DWS asked to explain how HRC lost NH primary by 22% but won an equal number of delegates

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Going by the number of delegates needed, you can also win the nomination without a single superdelegate.

Hillary would need to get indicted for that to occur.

Outcome of the POTUS race is already decided and was 4 years ago!!

Democracy in the US is not driven by the peoples will. Hence Hill will be on the Hill! And nothings going to change that!

Sad, mad and bad! Out of control are TPTB!

originally posted by: elliotmtl
Superdelegates have never voted against the popular vote. If Bernie won the popular vote there is no reason to think they would still vote for Hillary...it would be utterly unprecedented and destroy the illusion of democracy. The "Hillary won more superdelegates" idea is being spread by her campaign and supporting media interests in order to maintain the fiction that Bernie's campaign, and thus going out to vote for him, is futile. Pretty clever too, using the obscure complexity of the election process as a weapon against the new voters that are much more likely to be Bernie supporters than Hillary. I give her props for her campaign's A-plus deceitfulness!

www.pastemagazine.com...

Pretty much. If they did go against the popular vote, Sanders just runs as an independant and costs the Dems the white house. For this reason the whole superdelegates in todays politics is nothing more than the endorsements GOP hands out. The same talk happened in 2008 when Obama beat out Clinton.

This bull# makes me want to throw up. How did our society get to this point?

Please collapse soon kthxbai

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Stranger things have happened.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

True but I am being very pragmatic these days, I have seen this kabuki dance before.

It should be no surprise that half of the 712 super delegates pledged support to Clinton months ago considering without Biden in the race, there was no other candidate known on the national level. But those delegates are not set in stone and represent a small percentage of the 4,753 total delegates.

It would be a general election turnout disaster to "go over ther head" of the democratic primary voters, so I doubt it will happen. For those concerned, Sanders supporters started a petition (MoveOn.org) calling on super delegates to " Announce that in the event of a close race, you'll align yourself with regular voters". Almost 140,000 signatures.

originally posted by: HighFive

But those delegates are not set in stone and represent a small percentage of the 4,753 total delegates.

I would personally not classify 15% (1 in 7) as a small percentage.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: AlaskanDad

“Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists”

Holy crap.

It's like these parties don't even try to look ethical anymore.

What I always find amazing is how both parties get lumped in with things like this that are PRIMARILY a Democratic Party issue.

Don't get me wrong, the Republican Party are no saints, but only the Democratic Party would even think of a system where the Votes by the people don't matter.

Stop lumping everyone in just because you refuse to realize the Democratic Party is NOT the party of the people they claim to be.

"Sure we are bad, but the other guys are bad too!"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Heh. It's cool. Just pulling your chain. I called that Bernie would be the Ron Paul of the Democrats way back when I first heard about him in the summer of last year. Though things look a lot better for him than they did back then.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, we are cool, you and I are on the same page since I have been pretty much saying the same thing.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: AlaskanDad

“Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists”

Holy crap.

It's like these parties don't even try to look ethical anymore.

What I always find amazing is how both parties get lumped in with things like this that are PRIMARILY a Democratic Party issue.

Don't get me wrong, the Republican Party are no saints, but only the Democratic Party would even think of a system where the Votes by the people don't matter.

Stop lumping everyone in just because you refuse to realize the Democratic Party is NOT the party of the people they claim to be.

"Sure we are bad, but the other guys are bad too!

"

You read way too far into what I wrote. Take it face value. This is just one facet of how the entire election process is flawed. I don't give a crap which party is doing which transgression; it's all part of the same process.

An old article from last December, this is what were up against:

5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton

The DNC lined up superdelegates for Clinton before first debate

The DNC has helped the Clinton campaign subvert the Democratic process by going around the vote and courting party bosses, also known as superdelegates, to preemptively win the nomination before all 50 states have held their primary election. Superdelegates are part of the nomination process, and they are typically DNC leaders and current and former elected officials ranging from governors to members of US Congress.

In August, before the first Democratic debate had taken place, the Clinton campaign reported that she had one-fifth of superdelegates already committed to backing her at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. According to Wikipedia, roughly half of the 700+ superdelegates have already committed to backing Hillary Clinton.

While the remainder of the delegate count will be decided as each state hosts its primary election, the early superdelegate committal to the Clinton campaign is highly suspect, as the commitments come months before the first primary voters cast their ballots.

source

A good read on DWS and her work for HRC.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

But those delegates are not set in stone and represent a small percentage of the 4,753 total delegates.

I would personally not classify 15% (1 in 7) as a small percentage.

Only about 350 are pledged to her and have been since she announced. Not surprising considering there were no other candidates running known on a national level, and the Clintons are a established brand. At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. Same on the Republican side. It would weaken the nominee badly and negatively affect voter turnout.

Basically voting is a waste of time since a few will control who gets the bid. At least some of the rigging is becoming more open.

a reply to: Abysha

Sorry about that

It's just one of my pet peeves. I feel this leads to the flawed mentality of "Voting for the lesser of two evils."

The Parties and in fact the candidates all stand for very different things if people care to actually follow the issues.

PERSONALLY speaking, I'm rather excited over this election, I see positives in ALL the current Candidates(except John Kasich) and I would be moderately happy with either democrat or republican running for different reasons. My number one choice is Ben Carson, but I'd be OK with any of them including Bernie Sanders.

Main Point is, The Parties are different and not every politician is the same, but sorry for taking that out on your post

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bernie could still grab those superdelegates that are currently being counted for Hillary.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. My understanding is that superDelegates are the establishment and being as She raised 100M from the establishment on her first day of running, I wouldn't be confident on them switching to Bernie.

All political parties are PRIVATE parties. They exist to get their people into positions of power. As private parties they can make up any rules they want. It is not democracy. It doesn't have to be. It's not even supposed to be. Before the advent of primaries parties chose their candidates in various other ways (as has been pointed out), primarily the caucus system.

Is a caucus system democracy? No. It "gives the vote" to those who bother to show up. Most people in caucus states do not, therefore most people in caucus states do not vote for their candidate at all. So well-organized candidates, such as Ron Paul was, get WAY MORE votes than they actually have support because they show up at the caucuses.

The problem here is the primaries themselves, which were started by the parties because they decided they wanted public input and many in the parties wanted to circumvent the caucus system which was easily susceptible to Ron Paul-type movements. But primaries, being elections, are paid for by government. The Secretary of State has to oversee the process, count the ballots, etc.

And this is an issue itself. WHY is government involved at all in the process of private parties choosing their own candidates to stand for a General election? This situation has led to an incredible hodge-podge of complications.

For example, in Washington State the law was changed to a "Top Two" system where the top two candidates, no matter which party they belonged to, went on to oppose each other in the General election. So in a Democrat controlled state like Washington, you can have the top two candidates both be Democrats and the GOP "gets" no representation in the General election at all. There is no "party registration" in Washington and so for primaries anyone can vote for anyone regardless of party. (They tried that a few years ago, but it did not stick.)

When the election does not go that way and there is a viable candidate of the opposite party, then there tend to be cross-over votes for the weakest opposition candidate. In other words, if you know your guy is going to inevitable get in on your side, your game plan is to vote for the weakest candidate on the opposite side in an attempt to get him the nomination, making your guy even more sure of as victory in the General.

This explains some of Sanders' support. If we can get him to be the nominee for the Democrats, then it will be a slam dunk for the GOP in November. he can be beaten more easily than Hillary (assuming no indictments.)

So what we have here is a mishmash of systems which vary by state and are very much a hybrid, and a misunderstanding by many what the issues are. It's "democracy" only when the private parties wish it and only to the extent they do. Democracy is not required of private parties. Because of their own rules and structure, you DO get a say in the process, and if you, the Democrat voter, want Sanders, you can have him by giving him overwhelming support, despite the super delegates.

The GOP does not have super delegates, and their process is much more in line with the common idea of "democracy."

a reply to: interupt42

True, that's why I only listed it as a possibility. I wasn't trying to suggest that it was an inevitability or even that it was likely to happen.