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

[SouthoftheAndes]

Uh, not quite.

The superdelegates in her favor are pending, not solidified, and in total make up only 15% of the pie.

If Bernie wins the regular delegates, he's very likely to get the nomination, even if almost all of the 712 superdelegates go in her favor.

If the party elites overrule the Democrat voters.... all hell will break loose and the party will be in chaos, to say the least. They will fall in line and switch over to Bernie.

If and when Bernie losses if he losses e prepared for the conspiracy theists to break out and claim protest votes for Ted Cruz or something. We will see how many even truly like Sanders or were just on a bandwagon. Truth is Sanders is an awesome guy and I like him but he would disappointed in his fans voting for a Republican as a "protest vote".

 

[IGIT]

I wasn't talking about people in New Hampshire but nationally and people in Iowa. I recall Clinton winning the educated, minority, never been to college, rural, and those making over 50 a year vote.

hi SOA,

i was, obviously, referring to the results in New Hampshire. we can refer to polls all we want, and that's fine...there were polls earlier this summer that had Mrs. Clinton up by 40-50% in New Hampshire.

i was merely citing the actual results there, where Mr. Sanders dominated every demographic except the wealthy vote.

regarding Iowa, where the race was basically a statistical tie, it seems reasonable to think that Sanders won certain slices of the electorate also.

- IGIT

 

[UpaLoompa]

Dude it has always been like this sinfe te country was founded. As it stand we have a way better Democratic system than the vast majority of Europe or other countries in the world that are Democratic. Fixing campaign finance would really improve our system though.

Ignoring that campaign financing is a major, major issue that you're seriously downplaying, why do you have the opinion that our democratic system is better? I can see strong arguments for the contrary. For example, our first past the post system pretty much locks in a two party dynamic (i.e. Duverger's Law). As another example, some historical analyses suggest that presidential systems are inherently less stable than parliamentarian systems.

 

[VivaRevolution]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-clinton-ground-early-nh-primary-day-36803024

So after a close second and big N.H. win, Bernie's not close to Clinton and he's about to hit a lot of states that aren't winner take all and not demographic's he's proven on to win over yet.

If you're a Bernie support, lay out his path to victory to me?

Win more states like Obama did in 08, when Clinton had this very same Super delegate strategy. The optics are impossible to manage at this point. The super delegates can't be the deciding vote against the will of the people.

 

[JbModest]

ok, we'll see.
just sayin
never happen

It'll happen. Don't know when though.

 

[UpaLoompa]

2) She only has about a little over half of that 30% and she wouldn't have that much if Bernie was a better more reasonable and practical candidate. If Joe Biden, Bloomberg, John Kerry or even Elizabeth Warren were in this race or he'll Pelosi this would not be the case.
...
I realize Bernie fans don't like hearing this but it's the truth. The vast majority of elected officials in our nation (people whom average day Americans vote for) do not like Bernie Sanders or even want to freaking wok with him. That is saying a lot

I find it a bit hard to believe you're arguing honestly here. Half of Clinton's superdelegates pledged before Sanders even declared he was running. Hillary's superdelegate count isn't so high because no one like Sanders, gtfo.

 

[Graves The Elder]

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

well, you might have a point.
the US has already elected a Muslim president

 

[BVG]

I wasn't talking about people in New Hampshire but nationally and people in Iowa. I recall Clinton winning the educated, minority, never been to college, rural, and those making over 50 a year vote.


Dude it has always been like this sinfe te country was founded. As it stand we have a way better Democratic system than the vast majority of Europe or other countries in the world that are Democratic. Fixing campaign finance would really improve our system though.

2) She only has about a little over half of that 30% and she wouldn't have that much if Bernie was a better more reasonable and practical candidate. If Joe Biden, Bloomberg, John Kerry or even Elizabeth Warren were in this race or he'll Pelosi this would not be the case.

3) now you are acting like a conspiracy theorist which is just not good man. Theoretically one could buy off superdelegates but no past history suggests that. In fact, the fact that Obama pulled ahead of Clinton in 08 is proof that the "establishment" will get behind someone they feel is reasonable and they can work with.

I realize Bernie fans don't like hearing this but it's the truth. The vast majority of elected officials in our nation (people whom average day Americans vote for) do not like Bernie Sanders or even want to freaking wok with him. That is saying a lot

Everyone that hates Bernie most likely stands to lose should he come to power.

I don't understand in what fairy tale land do you not think your government is absolutely bought and paid for by rich corporations. All you have to do is look at some of the major events in the past 30 years of American history.

 

[silicavaginitis]

 

[Fawlty]

Is Murka supposed to be a modern first-world nation or is it supposed to be ancient Rome?

The Federalists thought too much democracy was bad, and they won. My own heart is with Jefferson.

 

[Fawlty]

I dunno...shifting tides of the public? Isn't that the point? It's not like these elections happen every year...they happen every 4 years.

And you are right. This set up is absolutely corruptible. It sounds like for a cheap reason, politicians have put in place a type of "control" over what the public votes. They've robbed you of your choice without taking away your vote.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

How do you feel about the existence of the Senate? Small populations are wildly over-represented, and their chilling effect is enormous- every single law has to go through them. The Senate is a much bigger example of this problem than the delegate process. Though I have some extra sympathy for the election process, which is a point of pride to us, and I hear what you're saying.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

The Federalists thought too much democracy was bad, and they won. My own heart is with Jefferson.

So you're pro-feudalism? Nice.

 

[Fawlty]

So you're pro-feudalism? Nice.

LOL no sir, not quite. But fair point.

 

[VivaRevolution]

 

[BVG]

How do you feel about the existence of the Senate? Small populations are wildly over-represented, and their chilling effect is enormous- every single law has to go through them. The Senate is a much bigger example of this problem than the delegate process. Though I have some extra sympathy for the election process, which is a point of pride to us, and I hear what you're saying.

it's all fucked...

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Ignoring that campaign financing is a major, major issue that you're seriously downplaying, why do you have the opinion that our democratic system is better? I can see strong arguments for the contrary. For example, our first past the post system pretty much locks in a two party dynamic (i.e. Duverger's Law). As another example, some historical analyses suggest that presidential systems are inherently less stable than parliamentarian systems.

Campaign finance is a huge issue I agree. My last post may not have given that impression since I spent so little on it. In any case I don't see how a system in which members of parliament elect and dismiss the heads of government is somehow "more democratic" than a presidential system that we have. In fact, most countries don't have the checks and balances and separation of powers that we have. The U.S. constitution is quite an amazing piece of work.

The reason so many fools gang up on the United States is because their own small countries are largely irrelevant and governed like a college fraternity (poorly). The Democracy index I also place little weight on because it does not address the inefficiencies of the system of governments.

But yeah to all the "democracy drones" they would be far less happy in a dang Parliamentary system were your popular vote doesn't even matter! In any case we are not a full Democracy and few places are.

I find it a bit hard to believe you're arguing honestly here. Half of Clinton's superdelegates pledged before Sanders even declared he was running. Hillary's superdelegate count isn't so high because no one like Sanders, gtfo.

Proof is in the pudding. Sanders declared he was running in April of last year! Most Super-delegates followed way later. So there is no game to play of claiming that somehow Sanders has even close to the support Obama had or that party leaders, and other elected members of Sanders own party somehow "like him".Last I checked not supporting someone or even wanting to work with them says a lot. But hey the war room is a place where up is down and down is up so to some people.

Everyone that hates Bernie most likely stands to lose should he come to power.

I don't understand in what fairy tale land do you not think your government is absolutely bought and paid for by rich corporations. All you have to do is look at some of the major events in the past 30 years of American history.

Do you actually know what you are saying? So you think that literally the entire elected Democratic population is corrupt and owned by corporations? Dude that is nuts and whatever you are smoking must be some good stuff just be careful because opinions like that can get one fired.

Peace bro

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

it's all fucked...

So because a guy you are really into (Bernie) is not liked by many other elected leaders on the very ticket he is running on (Democratic party). You now claim that the entire system is f#cked? Even though Bernie Sanders (your hero) supports this system?

You are now literally arguing against a system that Bernie Sanders deeply loves. Campaign finance is one thing but you are entering another realm with these theories that Senator Sanders would be probably disappointed.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Btw, there are 794 super delegates in all, so even accounting for her 300+ super delegate, she doesn't have the majority of those yet.

Sanders would have to win by a decent margin to force the super delegates to go for him, but there's no way they couldn't if he were to win by say 8-10pnts.

He beat Hillary by 22.4 points in New Hampshire....and all the un-democratic delegates are still assigned to Clinton.

 

[Denter]

Gotta love that Murkan faux-democracy.

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

Maybe their votes just got redistributed.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-clinton-ground-early-nh-primary-day-36803024

So after a close second and big N.H. win, Bernie's not close to Clinton and he's about to hit a lot of states that aren't winner take all and not demographic's he's proven on to win over yet.

If you're a Bernie support, lay out his path to victory to me?

She's way ahead - sort of - because 350 of 700 "Superdelegates" have chosen her and the other 350 are uncommitted.

However, if he were to win the primaries (which he already is by a slight margin after 2 states), it's likely that he would get most of the remaining 350, and possibly some of hers would defect, too. Pissing off the voters by overriding their choice would be a risky thing to do.

So, his challenge still is little different, really.
Win the primary voting = probable win
lose the primary voting = definite loss