Voter Fraud? Well, Maybe ...

[BULLDOG]

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....

No. I saved a little before retirement, and nothing I might receive comes from you. I guess my finances are another thing you should keep your fucking nose out of.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Except it is.

The same people who were on Clinton's side in 2016 were supporting her in 2008. That didn't stop Obama from winning. The fact is that the same thing goes on in the Republican Party as well.

Democrat primary voters wanted Clinton in 2016 and for better or worse, they got their choice.

 

[meaner gene]

IQ = 158

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

You've officially been given fair warning.

Actually IQ's of 108 or higher, are common 1 in 3.


IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart

If you were actually that smart, you would know that.

And using the SAT to IQ conversion, it comes to 3 out of 5.

 

[LaDexter]

I guess my finances are another thing you should keep your fucking nose out of.

Like Hillary, Democrats are for "privacy" for Democrats... and nobody else....

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess my finances are another thing you should keep your fucking nose out of.

Like Hillary, Democrats are for "privacy" for Democrats... and nobody else....

I'll bet Alex Jones told you that, didn't he?

 

[Muhammed]

I guess my finances are another thing you should keep your fucking nose out of.

Like Hillary, Democrats are for "privacy" for Democrats... and nobody else....

I'll bet Alex Jones told you that, didn't he?

You frequently bring Alex Jones into threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with Alex Jones for no apparent reason. Why are you so obsessed with Alex Jones?

What are you going to do next, send him some of your wet panties along with a note threatening suicide if he refuses to make sweet love to you?

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess my finances are another thing you should keep your fucking nose out of.

Like Hillary, Democrats are for "privacy" for Democrats... and nobody else....

I'll bet Alex Jones told you that, didn't he?

You frequently bring Alex Jones into threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with Alex Jones for no apparent reason. Why are you so obsessed with Alex Jones?

What are you going to do next, send him some of your wet panties along with a note threatening suicide if he refuses to make sweet love to you?

Most ridiculous claims like yours about privacy, are shown to be direct quotes from Jones , or rush, or Hannity, or some other RWNJ talking Head.