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

Obama had a closed door with Sanders, Sanders says to to HRC, I never ran against Obama, but you did!

It hit her hard, was that a veiled threat there, I wonder.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

Instead they impose the will of the electorate by brokered convention. The RNC just rigs it's nomination differently than the DNC does.

When is the last time the GOP had a brokered convention?

And as long as we are on the subject, why don't you get to choose who the candidate for the Green Party will be? How about the Socialist Workers Party? Or the Communist Party? Those parties choose their candidates and they appear on the General election ballot. You do not get a say in choosing those candidates. Is that circumventing democracy?

The last time the GOP had a brokered convention was 1948.

The establishment knows the candidates from the other parties you mention have absolutely no chance of winning a general election, so the rules aren't applied as stringently as to the Rs and Ds. The debate committee is only made up of Rs and Ds, making it difficult if not impossible to get into the debates as an Independent. The last time was who, Ross Perot in '92? Sure, the establishment gives the illusion your vote means something, but they have final say. Just look at 2000 when Gore won the popular vote. TPTB didn't like the decision so they fell back on an antiquated electoral college method, hanging chads, a friendly FLA judge where Bush's brother was governor, and the rest is history.

originally posted by: interupt42

Unfortunately the problem with that is, the majority of the population who supports the DNC and GOP are blind political followers. It was so blatant when the GOP threw Ron Paul under the bus , yet they still think the GOP isn't rigged either.

My memory of that is somewhat different, as I participated in the caucuses that year when Ron Paul made his big move. I saw it first hand. Ron Paul attempted to take over state conventions through procedural tricks and underhanded tactics. Ron Paul supporters were quite well organized--better than anyone else--and they used this to their advantage to overwhelm caucus states where showing up was the important thing to do. The amount of delegates he garnered was far more than the actual popular support he had.

During the local, county, and state conventions they used disruptive tactics and intimidation as tools. They shouted from the convention floor, used profanity, and generally made a nuisance of themselves. They were definitely not in to "reasoned debate" but did everything they could to disrupt the proceedings. It was a mad house at the state convention where they decided a louder voice was the way to express their opinion.

Needless to say, they did not endear themselves to anyone. Where I went into the process thinking Ron Paul had some interesting things to say I came out of it hoping I would never again be around people with such immature disgusting behavior ever again. My feeling by the end of the state convention was "Good riddance" and I'm glad he did not get any further than he did.

a reply to: schuyler

My memory of that is somewhat different

I don't know what to say if you don't think that Ron Paul wasn't thrown under the bus by the MSM and his own party?

Well, to be fair, the Electoral College was part of the original design in the Constitution:

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The U.S. also experienced how unfair that was with the Bush and Gore presidential run. The popular vote was ignored and it ended up being decided by an elected official who just happened to be a leader of the Bush campaign who happened to be a republican and the Florida Secretary of State. I'm sure his brother Jeb the republican governor at the time helped sway the win.

The two party system is simply corrupt. I think the more elections we have, the more the voting public is realizing how corrupt it really is. The electoral college should be abolished. I'm sure if all the states that had a large number of electoral votes, were either all red or all blue, the party with the small electoral electorate would be crying foul and they would probably be successful and get it abolished.

a reply to: interupt42

One big difference between Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, is the huge number of small donors Sen Sanders has is record breaking.

Who knows how much a difference this will make, time will tell.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

One big difference between Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, is the huge number of small donors Sen Sanders has is record breaking.

I wouldn't say a big difference when it comes to contribution, if I recall correctly Ron Paul also had the majority of small contributions. There big difference obviously comes in their party ideals.

IMO I would pick Ron Paul over Bernie in a heart beat.

While I agree with Bernies message about corruption at the top and I think he is the better candidate for us in this election.

I have to agree with Ron Pauls libertarian views as the right medicine for us right now. I think its best to shrink a corrupted gov't then expand it after the corruption is taken care of.
Get rid of the corruption then talk to me about expanding and creating regulations and what ever political ideals you have.

a reply to: interupt42

I don't know what to say if you don't think that Ron Paul wasn't thrown under the bus by the MSM and his own party?

I agree. Ron Paul was blatantly ignored by the media. Kind of like what they tried doing with Trump and Sanders at the start of their campaigns. They couldn't ignore both of them after the polls were showing they were getting a lot of public support. Sanders was declared unelectable and Trump was declared he couldn't be taken seriously.

a reply to: interupt42

A smaller government working for the people, would be a enormous improvement over our bloated corporate gov. that sees people as consumers, and we are only valued for the potential from which they may exploit a profit.

A bloated corporate government, is the pillar of modern corruption in the US of A.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Agreed. Thats why we need a libertarian during this rampant corruption.



Unfortunately, the DNC, GOP and the MSM which are owned by the lobbyist are to effective of a tool for another party to slip through the cracks.

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

It's media narrative to make it seem as if Sanders isn't worth fighting for. All of these 'extra' delegates picked Hillary before she even announced her candidacy. If Sanders wins the popular vote the super-delegates would switch sides in a heartbeat. No question, because if they didn't and the super-delegates were the ones to decide who the nominee is, it would destroy the Democratic party for years. The voters wouldn't trust the establishment and the establishment wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it.

a reply to: interupt42

While the two are not the same, Occupy and Sanders do correlate to many junctions in their ideals. That being soft corruption through lobbying has destroyed the middle class and Wall Street is rigging the game for themselves.

Interesting times we live in!

DWS will be VP.

a reply to: schuyler

What your neglecting to mention is that because Ron Paul was anti establishment from the get-go he was fighting an uphill battle all along. GOP and the DNC HAVE GOT TO BE DONE AWAY WITH.

I found reading on Ron Pual's donors / donations quite interesting: www.opensecrets.org...

Sanders page:linkis.com...

Sanders might have a small FEC problem:

But the F.E.C.’s review suggests that the sheer volume of small contributions Mr. Sanders is receiving — more than 3 million of them so far, according to his campaign — may be straining his campaign’s ability to keep track of which donors are which. Most of the contributions cited by the commission were given by donors with relatively unusual names, whose small checks are generally easier to tally.

In early February, after the end of the fourth fund-raising quarter, Mr. Sanders’s campaign announced that it had more than 1.3 million donors, an astonishing number for so early in the campaign cycle. And last week, the campaign announced it had received 3.25 million total donations, the most of any presidential candidate in the race. The campaign’s most recent F.E.C. filing was nearly 100,000 pages long.

In an e-mail, Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, said, “We are looking into the F.E.C. staff questions and are committed to full and accurate disclosure of the tremendous grass-roots support for Sen. Sanders from people all across America.”

www.nytimes.com...

Bernie has a very powerful weapon to ensure the DNC actually treats him fairly, it's the same weapon Trump is using. Their immense popularity gives them enough leverage to legitimately threaten to run third party and split the vote if they're cheated out of a win.

Basically, if the DNC nominates Hillary despite a huge loss for her, Bernie can run independent and cost Hillary enough votes to ensure the DNC loses.

a reply to: AlaskanDadI seem to recall saying this four years ago, eight years ago, etc..

Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed...

What is the definition of insanity, again?

All DWS had to say is that the DNC is simply practicing Sanders' style socialism - the delegates Bernie earned were taken away by the elections governing authority and redistributed, many to a candidate who did not deserve them.

a reply to: ketsuko

The super delegates have nothing to do with an election, they are pledged ahead of time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know, but in an honest election, they should reflect the will of the electorate. Not who bought them.