Superdelegates????

[g5000]

You are extremely naive if you think the far, far left supporters of Sanders are going to just sit there and take it if Sanders is robbed.

EXTREMELY naive.

 

[Skylar]

You are extremely naive if you think the far, far left supporters of Sanders are going to just sit there and take it if Sanders is robbed.

EXTREMELY naive.

Oh, if Sanders wins the delegate count and the Super Delegates give it to Hillary... absolutely they'll revolt. In a general election they probably won't vote. Meaning its virtually guaranteed to be a republican victory.

Which is why its highly unlikely the Super delegates would do that.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Oh, I get it, because they were black people, you think they are democrats.... Your small mind is fun to watch when it tries to work.

Here is a little hint for you; thugs do not have a constituency in office.

 

[Jackson]

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.

I think it is both cheating him and using the system to vote for the one who they feel is best, or they abide by the establishment's wishes. I do feel this is against the intent of the electorate and should be used as a talking point in the debates.

 

[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.

I think it is both cheating him and using the system to vote for the one who they feel is best, or they abide by the establishment's wishes. I do feel this is against the intent of the electorate and should be used as a talking point in the debates.

What is against the intent of the electorate? Remember, no Super Delegate has actually voted yet. Nor will they until the convention itself. They can and frequently do change their minds.

 

[cereal_killer]

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.

I think it is both cheating him and using the system to vote for the one who they feel is best, or they abide by the establishment's wishes. I do feel this is against the intent of the electorate and should be used as a talking point in the debates.

How is it cheating him if the Super Delegate doesn't want to vote for him? The Super delegates are establishment types who've literally worked with and known the Clintons for years. So if I'm a sd and I like Hillary it's wrong for me to vote for her? I'm supposed to say "fuck it, I don't care for Sanders but I'll vote for him anyway because my friends and neighbors like him" Makes no sense. Cheating him is taking the people that voted for him and changing their votes to Hillary and this is not the case.

 

[Jackson]

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.

I think it is both cheating him and using the system to vote for the one who they feel is best, or they abide by the establishment's wishes. I do feel this is against the intent of the electorate and should be used as a talking point in the debates.

How is it cheating him if the Super Delegate doesn't want to vote for him? The Super delegates are establishment types who've literally worked with and known the Clintons for years. So if I'm a sd and I like Hillary it's wrong for me to vote for her? I'm supposed to say "fuck it, I don't care for Sanders but I'll vote for him anyway because my friends and neighbors like him" Makes no sense. Cheating him is taking the people that voted for him and changing their votes to Hillary and this is not the case.

I don't give the sd that much credit. Their vote is not secret, the party will know how they voted. The establishment is heavy force to go against. Want to stay a sd? Go the party line. Why would they even exist if that was not the case?

 

[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.

I think it is both cheating him and using the system to vote for the one who they feel is best, or they abide by the establishment's wishes. I do feel this is against the intent of the electorate and should be used as a talking point in the debates.

How is it cheating him if the Super Delegate doesn't want to vote for him? The Super delegates are establishment types who've literally worked with and known the Clintons for years. So if I'm a sd and I like Hillary it's wrong for me to vote for her? I'm supposed to say "fuck it, I don't care for Sanders but I'll vote for him anyway because my friends and neighbors like him" Makes no sense. Cheating him is taking the people that voted for him and changing their votes to Hillary and this is not the case.

I don't give the sd that much credit. Their vote is not secret, the party will know how they voted. The establishment is heavy force to go against. Want to stay a sd? Go the party line. Why would they even exist if that was not the case?

The Super Delegates follow the standard delegates in practice.

 

[candycorn]

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....

I've often held that the Pelosi type of liberalism is probably the greatest threat to the Demographic party moving forward.

 

[candycorn]

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.

The same is true if the GOP robs Trump if he wins most of the primaries. Except in Trump's case, there won't be a riot. He will either go third party or call on his supporters to boycott the election, thereby handing the election to Clinton.

Hillary Clinton in 2008 won the individual Primary vote, 18.1 million to 17.6 million for Obama, yet she lost the nomination for Presidential Candidate for the DNC....I don't remember the riots back then about super delegates?

About half of the super delegates/unpledged delegates have chosen not to commit to supporting Hillary...and a couple that have, have already switched their commitment from Hillary to Bernie.

Sanders knows the rules that were set before the Primary began.... he needs to get his rear in gear, and secure those super delegates.

IF Sanders makes no effort to do such, then perhaps he truly does not want to win the nomination and possibly be President... and is just in this race to have his political positions be heard....????

It is not entirely that easy. Super Delegates are awarded based on a number of criteria; chief amongst these are long-term party patronage. That usually (but not always) coincides with the ability to win in the General as you saw with President Obama taking some SDs away from Clinton though they had previously pledged to then Senator Clinton.

Bernie cannot fire up the charm offensive then start wining and dining them and expect to get support. He needs to win by a couple of touchdowns and he'll see the move being made toward him by the SDs happen organically.

I doubt he would even see it then.

So, since he knows and new the rules and situation before he even began his run, did Bernie Sanders ever, truly, want to be President?

Wanted to be? yes.

Willing to do what it takes? no.

 

[g5000]

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?

Oh, I get it, because they were black people, you think they are democrats....

Obama got 96 percent of the black vote. It doesn't take a big leap to know most of the blacks in Ferguson are left leaning/Democrats.

So answer the question. Was burning down Ferguson pragmatic?

 

[candycorn]

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?

Oh, I get it, because they were black people, you think they are democrats....

Obama got 96 percent of the black vote. It doesn't take a big leap to know most of the blacks in Ferguson are left leaning/Democrats.

So answer the question. Was burning down Ferguson pragmatic?

Okay, since Romney got most of the white vote, should I ask you if Mcveigh's action in OK city pragmatic? What about Whiman's actions at UT? Klibold and Harris?

Since he got most of the white militant vote, it doesn't take a big leap to know where their loyalties were.

 

[Care4all]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

 

[g5000]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

 

[Care4all]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

if it is highway robbery, then yes, I agree with you....if it is a tie or close to a tie, then I don't think so...no one went bat crazy with Hillary/Obama... ?

 

[g5000]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

if it is highway robbery, then yes, I agree with you....if it is a tie or close to a tie, then I don't think so...no one went bat crazy with Hillary/Obama... ?

The reason this topic, and others like it, exist is because of the New Hampshire imbroglio.

Bernie Sanders slam dunked Clinton in the primary, and yet she walked away with far more delegates than he did.

This portends a robbery in progress and is why we are talking about the possible ramifications of same.

 

[Care4all]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

if it is highway robbery, then yes, I agree with you....if it is a tie or close to a tie, then I don't think so...no one went bat crazy with Hillary/Obama... ?

The reason this topic, and others like it, exist is because of the New Hampshire imbroglio.

Bernie Sanders slam dunked Clinton in the primary, and yet she walked away with far more delegates than he did.

This portends a robbery in progress and is why we are talking about the possible ramifications of same.

I saw that as republicans starting those threads and trying to cause trouble between us.... she did not walk away with more pledged delegates from the vote in New Hampshire, sanders got 15 and she got 8 or 9 pledged delegates.... the unpledged delegates she had with commitments were unpledged delegates that committed to her way back in 2015 and had nothing at all to do with the vote in the NH primary, and are also UNPLEDGED and can change their commitment a100 times before the convention vote....

And, a couple of early unpledged delegates that did commit to Hillary early on, last week, changed their support from her to Sanders last week, which could change back to her then back to Bernie a few more times before the convention....

 

[g5000]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

if it is highway robbery, then yes, I agree with you....if it is a tie or close to a tie, then I don't think so...no one went bat crazy with Hillary/Obama... ?

The reason this topic, and others like it, exist is because of the New Hampshire imbroglio.

Bernie Sanders slam dunked Clinton in the primary, and yet she walked away with far more delegates than he did.

This portends a robbery in progress and is why we are talking about the possible ramifications of same.

I saw that as republicans starting those threads and trying to cause trouble between us.... she did not walk away with more pledged delegates from the vote in New Hampshire, sanders got 15 and she got 8 or 9 pledged delegates.... the unpledged delegates she had with commitments were unpledged delegates that committed to her way back in 2015 and had nothing at all to do with the vote in the NH primary, and are also UNPLEDGED and can change their commitment a100 times before the convention vote....

And, a couple of early unpledged delegates that did commit to Hillary early on, last week, changed their support from her to Sanders last week, which could change back to her then back to Bernie a few more times before the convention....

I am well aware of the ability of delegates to change their commitments, and even stated so earlier in this topic, or in another topic.

However, in the popular press, the rubes have been given the very specific impression that Hillary has walked away with a lot more delegates from New Hampshire than Sanders did.

And perception is everything.

 

[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.

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.

I've made no predictions whatsoever. I' simply asked 2questions. One aimwd at hillary supporters and 1 for Sanders' supporters. The fact that I mistrust hillary clinton more than I do you is irrelevant. I sweat! This shit has gone on through maybe a dozen posts fom each of us. I ask, you avoid answering. Reread post #1 and answer the appropriate question or shut the fuck up.

 

[Ernie S.]

G5000

I don't know if you remember, but it came out after Ferguson, that around 70% of the people living there eligible to vote, did NOT vote and were not registered to vote. Repubs posted threads on it, complaining that Dems focused on registering these people to vote (were taking advantage of the situation), so they could elect their local officials....

The point I am making is that if Sanders is robbed, the far left will not take it sitting down. Doesn't matter if they are registered to vote or not, they have shown they are very volatile. Just like they demonstrated their volatility at the 1968 convention and in Ferguson. These are not cool heads.

The idea they will sit there and take it is incredibly naive.

if it is highway robbery, then yes, I agree with you....if it is a tie or close to a tie, then I don't think so...no one went bat crazy with Hillary/Obama... ?

The reason this topic, and others like it, exist is because of the New Hampshire imbroglio.

Bernie Sanders slam dunked Clinton in the primary, and yet she walked away with far more delegates than he did.

This portends a robbery in progress and is why we are talking about the possible ramifications of same.

I saw that as republicans starting those threads and trying to cause trouble between us.... she did not walk away with more pledged delegates from the vote in New Hampshire, sanders got 15 and she got 8 or 9 pledged delegates.... the unpledged delegates she had with commitments were unpledged delegates that committed to her way back in 2015 and had nothing at all to do with the vote in the NH primary, and are also UNPLEDGED and can change their commitment a100 times before the convention vote....

And, a couple of early unpledged delegates that did commit to Hillary early on, last week, changed their support from her to Sanders last week, which could change back to her then back to Bernie a few more times before the convention....

I just asked for an opinion. No motives other than curiosity.