Democrats: Do You Realize Your Votes Don’t Matter? Hillary Already Won

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: Metallicus
Perhaps.
And the Republicans will fall victim to a sociopath with a comb over or theocratic tyranny.

Ironic

We'll see. Might be better to have a sociopath that loves America as opposed to the one we've had that hates it.

a reply to: schuyler

I agree. And there's also the fact that superdelegates don't count until the Democratic Convention. Or to put it another way, superdelegates have until the Democratic Convention to decide their votes. Pledges aren't binding and they can change (and they often do).

Hillary's original intention was to overwhelm would-be opponents by having a lot of upfront endorsements, massive initial funding, & widespread name recognition. This, mixed with the initial small amount of Democratic debates, was meant to give no Democratic outsiders a chance to gain in popularity. It worked brilliantly against O'Malley, who most voters will never know was a better candidate than her.

Unfortunately for her, Bernie supporters and the actual left wing don't give a crap about that stuff and have nullified her advantages. So now, Hillary simply can't or won't win without an overwhelming advantage in superdelegates. Her campaign and the Democratic establishment have to do whatever they possibly can to suppress Bernie's supporters' morale, otherwise she's toast. That's why they keep putting out pieces like this, hoping to get us to give up.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I DON'T need a rehash of the McCarthy era.
THAT would be as bad as THIS a##hat in office

Democrats , take a look at the process:

The Democratic party’s nomination will ultimately be decided by more than 4,700 delegates at its nominating convention in the summer. Most of those delegates are allocated based on votes in each state’s primary or caucus. However, the party also assigns what are known as “superdelegates” – 700 or so people who aren’t elected by anyone during the primary process and are free to vote any way they want at the convention

Even if Sanders wins the popular vote, Clinton could still get the nomination

Any way they want. Seems to me that doesnt effect the Democratic Party at all. That is the process set up,

a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said in reverse. Even if Hillary wins the popular vote, Bernie can still get the nomination through superdelegates. That's exactly what happened with President Obama, who received slightly fewer popular votes than Hillary but got more delegates. That's why I keep saying these kinds of stories are premature.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Even if Hillary wins the popular vote, Bernie can still get the nomination through superdelegates.

That statement argues against itself. It is Hillary that has a majority of the super delegates.And this entire debate has been about whether or not the super delegates can vote any way they choose. I have even read that it would tear the Democratic Party apart. Whether this is true or not , it is precisely the way the Democrats had it set up.

Something like the Electoral College. Now, they are not bound to cast their votes for the populist candidate, However , if they do there are stiff penalties imposed on the state, Perhaps there should have been something like this installed in the Democratic nomination process.

a reply to: Gothmog

(sigh...) I keep saying this but it seems I'm speaking a foreign language. Superdelegates literally don't vote until the Democratic Convention. Even if every single superdelegate pledged a vote for Hillary right now, it will be meaningless until they actually cast their votes at the Democratic convention. They could always change who they will vote for before the convention. In fact, they can change their vote at the convention as long as they haven't cast their vote yet.

So yes, the majority of superdelegates could break their pledges to Hillary and instead vote for Bernie at the convention. This is why then-Senator Obama got more superdelegates than Hillary in 2008. Even though she barely got more popular votes, Obama won more primaries which led the superdelegates of those States to choose him as well, regardless of previous pledges.

Edit: I apologize in advance if I sound condescending. That's not my intention. But I feel like I've written variations of this same post dozens of times now. People keep looking at "pledged" delegate numbers & treating those like "earned" delegates. But they're aren't the same. Superdelegates can even vote for candidates that aren't even popular, like O'Malley (if he stayed in the race) or Biden (if he jumps in to prevent a Bernie victory). Of course there are risks to that, such as alienating the Democratic voters that the party is counting on in the general election.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I keep saying this but it seems I'm speaking a foreign language.

We all get it. However , where did they get the current numbers from ? Care to elucidate on that ? Or are you just bound to keep repeating that statement ?
Wait , I got it...the numbers posted are a consensus of all the tiny little voices inside my head

a reply to: Gothmog

Hillary's supporters and the Democratic establishment are counting the pledged delegates along with the earned delegates. Earned delegates come from the votes while pledged delegates are the party insiders/"superdelegates" who can choose to vote for any Dem candidate. Earned delegates are fixed while pledged delegates can change until the moment they're actually cast at the Democratic convention.

Edit to Add: Here's a link that shows the actual delegates that have been won in the primaries and caucuses so far. Right now, it's 51 actual delegates for both Bernie and Hillary. Those are the "earned" delegates that can't change at the convention.

Election 2016 — Democratic Delegate Count

a reply to: enlightenedservant
You do have knowledge of trends , statistics , and probability , yes ?

originally posted by: MrThortan
Power ball numbers please. Can throw in the winner of next year's super bowl if you are feeling generous.

This comment deserves more love

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: enlightenedservant
You do have knowledge of trends , statistics , and probability , yes ?

LOL The only statistics that matter (in this) are the actual votes cast in the primaries and caucuses. If enough people vote for either candidate, the superdelegate numbers won't even matter. As in, if Bernie or Hillary gets 2,382 delegates from the primaries and caucuses, they'll win the nomination outright.

Probability, trends, and any other statistics are meaningless with this. They can't predict how many people will actually vote in each of these primaries, much less how the superdelegates will vote at the convention.

originally posted by: Informer1958

While most of us already know the system is rigged and our votes aren’t worth the electronic voting machine we type them into regardless of which side of the carpet we’re voting on, this election with Hillary vs. Bernie has proven, without a doubt, that Dem votes don’t even pretend to matter — OPENLY!



I have been saying for years that our elections are rigged, but people do not listen, they don't want to believe it.

It's not the people votes that count, it is the person who has the most super delegates that counts.

So ATS why should you vote, if you know your votes don't count?

It is not because no one is listening or doesn't entertain the idea, it is because no one has proven it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Probability, trends, and any other statistics are meaningless with this

You know , I somehow anticipated an answer as such. Thus the question.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

If they did a better job back then we might not be dealing with all of this today. Just saying

a reply to: Informer1958

Of course the votes are rigged, democracy like anything else is not a situation where everyone is playing fair. Voting still matters though, if you don't vote your side will get 0% of the vote, if you do vote it's some percentage greater than zero.

Or to put this another way, there's not a single competition you can point to (and that's all elections are) where everyone involved had an equal chance of winning. There's always some factor that gives one side an advantage over the other, and not all of those factors are considered within the rules. Winners can win despite that because no one is favored every time.

a reply to: Informer1958

I knew she won about 2 Bilderberg meetings back-

Watching the EL-ohim EL-ite EL-ection process is much like watching Monty Python to me and find it delightfully entertaining. Especially the populaces reactions as if they know what is taking place.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Probability, trends, and any other statistics are meaningless with this

You know , I somehow anticipated an answer as such. Thus the question.

Actually with the way delegates are distributed in democratic elections its very unlikely Bernie can win. For example if a district had 5 delegates the most likely split will be 3 to 2 either direction doesn't matter to get all delegates you have to cross 67 percent. The democrats have it set up so if two individuals are running they will stay close to each other meaning Hillary will cross the finish line first.

Bernie will stay in though the more delegates he collects the more demands he can make at the convention. He can use them to set policies or for that matter make a deal with hillary. I truly wish he had a shot but at least as a consolation prize hr should have the power to set agendas in the party.

a reply to: dragonridr
Agreed . Unless there is some big turnover event

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: dragonridr
Agreed . Unless there is some big turnover event

My problem is I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary so my options are becoming very limited. Its either trump or not vote. So I guess I'll just watch whats going on with the republicans and decide what to do. Sad considering Bernie is the better candidate and I seriously doubt Hillary could beat Trump but I know Bernie could.