Superdelegates????

[Care4all]

The bottom line Ernie, is:

-The rules were set before the contest began.

-Both contestants knew the rules before the contest began.

-You can not change the rules midstream of a contest.

There is no reason for anyone be outraged, nothing outrageous has been done, we've only had 2 states that have voted.

That being said, I think I would like to see in the future, rules being changed to Primary vote only, probably all on one day, winning the contest, with no Caucuses or unpledged delegates...

 

[Care4all]

We understand that conservatives would like to see Bernie as the winner, so that the Republicans can have Bernie to go against in the general election....this has been abundantly clear for quite a while now....

 

[candycorn]

But remember DarkFury...they (Dems) are the ones who put the system in place. They (super delegates) aren't cheating him, they are using the system to vote for who they feel is best.

Unfortunately it's true....
Coin tosses and Super Delegates are part of the deal....

So much for the democratic process, huh Democrats?

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party but you're right, it is flagarantly undemocratic. Much like the GOP winner-take-all states.

The goal is to have as pristine a nominee as possible going into the General.

Winner take all is the way it should be, or does Mitt Romney hang out in the oval office 3 days a week?

Wrong yet again.

One is a primary and one is a general election. Totally different situation hence you have run-offs in many places in primaries but no run-off between parties in the General.

3 days a week? More like 3 seconds a month.

 

[Skylar]

But remember DarkFury...they (Dems) are the ones who put the system in place. They (super delegates) aren't cheating him, they are using the system to vote for who they feel is best.

Unfortunately it's true....
Coin tosses and Super Delegates are part of the deal....

So much for the democratic process, huh Democrats?

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party but you're right, it is flagarantly undemocratic. Much like the GOP winner-take-all states.

The goal is to have as pristine a nominee as possible going into the General.

It is and it isn't. If the Super Delegates were to give the nomination to a person that the people hadn't supported nationally, you're absolutely right.

But they never have. They have always sided with winner of the popular vote.

The purpose of Super Delegates seems much more about creating the perception of momentum and inevitability for the establishment candidate. Even when its not inevitable. As Obama demonstrated dramatically.

Precedent is in the past. ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!

What question? You're screaming now. Take a breath.

You're making predictions about the future. History contradicts your assumptions perfectly. Where nothing you've assumed has ever happened. So you're ignoring history. That's irrational and poorly thought through.

 

[Skylar]

Kinda. A super delegate can change their mind at any time. Their votes aren't actually tallied until the convention. So any 'super delegate' count is a hypothetical one.

The Super Delegates in practice always vote with people on a national level. They exist largely to create a sense of momentum and strength for the establishment candidate. If Sanders were to actually win the majority of the vote nationally its highly unlikely the SD's would stick with Hillary.

"Highly unlikely" is STILL to far from honest. A lot like "kinda pregnant".

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

 

[Skylar]

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

"highly unlikely" simply is NOT honest enough.

We're speaking about the future. The kind of certainty you're demanding isn't possible. We can only speak of what is likely or unlikely. Its highly unlikely that the SD will vote against the people
nationally.

How do we know? Its so rare that its never happened.

There is simply NO WAY you can justify the delegate count and even appear honest. They ARE stealing from that old man.

Again, not a single Super Delegate vote has been counted. Its all hypothetical. Unlike the standard delegates, the SD can change their mind at any time up until their vote is tallied at the convention. Their votes aren't actually counted until then.

You're lamenting about a 'theft' that hasn't even happened. Nor is likely to.

No theft yet but they be standing outside the bank with guns drawn and masks on. Don't for one second think that past practice matters one iota to hillary rodam clinton.

Its the 2nd primary. Out of 50. Take a breath.

I just asked in the OP for you Democrats to tell me if you think having superdelegates is fair. You've made no attempt to answer the question and you're telling me to take a breath. OK I get it. You will not or can not criticize the Democrat Party. Fine. You're a hack. I haven't learned anything new.

If the Super Delegates vote in the convention contrary to the will of the national majority, then you bet its unfair.

But they never have. And its very unlikely that they will. As its contrary to the practical application of power.

Remember, for all your claims about 'theft' and 'banks' and 'masks' and other melodramatic hyperbole......not one Super Delegate has actually cast a single vote. Any Super Delegate count is entirely hypothetical.

 

[Care4all]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/the-g-o-p-s-fuzzy-delegate-math/

 

[DarkFury]

"Highly unlikely" is STILL to far from honest. A lot like "kinda pregnant".

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Allow me to introduce some FACTS then.

Ried/Pelosi/Clinton SUPER delegates. And they CAN tip who gets the nod.

 

[Skylar]

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Allow me to introduce some FACTS then.

Ried/Pelosi/Clinton SUPER delegates. And they CAN tip who gets the nod.

For the 6th time, all 'Super Delegate' counts are hypothetical. Not one Super Delegate has yet to vote, not one vote has actually be counted. And Super Delegates can and do change their minds.

And for the 7th time, the Super Delegates have *never* tipped a convention against the candidate that won the national popular vote.

Ever.

 

[kaz]

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

I think the shit will really hit the fan if Sanders wins the majority of votes in the primaries and yet loses the nomination. There will be blood in the streets.

Nope. The Dems may bitch and moan but they'll line up behind Hillary. They do not want a Republican in office so like the good little sheep they are , they'll take their beaten and battered ego's and back Hillary. The DNC knows this.

I guess you weren't around for the 1968 Democratic Convention.

You have to go back 50 years for an example of Democrats not being sheep, and you think that is an argument ... for you ... ?

 

[DarkFury]

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Allow me to introduce some FACTS then.

Ried/Pelosi/Clinton SUPER delegates. And they CAN tip who gets the nod.

For the 6th time, all 'Super Delegate' counts are hypothetical. Not one Super Delegate has yet to vote, not one vote has actually be counted. And Super Delegates can and do change their minds.

And for the 7th time, the Super Delegates have *never* tipped a convention against the candidate that won the national popular vote.

Ever.

As the following video will show Clinton won the popular vote in 08 BUT Obama had the "Supers" and tipped the results.


So much for "NEVER" huh?

 

[cereal_killer]

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

Kinda. A super delegate can change their mind at any time. Their votes aren't actually tallied until the convention. So any 'super delegate' count is a hypothetical one.

The Super Delegates in practice always vote with people on a national level. They exist largely to create a sense of momentum and strength for the establishment candidate. If Sanders were to actually win the majority of the vote nationally its highly unlikely the SD's would stick with Hillary.

Every 4 years, those who aer politically unsophisticated (aka republicans) make the same idiotic statements about super delegates and sound just as dense every quadrennial.

Bernie Sanders knew the process and procedure going into the contest. If he had been a Democrat for longer, strengthened his standing in the Party, done the deeds of patronage etc... he could have cultivated some SDs himself.

Well said candycorn (less the insults). If I were a SD, I'd vote for who I wanted and felt could best win the nomination for us. If I went against the majority so be it. Its MY vote and I'm not going to change it if I don't particularly care for the other candidate. I'd want to win

 

[cereal_killer]

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Allow me to introduce some FACTS then.

Ried/Pelosi/Clinton SUPER delegates. And they CAN tip who gets the nod.

For the 6th time, all 'Super Delegate' counts are hypothetical. Not one Super Delegate has yet to vote, not one vote has actually be counted. And Super Delegates can and do change their minds.

And for the 7th time, the Super Delegates have *never* tipped a convention against the candidate that won the national popular vote.

Ever.

This is a unique election Skylar. Sanders will get battered in a general election. The DNC does not want to lose and they will field who THEY feel is the best candidate. It's clear they want Hillary and rightfully so. She has the best chance to win. Nominating Sanders will lead to a Republican presidency and nobody (dems) wants that.

 

[Ernie S.]

Unfortunately it's true....
Coin tosses and Super Delegates are part of the deal....

So much for the democratic process, huh Democrats?

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party but you're right, it is flagarantly undemocratic. Much like the GOP winner-take-all states.

The goal is to have as pristine a nominee as possible going into the General.

It is and it isn't. If the Super Delegates were to give the nomination to a person that the people hadn't supported nationally, you're absolutely right.

But they never have. They have always sided with winner of the popular vote.

The purpose of Super Delegates seems much more about creating the perception of momentum and inevitability for the establishment candidate. Even when its not inevitable. As Obama demonstrated dramatically.

Precedent is in the past. ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!

What question? You're screaming now. Take a breath.

You're making predictions about the future. History contradicts your assumptions perfectly. Where nothing you've assumed has ever happened. So you're ignoring history. That's irrational and poorly thought through.

What question????? There are 2 questions posed in the OP. Pick the one appropriate to you and answer it. Very simple, really.
Not really making predictions so much as asking "what if?", based on the ethics and integrity of hillary clinton.
Yes I am ignoring history. Why not? hillary clinton ignores rules of conduct re secure email. It's not a big stretch to think she might ignore past protocol regarding superdelegates.
Funny how you repeatedly fail to answer direct questions yet call me irrational.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Highly unlikely" is STILL to far from honest. A lot like "kinda pregnant".

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

Answer the questions, dammit! Or evade it once again. Your choice.

 

[Skylar]

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Allow me to introduce some FACTS then.

Ried/Pelosi/Clinton SUPER delegates. And they CAN tip who gets the nod.

For the 6th time, all 'Super Delegate' counts are hypothetical. Not one Super Delegate has yet to vote, not one vote has actually be counted. And Super Delegates can and do change their minds.

And for the 7th time, the Super Delegates have *never* tipped a convention against the candidate that won the national popular vote.

Ever.

As the following video will show Clinton won the popular vote in 08 BUT Obama had the "Supers" and tipped the results.


So much for "NEVER" huh?

Um, you forgot something: John Edwards. He pledged his support, delegates and 900,000 votes to Barack Obama's nomination for the presidency. With each of his delegates voting for Obama. Putting Obama's total vote count after Edward's endorsement well in excess of Hillary's by about half a million votes.

 

[Skylar]

So much for the democratic process, huh Democrats?

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party but you're right, it is flagarantly undemocratic. Much like the GOP winner-take-all states.

The goal is to have as pristine a nominee as possible going into the General.

It is and it isn't. If the Super Delegates were to give the nomination to a person that the people hadn't supported nationally, you're absolutely right.

But they never have. They have always sided with winner of the popular vote.

The purpose of Super Delegates seems much more about creating the perception of momentum and inevitability for the establishment candidate. Even when its not inevitable. As Obama demonstrated dramatically.

Precedent is in the past. ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!

What question? You're screaming now. Take a breath.

You're making predictions about the future. History contradicts your assumptions perfectly. Where nothing you've assumed has ever happened. So you're ignoring history. That's irrational and poorly thought through.

What question????? There are 2 questions posed in the OP. Pick the one appropriate to you and answer it. Very simple, really.

Not really making predictions so much as asking "what if?", based on the ethics and integrity of hillary clinton.

You're absolutely making predictions. And they're based on nothing. The power and influence you attribute to Hillary clearly doesn't exist as demonstrated by her 2008 loss. With most Super Delegates voting *against* her. You've imagined it.

Yes I am ignoring history. Why not? hillary clinton ignores rules of conduct re secure email. It's not a big stretch to think she might ignore past protocol regarding superdelegates.

Because without some evidence to back your claim, you're offering us baseless speculation. With history contradicting you. Making your assumptions doubly irrational. As they are founded in nothing. And ignore overwhelming evidence.

Worse, your reasoning is fractured nonsense. Hillary uses a private email server....and somehow Super Delegates have to vote for her? That doesn't make the slightest sense. Your 'cause' and your 'effect' are utterly unrelated.

Funny how you repeatedly fail to answer direct questions yet call me irrational.

I've already answered it. And shredded your nonsense assumptions about Hillary, the election and how email servers somehow compel Super Delegates.

 

[Care4all]

Its never happened. Making an occurrence now highly unlikely. The Super Delegates record of voting with the people nationally is perfect.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Precedent is in the past. We are discussing hillary clinton here. I wouldn't put anything past that pathological liar.

If she had the kind of power you've imagined, she'd already be president. This being her 2nd run at the presidency clearly demonstrations that there's a serious flaw in your logic.

She isn't running against a black man this time. There is no flaw here other than your ability to answer a direct question

Again, you're not asking questions. You're making statements. The absolute power you've attributed to Hillary lacks a factual basis. And is provably false....as if it were true, she'd already be president.

History contradicts you. And your predictions aren't evidence. They're merely speculation. Speculation based....in nothing. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence. As nothing you've assumed will happen....has ever happened. Not Super Delegates voting against the candidate with the popular national vote. Not Hillary wielding unlimited and absolute power within the democratic party.

So.....do you have anything but you citing your own unfounded and irrational assumptions?

Oh, FYI: that's what a question looks like.

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

Answer the questions, dammit! Or evade it once again. Your choice.

you are just trying too hard ernie.... ye protest too much....

I answered you, skylar answered you....

just because you don't get the answer you want to hear, and are throwing a tantrum, doesn't mean we didn't answer you.

By all means, be upset if you want, but it doesn't change a thing.... you will not get us to play your faux game of ''upset''.... It shouldn't matter to you one itty bitty bit....you are not a Democrat, you hate both of our candidates blindly, but it is not your party, and contrary to your obvious goal of trying to get us upset, is not working...so kindly give it a rest....and worry about your own party and their superdelegate/unpledged delegate rules and your own contestants.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

I think the shit will really hit the fan if Sanders wins the majority of votes in the primaries and yet loses the nomination. There will be blood in the streets.

Nope. The Dems may bitch and moan but they'll line up behind Hillary. They do not want a Republican in office so like the good little sheep they are , they'll take their beaten and battered ego's and back Hillary. The DNC knows this.

I guess you weren't around for the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Nope...but his supporters say this very thing. Yes they want Sanders but they won't take their toys and go home handing the election to the Republicans. The Republicans must be kept out of office at all costs according to them. Especially when Trump is the nominee. Shit, their anger will last 30 seconds then they'll start rallying behind Hillary.

More like 3 seconds.

Democrats are pragmatic in my experience. The GOP just the opposite.

i understand what you are saying candy about the 2 parties.....but in California the dems were not very sensible and realistic in many of the things they either put forth or supported...the illegal immigration situation being one of them....

 

[g5000]

Despite a resounding victory in New Hampshire and a virtual tie in Iowa, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

How to you Sanders supporters feel about this crap?

How do you clinton supporters justify this shit?

I think the shit will really hit the fan if Sanders wins the majority of votes in the primaries and yet loses the nomination. There will be blood in the streets.

Nope. The Dems may bitch and moan but they'll line up behind Hillary. They do not want a Republican in office so like the good little sheep they are , they'll take their beaten and battered ego's and back Hillary. The DNC knows this.

I guess you weren't around for the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Nope...but his supporters say this very thing. Yes they want Sanders but they won't take their toys and go home handing the election to the Republicans. The Republicans must be kept out of office at all costs according to them. Especially when Trump is the nominee. Shit, their anger will last 30 seconds then they'll start rallying behind Hillary.

More like 3 seconds.

Democrats are pragmatic in my experience. The GOP just the opposite.

Was burning down Ferguson pragmatic?