It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary To Bernie & Joe: 'I Already Have The Delegates For Nomination!'

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Sorry, but can somebody explain how could she have enough delegates to clinch the nomination five months before the first primary? Is that possible? backroom deals, regardless of what people votes? Is she trying to avoid another primary process like 2008 by manouvering behind everybody's back?




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Virgil91

It is just her saying that she does. Nothing official.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Virgil91
Sorry, but can somebody explain how could she have enough delegates to clinch the nomination five months before the first primary? Is that possible? backroom deals, regardless of what people votes? Is she trying to avoid another primary process like 2008 by manouvering behind everybody's back?


The pundits say Hillary is trying to scare Biden into not running...because she is extremely vulnerable now.
Whether or not you believe she and her campaign is being honest about her numbers is anyone's guess.
Super-delegates, however, can still change their minds, regardless...and another big Hillary Clinton scandal eruption may be all it takes...and Sanders and/or Biden could still benefit from her downfall.

IMO, the DNC is giving her preferential treatment over Sanders and the other Democrat candidates... basically "rigging" debate scheduling in her favor. Sanders and O'Malley have expressed their dismay at the DNC's kid glove handling of Clinton...and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz appears to have a man-size girl crush on Hillary.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
To me, just announcing this would be a bad idea, even if she had the support. Honestly, If I was one of her backers I would withdraw my support immediately after hearing this.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
If you actually read the excerpted quote in the OP it doesn't say anything about her already having enough delegates to win. It just says she has a portion of the superdelegates committed. And that's not a guaranteed committment. They could change their minds later.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Virgil91

It is just her saying that she does. Nothing official.


Read the article. Or the quoted portion in the OP. She and her camp are only claiming they have 20 percent of the delegates needed.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
That's the thing about voting in a corrupt politician.

If they are on "your side" then they will probably only ruin your ideological enemies. (neighbors, relatives, spouse, etc)

But any corrupt politician from the other side is worse, because they'll only attack you!

(the answer is in not voting for corrupt politicians)


Maybe in an ideal world, but in the world where we live the world runs on money. If you don't sell out to get that money, you can't get anything accomplished. What good is honesty if it just renders you ineffective?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Debbie wasserman shultz hmmmm another dual citizen with some sort of power to control how things are run in America... I just don't feel too confident knowing their are sooooo many of them sitting in positions of power within our government without knowing where their true allegiance lies, most of the time it's not here...



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Virgil91

It is just her saying that she does. Nothing official.


Read the article. Or the quoted portion in the OP. She and her camp are only claiming they have 20 percent of the delegates needed.


My guess would be that the numbers have been crunched and she figures there will be enough support from the primaries to make up the remaining votes. Apparently the Democrat state primaries divide up their delegates by percentage, they aren't winner-take-all. So if she averages maybe(?) 35-40% in the primaries she'll have the total amount needed at the end of the day.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Virgil91

It is just her saying that she does. Nothing official.


Read the article. Or the quoted portion in the OP. She and her camp are only claiming they have 20 percent of the delegates needed.


This appears to be their claim of having 60% (a majority) of 'superdelegates' "wrapped up".
From the OP article:


The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February


www.bloomberg.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

So this question is for mainly Bernie supporters. Personally I've made my choice and it doesn't involved any people running on either ticket.

If true, and she coasts would something like this make you stay home, would you at that point be screaming for Bernie to run third party? What would your reaction be to her making this statement then cruising through?
edit on 29-8-2015 by Reallyfolks because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Whoops pointing out that dual citizens might not be the best thing for American interests wasn't a great idea for the context of this thread considering Bernie is one too..... Hmmm... An issue that is often overlooked I guess...



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
So she's literally saying 'your vote doesn't matter.' Lol. Ah, America.

What bull#. We need to get rid of this system and just have it be strictly based on the votes. She's just flaunting our flawed system in our faces, saying 'I'm well connected and actually the delegates are gonna vote for me no matter what so your vote doesn't count.' If people had any sense this would kill support for her.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If "Her Grace's" handlers had the delegates they claim to have wouldn't Sanders and several others even bother to run in the 1st place? They don't have those people otherwise, they would have made this announcement several months ago.It would have cut any potential opponents off at the pass.We wouldn't have even seen as many Republican's running either.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
how can she have the delegates if the votes haven't been counted yet?? God, I hope she is lying since the other alternative is that everybody have been wasting thier time voting in the primaries since well, the decision has already been made! god, even if what she say is true, a lie, an sign of overconfidence, she should be disqualified for even saying it! her words castes doubts on the integrity of the voting process and well there's already plenty of doubt out there about that!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

This appears to be their claim of having 60% (a majority) of 'superdelegates' "wrapped up".


Yes, but there are more than just the super delegates. The article clearly states that even counting the super delegates committed she only has 20 percent of the delegates needed.

Nowhere in that article is anyone quoted as saying she has enough delegates committed already to win.
edit on 30-8-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Sanders and O'Malley activists are striking back at the DNC and it's Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz for what it believes is a nomination process "rigged" in Hillary Clinton's favor.



Activists turn up heat on DNC for more debates



Grassroots activists are putting the screws to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in hopes of getting the organization to change its plans for the party’s 2016 presidential debates.

The #AllowDebate movement is hoping recent criticism from White House hopefuls Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will force the DNC to address concerns they have with the events’ size, scope and rules.

The movement argues that the DNC is rigging the presidential primary by limiting its schedule of sanctioned debates to six — four of them before the first voters go to the polls — and banning candidates from participating in outside contests.


Their discontent echoes complaints from both O’Malley and Sanders at the committee’s summer meeting Friday afternoon over the DNC’s decision-making.

“Four debates and only four debates — we are told and not asked — before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” O’Malley said.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” he said. “How does this help us make our case to the people? Whatever happened to open debates and the 50-state strategy?”



thehill.com...

Do they have a case? IMO, they do.
At this point, I do not plan on voting Democrat, but I can appreciate the Sanders campaign in particular...simply by what it has managed to accomplish within such a lop-sided nomination processes. It has apparently been intentionally skewed to basically 'coronate' one particular candidate over the others.

This is not how the democratic process of choosing a candidate is supposed to work.

The fact that democrats STILL haven't even had one debate at this point seems wrong to me...and (IMO) it is all being done by a 'biased' and non-neutral DNC in order to shelter Hillary from having to answer personally and politically embarrassing questions, all the while negating the opportunity for Bernie Sanders or others to potentially score valuable debate points against Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I would love to see the democrats debate Hillary Clinton and I admire the fact that Sanders and O'Malley (and their supporters) are willing to take a stand against what they now believe is a "rigged" DNC nomination process in favor of Clinton.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT that might be true but she is stll looking at felony charges isn't she how is she even still running



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Prediction:
Biden gets in anyway...Obama/Jarrett unleash the evidence and investigation hounds against Hillary to take her out.

Please, please, please, be right. I cant stand her one bit. She is an evil, arrogant, full of herself pant suit wearing witch.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
So she's literally saying 'your vote doesn't matter.' Lol. Ah, America.

What bull#. We need to get rid of this system and just have it be strictly based on the votes. She's just flaunting our flawed system in our faces, saying 'I'm well connected and actually the delegates are gonna vote for me no matter what so your vote doesn't count.' If people had any sense this would kill support for her.


Exactly my point.




top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join