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.

 

After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders

I'm not a Democrat...but wow, just wow.



In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.


How could any party think this is representative of constituents? It would seem to me that the whole "superdelegates" idea is just begging for corruption and the potential to "buy" a candidacy....
edit on 11-2-2016 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders

I'm not a Democrat...but wow, just wow.



In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.


How could any party think this is representative of constituents? It would seem to me that the whole "superdelegates" idea is just begging for corruption and the potential to "buy" a candidacy....



Democrats do it differently than republicans. Look up superdelegates, their history, and how they factor in.

Superdelegate
edit on 11-2-2016 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
This thread has me wondering a bit:

Where will Sanders supporters go after Hillary(and yes, she will) gets the DEM nomination? Surely a number of them must be anti-clintonians?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Thanks for the link...



The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.


The quote above was pulled from your link. It pretty much states the point of my post. I'd feel this way no matter WHAT party was doing it... Individual votes can be easily swayed or bought. It would seem this type of process could be hugely ripe for corruption.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Thanks for the link...



The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.


The quote above was pulled from your link. It pretty much states the point of my post. I'd feel this way no matter WHAT party was doing it... Individual votes can be easily swayed or bought. It would seem this type of process could be hugely ripe for corruption.



Understood. From the outset of this Bernie bananza, people have been saying he has no shot because of the superdelegates. The media likes the ratings so they have put that tidbit on the back burner for now.
edit on 11-2-2016 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Starting to wonder if this election cycle will finally unveil to the masses that the game is rigged. Most people still buy into it. I think this time thanks to the internet and the lack of support from the populace for the establishments picks people will catch on. Once the people realize they are doing us from both ends like "Chinese finger cuffs" we might actually have a chance of doing something. One can dream.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Thanks for the link...



The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.


The quote above was pulled from your link. It pretty much states the point of my post. I'd feel this way no matter WHAT party was doing it... Individual votes can be easily swayed or bought. It would seem this type of process could be hugely ripe for corruption.



Hey, Hillary has to put that 6 billion from the state Department that she allegedly stole, er, I mean transferred, er, I mean invested in her foundation, er, I mean invested in her campaign, er, I mean used to buy off delegates, er, I mean.... Oh hell, she's corrupt, why bother making excuses for the mother of all lies?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Why not? It is the Democratic Party and they seem to be able to choose who gets nominated . Be it by popular vote or not..Did not surprise me one bit , them pulling for Clinton. All you have to do is watch Soros and who he donated to.

edit on 11-2-2016 by Gothmog because: add


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Well their little ploy may backfire.

I for one,am voting for Bernie Sanders or ANYONE against Hillary.

She is currently under investigation by the F.B.I., she has been mired in scandal and corruption for decades,from the current e-mail debacle, to Whitewater, to Benghazi,to voter fraud, all the way back to getting kicked off the Watergate investigations for unethical behavior.

She's like the evil creature in a horror movie that just won't die.

She reeks of every corruption and decay that is the dirty underbelly of slimy politics.


edit on 12-2-2016 by abe froman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Lol the democrat party is about as democratic as the democratic people republic of north korea



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
If Bernie wins the vote but not the nomination, he just might go independent. I don't see him losing the nomination because by that time grand jury investigation will have an indictment for Clinton.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Once Hillary wins the nomination - and she will - the American public will just accept it and move on to the next show in town. That's the harsh truth. Not enough people will challenge the corruption. In fact, even worse, those that do challenge it will be laughed at by the masses who have moved on to the new series of the x-factor.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Super delegates are apart of the establishment, aka they're DC politicians and whatnot. They don't care about the will of the people, they just do what they're told.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Hillary, the whore of Babylon.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

This is all explained in this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah it kind of sucks, but that's how the Democrats do things. What can you do? They have every right to pick their candidates anyway they want to pick them.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

I'm fairly certain that the Democrat party establishment will do everything it can to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination, even if it means replacing him at a brokered convention with someone like Joe Biden. Needless to say, that would be an absolute disaster for them, but like the GOP establishment, they seem oblivious to reality and will of their voters. Myself, I'm keeping a bag of popcorn handy, because its going to be quite entertaining to watch. The GOP establishment has already screwed itself over the last few years, ignoring the will of their constituents. Now, the Dems are poised to do the same or worse.
edit on 12-2-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't really helping the DNC public relations on this issue. She's very strident and unapologetic about the process and the issue of super-delegates. Coupled with the flap between the DNC and the Sanders campaign about the voter lists and the number of debates and her comments about young women voters and it's pretty of ugly. If things go badly with Hillary's bid, it won't be because the power players had lack-luster support for her. But their blatant favoritism and shenanigans may cause an uprising if she wins.




edit on 2/12/2016 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I wonder if Sanders knows Hillary is supposed to win the nomination no matter how much he beats her.
He's been in politics for over 30 years...he HAS to know, right?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Told ya. not you specifically but that the parties are gonna do what they want.

democrats and republicans own their parties, you just vote for them.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

He's trying to wake us up. He doesn't need to win to do that. An overwhelming popular vote might be the straw. Would be better for that example to occur in the presidential election itself though.

If the people overwhelmingly demand Sanders, and the establishment says, "eh # you we're doing what we want anyway" it can be an eye opener. Has to be an overwhelming amount though to get the proper reaction.




top topics



 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join