obama.

 

[g5000]

As long as you have enough Super Delegates, that is...

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots! One of the bitterest intra-party battles in American history. Second only to the 1828 election cycle, probably.

 

[g5000]

1924. Extremely low voter turnout. That's the election I have said many times on this forum the 2016 election turnout will be the lowest since. For pretty much the same reasons.

Coolidge won 54% of the vote, Davis only 29%. The Progressive party picked up 16%.

This bodes well for Clinton.

 

[flacaltenn]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

 

[Skylar]

Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots!

Super Delegates weren't invented until 1968. How then could they have turned the nomination against a candidate in 1924?

And was a blue police box involved?

 

[jillian]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots!

Super Delegates weren't invented until 1968. How then could they have turned the nomination against a candidate in 1924?

And was a blue police box involved?

oooh.... is there a sonic screwdriver, too?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Skylar]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots!

Super Delegates weren't invented until 1968. How then could they have turned the nomination against a candidate in 1924?

And was a blue police box involved?

oooh.... is there a sonic screwdriver, too?!?!?!?!?!

Either that or 1.21 gigawatts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

Happens EVERY recent election cycle. . That's why the REPUBLICAN debate stage is ALWAYS overcrowded and the DEMS end up DISCOURAGING folks from EVEN ATTEMPTING to run..

What do superdelegates have to do with debates?

The party doesn't have control over who can run for President. All you need is petition signatures.

SuperDelegates is a designed feature to shorten the primary bloodshed. Front load the support for the "perceived" winner and that person will not come out as scarred and bloodied by debates and competition.. The idiot media will declare the contest over as soon as the delegate count becomes lop-sided.

No idiot is gonna declare to run when they are facing a 15% deficit in delegates before they start. Only aging PRINCIPLED folks like Sanders who declares for reasons OTHER THAN WINNING are gonna line up for the process..

So how come there's not 12 or 15 candidates at the START of each DEM primary process? It's the fucking tyranny of what the PARTIES have become. That's why I dropped in here. Lot of couch patriots expecting the tyranny is gonna come from the Oval Office. It's coming from the 2 power whoring parties...

You're building an incorrect narrative by connecting dots that aren't connected. It's really pretty straight-forward.

The "superdelegate" system is more of a way to reward party faithful with importance than any of the conspiracy theories that you're putting together. The number of declared candidates has nothing to do with people being scared away by superdelegate counts - every candidate knows that if they rack up some primary wins, they'll get superdelegates to hop the fence to them.

 

[flacaltenn]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

See leftists are only interested in winning. The governing part is just a nuisance.. So SuperDelegates are the un-democratic method of BOOSTING the candidate judged by Sgt Schultz as "most likely to win"..

A thumb in the eye of every one who went out to vote ON PRINCIPLES and not on attaining power..

There's nothing "coincidental" about it, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain. There's no doubt that the pool of superdelegates are what you might call "elites", but they're not beholden to Debbie Schultz or anyone else.

The vast majority of superdelegates who've announced their support have done so for Clinton - not because of some conspiracy, but because they think she's got a better chance than Sanders.

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention, so counting those votes for either candidate beforehand is counting your chickens before they hatch. Were some insane confluence of events to occur giving Sanders a popular delegate lead going into the convention, you would see plenty of superdelegates switching their votes.

My former business partner is a "superdelegate" to the DNC. He gained this status as a result of being popularly elected to a local Democratic Party office - he was chosen by voters - and he's received no "commands" from Schultz on who to vote for.

Although he hasn't announced support for either yet, he's voting for Bernie, by the way.

You just acknowledged my position. Lemme repeat this so we are clear. VOTERS believe they are choosing based on issue, policy, personality, and proposals. SUPER DELEGATES -- as you just admitted don't give a fuck about any of that. They are chosen to select the candidate with the "GREATEST CHANCE" of winning.

That;'s the sole basis of the party interest if you're a trusted member of the DNC.. And it IS a form of tyranny since the parties have a duopoly on politics in America.

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

 

[g5000]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

Can you show me a single example of the Super Delegates turning an election against the Democratic candidate with the most pledged delegates?

Just name the year it happened.

1924. William Gibbs McAdoo swept the primaries. Never heard of him? How about the second place front runner, Al Smith? You may have heard of him. Very popular New York populist, like Trump.

Guess which one got the nomination?

Wrong!

John W. Davis, a total outsider, was given the nomination at the brokered convention after a record 103 ballots!

Super Delegates weren't invented until 1968. How then could they have turned the nomination against a candidate in 1924?

And was a blue police box involved?

Same difference. The party bosses ran the conventions back then. Who do you think "super delegates" are?

Party bosses.

I seem to recall in the historical texts of the time Al Smith making a reference to "an infernal Time And Relative Dimension In Space machine which transported me to a period in the future, with an eccentric man and a fetching lady at the controls."

That was taken as a sign of mental strain and appears to have cost him in the 103rd ballot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

See leftists are only interested in winning. The governing part is just a nuisance.. So SuperDelegates are the un-democratic method of BOOSTING the candidate judged by Sgt Schultz as "most likely to win"..

A thumb in the eye of every one who went out to vote ON PRINCIPLES and not on attaining power..

There's nothing "coincidental" about it, and it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain. There's no doubt that the pool of superdelegates are what you might call "elites", but they're not beholden to Debbie Schultz or anyone else.

The vast majority of superdelegates who've announced their support have done so for Clinton - not because of some conspiracy, but because they think she's got a better chance than Sanders.

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention, so counting those votes for either candidate beforehand is counting your chickens before they hatch. Were some insane confluence of events to occur giving Sanders a popular delegate lead going into the convention, you would see plenty of superdelegates switching their votes.

My former business partner is a "superdelegate" to the DNC. He gained this status as a result of being popularly elected to a local Democratic Party office - he was chosen by voters - and he's received no "commands" from Schultz on who to vote for.

Although he hasn't announced support for either yet, he's voting for Bernie, by the way.

You just acknowledged my position. Lemme repeat this so we are clear. VOTERS believe they are choosing based on issue, policy, personality, and proposals. SUPER DELEGATES -- as you just admitted don't give a fuck about any of that. They are chosen to select the candidate with the "GREATEST CHANCE" of winning.

That;'s the sole basis of the party interest if you're a trusted member of the DNC.. And it IS a form of tyranny since the parties have a duopoly on politics in America.

BOTH parties for instance ROUTINELY refuse to back candidates in "loser districts or states".. Leaving their membership in those states COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED... That's tyranny.. And it's been the story of about 15% of congressional seats in every recent election...

It's not "tyranny", it's reality. If you were in charge of delegating limited resources to campaigns, would you spend money on races you thought you couldn't win?

You can complain about the system all you want, but it's the one we've got - and I've never seen anyone able to come up with a better one.