Voter Fraud? Well, Maybe ...

[busybee01]

Don't be silly. The DNC legally makes and changes their rules as they see fit. Don't like it? Tough.

They broke their own rules instead of changing them, jackass.

I know why I think your vote should not matter. It is because of your obviously low IQ and ignorance. Just as I think a two year old should not be able to vote, I think people like you should not be able to vote.

What I would like to know is why you personally think that your vote should not matter.

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

 

[busybee01]

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

Actually we don't know that at all .... do your research.

Kooks like you can believe what you want.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

You are fucked in the head. The DNC is going to lose in court. The only question is how seriously they will be punished.

You are one seriously misinformed person. Where do you get your "news and information" from? Alex Jones?

No.

I got it from the court records.

Where did you get your "information", jackass?

Then you clearly lack the basic intelligence to understand what you are reading.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

IQ = 158

The odds that your IQ is within 50 points of mine are very slim.

You've officially been given fair warning.

Quoting your IQ on the internet, now that is a sure sign you probably never finished high school! What a tool!

 

[BULLDOG]

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

You are fucked in the head. The DNC is going to lose in court. The only question is how seriously they will be punished.

You are one seriously misinformed person. Where do you get your "news and information" from? Alex Jones?

No.

I got it from the court records.

Where did you get your "information", jackass?

Then you clearly lack the basic intelligence to understand what you are reading.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

IQ = 158

The odds that your IQ is within 50 points of mine are very slim.

You've officially been given fair warning.

You're gonna have to study a lot more if you want to compete with Furbe

 

[Spare_change]

They broke their own rules instead of changing them, jackass.

I know why I think your vote should not matter. It is because of your obviously low IQ and ignorance. Just as I think a two year old should not be able to vote, I think people like you should not be able to vote.

What I would like to know is why you personally think that your vote should not matter.

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

 

[Spare_change]

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

Actually we don't know that at all .... do your research.

Kooks like you can believe what you want.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

Actually we don't know that at all .... do your research.

Kooks like you can believe what you want.

Name calling? How juvenile.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[Muhammed]

That's right. Don't forget it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's right. Don't forget it.

You are a legend in your own mind! I have to admit it has been years since I have seen anyone pathetic enough to quote an IQ on a web forum. It must to suck to be you!

 

[Muhammed]

That's right. Don't forget it.

You are a legend in your own mind! I have to admit it has been years since I have seen anyone pathetic enough to quote an IQ on a web forum. It must to suck to be you!

I put a considerable amount of thought into it. Long ago I concluded that it is better to just straight up admit my IQ up front to people on the internet. It is fair warning.

Queue 'IQ doesn't matter' because blah buh blah blah blahhhh....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's right. Don't forget it.

You are a legend in your own mind! I have to admit it has been years since I have seen anyone pathetic enough to quote an IQ on a web forum. It must to suck to be you!

I put a considerable amount of thought into it. Long ago I concluded that it is better to just straight up admit it up front to people on the internet. It is fair warning.

Queue IQ doesn't matter....

IQ, just like any other natural talent is only useful if it is put to good use. Clearly with you it has gone to waste, not unlike great talents that go bust in professional sports due to lack of effort.

But in general, posting your IQ on a internet forum is no different than posting your dick size, everyone knows that anyone that would so such a thing is full of crap to start with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

And because of that we were stuck with choosing between gonorrhea or syphilis if you wanted to vote for one of the two major candidates.

 

[busybee01]

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

 

[Muhammed]

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Wow, you are going way the fuck out in la la land to defend Clinton.You know that and I know that and the entire board knows that.

Why do you lie to yourself so much? When has lying to yourself EVER helped you accomplish anything worthwhile?

I challenge you to give an example .

 

[BULLDOG]

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Wow, you are going way the fuck out in la la land to defend Clinton.You know that and I know that and the entire board knows that.

Why do you lie to yourself so much? When has lying to yourself EVER helped you accomplish anything worthwhile?

I challenge you to give an example .

It's not your party anyway. It's none of your fucking business.

 

[busybee01]

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Wow, you are going way the fuck out in la la land to defend Clinton.You know that and I know that and the entire board knows that.

Why do you lie to yourself so much? When has lying to yourself EVER helped you accomplish anything worthwhile?

I challenge you to give an example .

You are in la la land. I deal in hard numbers. Clinton got 55% to Sanders 43% in the Democrat primaries. You are the liar. I'll bet you think Clinton shot JFK.

Clinton losing super-delegate support

 

[Spare_change]

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Wow, you are going way the fuck out in la la land to defend Clinton.You know that and I know that and the entire board knows that.

Why do you lie to yourself so much? When has lying to yourself EVER helped you accomplish anything worthwhile?

I challenge you to give an example .

You are in la la land. I deal in hard numbers. Clinton got 55% to Sanders 43% in the Democrat primaries. You are the liar. I'll bet you think Clinton shot JFK.

Clinton losing super-delegate support

Great point! 55% - 43% .... case settled.

Who cares about how the 55% was obtained? Who cares about the blatant favoritism of the DNC? Who cares about the back room manipulations in order to ensure that the power elite remained in control?

None of that matters. 55-43 ... end of story.

Except, it isn't.

 

[LaDexter]

It's not your party anyway. It's none of your fucking business

Rather, it shows that activist Dems like yourself do not care one bit how corrupt your Dem "leaders" are... as long as you get your monthly government check.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It has its strengths as well. The idea of pledged delegates being distributed on the basis of the popular voter is better than the Republican plan which can award all the delegates even if a candidate gets less than 50% of the vote. Super delegates do not mean anything. Most of the super delegates as well as the DNC supported Clinton in 2008. However when Obama started winning states, many of the super-delegates who had initially supported Clinton defected to Obama. In 2016, Clinton got 55% of the primary vote.

Sanders had no chance because he had no plan for winning the nomination after the first 4 contests. Sanders got clobbered in the south, winning only 26% in SC, 19% in Louisiana and Mississippi, and 33% in Texas and Florida. Clinton turned a handful of southern states that went to Obama in 2008 while Sanders was only able to turn Oklahoma. The DNC does not give any money to candidates. It was fair as 55% of primary voters voted for Clinton.

It's not exactly as you say .... super delegates (which is different than pledged delegates) are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are NOT assigned - your claim of requiring 50% is false. The supposed 50% rule is only used when the election is decided before they cast their votes at the convention. It is the custom to do a unanimous proclamation which makes the winner look like he/she has a greater mandate. In the case of both candidates being less than 50%, they are free to vote for whichever they wish.

15% of all delegates are super delegates - out of the 4,763 delegates, 715 were super delegates.

Since we know that that 30 million voters voted ... each delegate (on average) represents 6,298 voters.

Now, the super delegates represent one voter - themselves. Their votes could have canceled about 4.5 million voters (6,298 x 715). The margin between Sanders and Clinton was only about 3.7 million voters - less than the offset of super delegates. So, it is conceivable that, if all 715 super delegates had chosen to vote for Sanders, it would have ignored the will of the Democrat voter.

THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody is saying it threw this election one way or the others - but it COULD have.

Unquestionably, if the Republicans had used the same system, the antipathy toward Trump within the rank-and-file Republican Party hierarchy was such that he would not have won the nomination, and the will of the Republican voter would have been subverted. Fortunately, the Republicans don't use super delegates, and the people spoke.

You miss my point. Democrat rules require proportional representation for pledged delegates no matter how small the totals are. For example, in Mississippi Sanders got only 19% of the vote but he still got 19% of the pledged delegates. In SC, Trump won with only 32% yet got 100% of the delegates. I've always believed that you should be required to get at least 50% of the vote for winner take all.

You make the assumption that super delegates could go 1 way while primary voters go the other way. That is unlikely to happen. The public pressure for them to go with the person who has the most pledged delegates would be immense. In 2008, most super delegates went with Clinton. However as Obama won states and pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate hunt, Clinton super delegates moved to Obama.

The will of the Republican voters was subverted. In SC, 68% of Republican voters voted for someone else. Yet these voters were ignored. The fact is that a majority of Republican voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Wow, you are going way the fuck out in la la land to defend Clinton.You know that and I know that and the entire board knows that.

Why do you lie to yourself so much? When has lying to yourself EVER helped you accomplish anything worthwhile?

I challenge you to give an example .

You are in la la land. I deal in hard numbers. Clinton got 55% to Sanders 43% in the Democrat primaries. You are the liar. I'll bet you think Clinton shot JFK.

Clinton losing super-delegate support

Great point! 55% - 43% .... case settled.

Who cares about how the 55% was obtained? Who cares about the blatant favoritism of the DNC? Who cares about the back room manipulations in order to ensure that the power elite remained in control?

None of that matters. 55-43 ... end of story.

Except, it isn't.

You are right, none of that matter. There is no law against a party showing blatant favoritism, in fact parties do it all the time. There is no law that says a party must follow the will of the people, or even ask the people who the candidate should be.
All you people crying about this should learn a little history and see how candidates used to be chosen, not all that long ago. Primaries are a pretty new idea, and I am not even sure a good idea.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not your party anyway. It's none of your fucking business

Rather, it shows that activist Dems like yourself do not care one bit how corrupt your Dem "leaders" are... as long as you get your monthly government check.

Again, none of your business. The liberals will run the DNC as we see fit, and nobody needs a crazy right winger trying to poke their nose where it doesn't belong.

 

[LaDexter]

Again, none of your business.

LOL!!!

You getting a government check to sit there posting left wing lies here is my business because I pay taxes and I don't want one cent going to you for nothing....