After N.H. and Iowa, Bernie's only behind by 352 delegates.

[StrikerKing]

If Hillary wins the nomination, she'll lose the general.

How do you figure that? Hilary soundly beats Trump and all other Republicans in polling. I think Bernie would have a much more difficult time in the general.

 

[BVG]

Well Trump is anti establishment do you support him? What I am more shocked at is that some people think the presidency is a Dictatorship and that it's "okay" if a candidate is so far extreme no other elected officials in office want to work with them. That is saying a lot isn't it?



You don't know what you are talking about. Superdelegates also go beyond party officials. Furthermore, our election process is far more democratic than a parliamentary system anyday. Lol at the leaders appointing and dismissing heads of government based off a whim. We actually give input of the common person more so than most in the selection of the executive head who leads government.

Then explain it to me in a way that doesn't end up sounding like a few people have the power to choose the democratic nominee...

Because right now it's looking like that is the case.

 

[m52nickerson]

Then explain it to me in a way that doesn't end up sounding like a few people have the power to choose the democratic nominee...

Because right now it's looking like that is the case.

So far we have had primaries in two small states. So just like the general election the number of delegates from the larger states still to come are a much larger % of the overall delegates, that includes the Super Delegates.

 

[BVG]

So far we have had primaries in two small states. So just like the general election the number of delegates from the larger states still to come are a much larger % of the overall delegates, that includes the Super Delegates.

So your reasoning here is that the hope is that the larger states are able to "absorb" the imbalance created by the super delegates?

That sounds like it's avoiding the problem super delegates pose.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Then explain it to me in a way that doesn't end up sounding like a few people have the power to choose the democratic nominee...

Because right now it's looking like that is the case.

A Democrat candidate needs 2383 delegate votes. Only 712 I believe are superdelegates.

1) Whoever wins the Popular vote will win the most delegates (non superdelegates). The Democrats use proportional voting system. If there are 10 non-superdelegates in one state and Bernie wins 60% of popular vote there he gets 6 delegates. The remainder goes to whomever else is running as a Democrat. If that state has 3 superdelegates they can support whoever they like.

2) Superdelegates represent only like 20 or 29% max of total delegates needed to win election. They consist of former and current elected party members and Party officials. Superdelegates can pick whoever they like but they rarely change after making a selection.

3) Bernie can still win if he wins the popular votes in the key states convincingly enough. Democrats make it more 'fair' by using a proportional system.

4) Its way better than a parliamentary system imo. I only wish we had the ability to hold no confidence votes in extreme cases.

5) Superdelegates aren't usually so important because many hold off on endorsing someone until the candidates get narrowed down. The problem in the case is Bernie isn't as well supported among Democratic Party officials, Senators, Governors, and Representatives whom are the people who make up the superdelegate basket.

 

[Denter]

Maybe in the 1920s his Jewishness would be a problem. Now, no one cares.

WHAT IF THE COUNTRY GETS ATTACKED ON A SATURDAY?

WHAT THEN SMART GUY

 

[IGIT]

I was comparing Bernie vs Clinton goals stating Clinton had realistic goals and then after you asked I compared healthcare.

hello once more, Handsomebwonderfull,

we can use any metric you'd like, healthcare is fine my friend.

Mrs. Clinton wants to basically expand on the Affordable Care Act by lowering costs for low income americans, along with pushing down on the cost of prescription drug prices. the GOP's position is they want the ACA overturned, right?

what makes you think Mrs. Clinton's "more realistic" proposals have any chance at all of being implemented? why do you feel that Republicans will work with her on this issue?

where has the success been during Mrs. Clinton's time in the Senate at getting the GOP to co-sponsor any of her bills?

i'm open to being won over to the idea that Mrs. Clinton is a "progressive who gets things done", if someone can make the case for that postion.

can you make that case?

- IGIT

 

[JDragon]

@SouthoftheAndes: I did not include any valuation of the candidates. Bernie is not establishment, Hillary is, and the superdelegates are proof. That is all I said.

 

[IGIT]

That is like a line from a Bernie propaganda activist. Ignoring all other data or evidence.

hiya SOA,

errrr....lol. its actually what the data shows from New Hampshire.

Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-ham.../bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/

Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Sanders among households earning 200k or more, but she lost almost every other demographic. its not propaganda, its merely a bland recitation of the results in New Hampshire.

- IGIT

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I didn't know about this shit until now. This super delegate nonsense flies in the face of democracy. pretty fucking corrupt shit if you ask me.

Gotta love that Murkan faux-democracy.

Your vote doesnt count unless youre a member of the oligarchy.

 

[BVG]

A Democrat candidate needs 2383 delegate votes. Only 712 I believe are superdelegates.

1) Whoever wins the Popular vote will win the most delegates (non superdelegates). The Democrats use proportional voting system. If there are 10 non-superdelegates in one state and Bernie wins 60% of popular vote there he gets 6 delegates. The remainder goes to whomever else is running as a Democrat. If that state has 3 superdelegates they can support whoever they like.

2) Superdelegates represent only like 20 or 29% max of total delegates needed to win election. They consist of former and current elected party members and Party officials. Superdelegates can pick whoever they like but they rarely change after making a selection.

3) Bernie can still win if he wins the popular votes in the key states convincingly enough. Democrats make it more 'fair' by using a proportional system.

4) Its way better than a parliamentary system imo. I only wish we had the ability to hold no confidence votes in extreme cases.

5) Superdelegates aren't usually so important because many hold off on endorsing someone until the candidates get narrowed down. The problem in the case is Bernie isn't as well supported among Democratic Party officials, Senators, Governors, and Representatives whom are the people who make up the superdelegate basket.

Ok, so now that you carefully explain this nonsense, it's still bullshit.

Nothing you have just said has told me that this is a democratic process.

You are trying to excuse the fact that members of congress hold the power of nearly 30 percent of the delegate votes. For Sanders to win, he needs to beat Hillary and the establishment by more than 30 percent...and you call this fair? Or Democratic?

How do I not know that those party members haven't been bought by the establishment? What fucking candidate is going to win by more than 30 percent in any election? The problem here that you are glossing over is that a small group of people are accounting for 30 percent of the vote. If I had money, and I wanted Hillary in office...what's to stop me from purchasing those delegates?

Bernie isn't popular with anyone who is part of the current establishment. Media doesn't like him, big business do not like him....the banks don't like him. Big pharmacy sure as shit doesn't like him...nobody with power likes him. So why on earth would I expect him to be popular within his own party that's helped create this establishment?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

America doesn't vote anyone in office. It's all up to "party officials".

Almost sounds like Communism.

 

[BVG]

Almost sounds like Communism.

Apparently even with posters in this thread, it's "ok" for a small group of people to control 30 percent of the vote...

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Apparently even with posters in this thread, it's "ok" for a small group of people to control 30 percent of the vote...

They've been brainwashed into thinking oligarchies are ok.

 

[n...not crazy]

How do you figure that? Hilary soundly beats Trump and all other Republicans in polling. I think Bernie would have a much more difficult time in the general.

Sad but true.

 

[Renard]

Because no one in the their right minds thinks that universal healthcare will get passed in the congress lol

Hillary has realistic views, Bernie does not.

Nice essay though bro

- Handsomebwonderfull (lol)

Hillary wouldn't be able to pass anything through republican congress. She's not more realistic at all.

Bernie could garner the turn-out required to get clean out republican congress when seats go up for grabs during the November and 2018 midterms. If a democrat congress sneaks in, the whole ball game changes. If Hillary wins the election, status quo will continue and nobody will show up for the mid-terms as usual.

 

[Dalarna3]

How do you figure that? Hilary soundly beats Trump and all other Republicans in polling. I think Bernie would have a much more difficult time in the general.

It's obvious that she doesn't have the popular support that Sanders does. The only way I see her winning the nomination is by working the establishment, not the voters. These voters won't show in the general just because they want the lesser of two evils. They'll show for Sanders because they actually support him.

 

[IGIT]

Hillary wouldn't be able to pass anything through republican congress. She's not more realistic at all.

hiya Renard,

yep.

that's my point. Mrs. Clinton is claiming that the GOP will work with her because she's a moderate centrist...but she certainly has no proof that this is the case based on her Senate record or her efforts at healthcare reform as First Lady.

she seems kind of unrealistic, living in an idealized fantasyland on this point.

- IGIT

 

[chardog]

So "party officials" basically call the shots as to who gets elected eh? And party officials are paid for by lobbyists...

WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS THE PURPOSE OF THE VOTE THEN?

Momentum. Bernie gotta ride a momentum train and break through. Same thing happened with obama first time around...... however obama had a lot more going for him than bern. Mccant was really old crony, obama was young and black. A good thing is that bern wont have to fend off a young lion.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

hello once more, Handsomebwonderfull,

we can use any metric you'd like, healthcare is fine my friend.

Mrs. Clinton wants to basically expand on the Affordable Care Act by lowering costs for low income americans, along with pushing down on the cost of prescription drug prices. the GOP's position is they want the ACA overturned, right?

what makes you think Mrs. Clinton's "more realistic" proposals have any chance at all of being implemented? why do you feel that Republicans will work with her on this issue?

where has the success been during Mrs. Clinton's time in the Senate at getting the GOP to co-sponsor any of her bills?

i'm open to being won over to the idea that Mrs. Clinton is a "progressive who gets things done", if someone can make the case for that postion.

can you make that case?

- IGIT

Stop shifting the goal posts already...

Hillary has presented more realistic goals
Sanders has not

That was my point. Not whether they'd get passed or not, but which ones were more realistic.

What to you is more realistic?
Universal healthcare or tweaks to the current system?

Okay then. Just accept you lost the argument. For f*cks sake some of you war room guys are so desperate to be right you commit every logical fallacy in the book.

More realistic chance

Tweaks to current system > universal healthcare

They don't have equal chances of succeeding. Don't be a dipsh*t and say otherwise.

Smh