Nancy Pelosi comes out against superdelegates

Clinton was declared winner of the DNC primary before the voters ever went to the polls. She was declared winner because with the help of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, she was able to gather pledges from most the super delegates before other candidates had announced their run for nomination.

During the 2016 primary it is not uncommon to look at the poll results of recent caucuses and primaries and see an HRC lead that includes her super delegates, this is to make her look like she already won.

Well at first it seemed that Sen Sanders supporters were just whining about the unfair system, it looks more and more like we were right!

First we have DWS explaining the super delegate function:



Then we have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi come out against Super Delegates. This could prove a very important item, the question to ask yourself is why would Pelosi choose to bump heads with the powerful ex S.o.S. HRC? Could this be a signal that HRC's email problems are turning into serious legal trouble?

Nancy Pelosi surprised all when she came out against the role of superdelegates in the Democratic presidential primary:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – CA.) has just dropped the biggest bombshell of the campaign, and you may not even have heard about it. Mark my words, when we look back, we’ll see that this was the turning point. The Hill reported today that Pelosi came out against the superdelegate system which is currently of great benefit to Hillary Clinton.

“I’m not a believer in the sway of superdelegates deciding who is going to be the nominee. I think we have a democratic process where people vote on both sides of the aisle … and that that should determine who the nominee is.”

source


INQUISITR:

Now, you may be saying, “Hey, that’s not that big of a deal,” but stop for a moment and think about this. No matter how you feel about Pelosi, good or bad, there is no denying that she is one of the best political players on the planet. And she just made a statement that is not Clinton-friendly. That’s a very dangerous thing to do. Just ask Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard.

The Clintons are a political force you don’t play games with, and Pelosi knows this as well as anyone. Just a little over month ago, she was cuddling up to Hillary Clinton when she denounced Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health plan (which she used to advocate for) and heaped glowing praise on her political sister, according to Politico.

“That Hillary Clinton happens to be a woman is a wonderful thing. But I, yes, have confidence that she will be one of the most qualified people to go into the Oval Office in a long time.”

Now Pelosi — who insists she hasn’t officially endorsed anyone yet — has suddenly gone off the reservation in the Clinton camp and is advocating for changes in the Democratic primary system that would hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of getting the nomination.

source


The Hill:

Pelosi made waves by making similar comments amid the 2008 primary contest between then-Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The move prompted sharp criticism from Clinton supporters because Obama, at the time, enjoyed a lead among pledged delegates and her remarks were viewed as a tacit endorsement of him.

source

Then we have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi come out against Super Delegates.

Then I wonder why her party created them.

LOL.

Evil Righties don't have 'super' delegates.

Don't ya just love em?

Create a 'vote' where they have more say than someone else.

That's classic Democrats.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

My two cents (keeping it short because I hate typing on phones)....

1) Pelosi coming out and saying this NOW, at this stage means absolutely nothing.

2) As far as positioning chess pieces, this could be a hint of a future criticism of Republicans should they try to pull any shenanigans to "steal" the nomination from Trump (if the Democrat consensus is still that he would be the easiest challenge to Hillary).

3) From day one Washerwoman Schultz has been in the tank for Hillary. Just look at the debates.... The more people see Hillary, the less they seem to like here. So Washerwoman limited the number of debates. Under the same umbrella, it seems that all but one debate thus far were on The weekends, when viewership would be at its lowest.

I would go on about that Washerwoman creature, but the Internet can only handle so many bits of data.

a reply to: neo96

The fact that repubs & democrats do things differently is just proof the entire system is BS. Anyone who votes is a fool. Until the system is based on nothing but straight up popular vote I can't bring myself to care one way or another.

Pelosi just hasn't had enough screen time lately & was desperate for some attention.

a reply to: neo96

How right you are!

R's and D's both get paid by lobbyists, so they both work for the corporations.

If only there was a politician that was not under the influence...


...of corporate lobbyists.


There is Bernie Sanders!


Feel the Bern!

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Clinton was declared winner of the DNC primary before the voters ever went to the polls. She was declared winner because with the help of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, she was able to gather pledges from most the super delegates before other candidates had announced their run for nomination.

I don't see how anyone can say this with a straight face.

Delegates needed for nomination: 2383
Total number of delegates: 4765
Number of super delegates: 717
Uncommitted super delegates: 235

Do the math.

I don't ascribe to any particular right or left ideology, but I suppose if a gun were put to my head and I had to make a choice, I would be a republican. With that said, I would still be voting for Bernie Sanders, period. Pelosi is someone I greatly dislike, but the fact that she has come out and said this, is wonderful. Whenever I gripe to friends, co workers, or customers about the election, the super delegates are always something that I bring up. She is absolutely spot on with what she is saying. noice. Democracy is made moot if the people's votes aren't worth anything.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

The people are lobbyists too there Alaska.

The people want paid. That's why they vote for whoever gives them stuff.

Cash preferably.

Such is the circle of life.

Pelosi says this all of a sudden knowing full well it won't happen.

Another red herring.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Could this be a signal that HRC's email problems are turning into serious legal trouble? 

Interesting point to ponder.
Pelosi may have insider knowledge of what's coming up in Hillary's future, so she isn't afraid of what she knows is a dead duck.
Why not position herself to be a Bernie man ahead of the news? Or at least make herself look like she wasn't in the tank for Hillary too.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

The party system is rigged and corrupt. It won't change unless there's a united march on Washington.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The party system is rigged and corrupt. It won't change unless there's a united march on Washington.

Just playing Devil's Advocate for a moment....

Hypothetically, if on a single day EVERY person (excluding police, firefighters and medical personnel) took a day off in protest, do you think "we" would bring them to their knees or do you think "they" would hunker down and weather the brief storm?

I understand it's an intealistic hypothetical.

a reply to: schuyler

I fixed it for you!



If you put nothing in, you get nothing back!

head of the demoncrat party's, hubby is a banker.... and that connects her to wall street which connects her to hillary...tadaa there you go simple now we know why the supers are supporting hillary, she owns the party.

a reply to: WeRpeons

It will take extreme pressure to get a change, will the people ever have change in their favor?

Who knows what we can get if we push back, the awareness the system is rigged is the first step.

The next step is to create changes that favor the people rather than Wall Street and the other corporations.

Why are so many americans loyal to those that out sourced our jobs and crashed our economy?

originally posted by: neo96

Then we have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi come out against Super Delegates.

Then I wonder why her party created them.

LOL.

Evil Righties don't have 'super' delegates.

Don't ya just love em?

Create a 'vote' where they have more say than someone else.

That's classic Democrats.

The GOP has them as well. 410 of them, they call them delegates at large. They do not act until the convention. They exist for the same reason the DNC super delegates do, to make a close decision goes the way the Party thinks best. Because of the numbers the GOP delegates at large actually have a bit more control then do the DNC super delegates. Although they have no real power if a candidate hits the magic number which they normally do. Although that looks unlikely in this elections so those 410 delegates may make a real difference.

a reply to: MrSpad

According to WIKI.

They are entirely different animals.

At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention that are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong.[1]

The Lefts system is totally rigged as per the ops criticism's.

I've noticed Pelosi has withheld an endorsement of Hillary.

Also came across this article earlier today on the Dem Superdelages
by concidence. Thought I would add it here.

....Clinton leads Sanders in earned delegates by a count of 587 to 397 -- a significantly different margin, considering that Clinton needs a whopping 2,383 delegates to become the Democratic nominee for President.

At present she is less than a quarter of the way to that goal.

Now, usually I write articles that ask questions and seek to answer them. Here, I can't do that -- as in this instance the thinking of CNN and other news organizations that have publicly committed themselves to objectivity and impartiality is beyond me. www.huffingtonpost.com...

Clinton just lost several states, but nary a mention of it anywhere.
Robby Mook sent out a panic email.